Presbyterian Church (USA) Votes to Allow Gay Clergy

[Sparko]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...tory?track=rss

But it's actually even more than that. What really happened is that they removed the requirement for non-married clergy to be celibate, which leaves the door open to even more problems, like openly promiscuous single clergy whether gay or not.

The amendment ratified Tuesday changes language in the Presbyterian constitution regarding the "gifts and requirements" of those ordained, whether as clergy or in the lay positions of elder and deacon. Since 1997, the constitution has required those seeking ordination to be living "in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness." Now, it will simply require church officials to examine "each candidate's calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office."

I think the PCUSA has jumped the shark.

[Pilgrim]

It's not that simple. The language they removed was actually new language that was added in 1994. All they really did was return the Book of Order to it's original language. It's being referred to as a "local option." The idea is to have fewer laws and more discernment with each individual ordaining body (Presbyteries for clergy, congregations for deacons and elders) doing the requisite examination of candidates for office. The underlying logic is that the Book of Order already has specific requirements regarding character and that each ordaining body is in the best position to evaluate candidates as they come. In other words, local judicatories know the candidates better than national ones.

[Pilgrim]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...tory?track=rss

But it's actually even more than that. What really happened is that they removed the requirement for non-married clergy to be celibate, which leaves the door open to even more problems, like openly promiscuous single clergy whether gay or not.

The amendment ratified Tuesday changes language in the Presbyterian constitution regarding the "gifts and requirements" of those ordained, whether as clergy or in the lay positions of elder and deacon. Since 1997, the constitution has required those seeking ordination to be living "in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness." Now, it will simply require church officials to examine "each candidate's calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office."

I think the PCUSA has jumped the shark.

At nearly 2 million members with over 11,000 congregations, and as one of, if not the oldest denomination of Christianity in the US (the first General Assembly was convened in Philadelphia 350 years ago), I don't think so. Plus, since the revision is simply a return to the original language you'd have to be saying that prior to 1994 we were already jumping the shark and that we had some sort of gap from then to now in which there was no shark...

[Sparko]

But apparently, Pilgrim, by "restoring" the language to the original, they are not merely going back to what they had previously, but wanting to actually say that single clergy do not need to be celibate, since the whole point of changing the language was to allow gays into the clergy, and since homosexual marriage is outlawed, any openly gay clergy are indeed having sex outside of marriage and are not celibate.

So while the language might be what it was originally, the purpose of returning it to the original is anything but innocent. It's whole purpose is to allow promiscuity and homosexuality into the clergy.

[Pilgrim]

In some states it is outlawed in some it is not. In others the question has not been decided. Which raises an interesting question. Does the state define marriage or does the church? Or does the state merely confer benefits to the married. And, actually, homosexual marriage is not outlawed anywhere. You can't be jailed for it like in the early part of the 20th century when different sex couples could be prosecuted. In the current legal understanding saying it's "against the law" merely means the state doesn't recognize the union for legal purposes. If you can find someone to do the ceremony, you can get married, just don't expect the state to necessarily recognize it.

And that wasn't the whole point anyway. For some there is the idea that we have replaced the working of the Spirit with the words of the Book of Order and so are becoming increasingly pharisaical in our understandings. As it happens the entire form of government was under question this year with an entirely new Book of Order, so to speak being proposed. It was called "The New Form of Government." Affectionately known by its acronym, "NFOG." Don't thing that didn't come with all sorts of interesting humor at Presbytery meetings!

At any rate, promiscuity and celebacy are still issues that each ordaining body has the right to address, and even to deny ordination because of.

[Hamster]

I don't know if it's purpose is to promote promiscuity (rather than create a loophole for couples that can't get married) but that seems like a plausible side-effect

[Pilgrim]

I don't know if it's purpose is to promote promiscuity (rather than create a loophole for couples that can't get married) but that seems like a plausible side-effect

Certainly, but there's no way to legislate every possibility. That is why the Book of Order begins with God, Jesus, and the Bible as our authority, with God alone being the Lord of the Conscience. Thus we need to get away from trying to articulate every single issue that might arise and back to a prayerful discernment of God's will and purpose as a community.

[Sparko]

I don't know if it's purpose is to promote promiscuity (rather than create a loophole for couples that can't get married) but that seems like a plausible side-effect

yeah that is pretty much what I was meaning. If a practicing gay single person can become a clergy, then why not a single heterosexual person who has multiple partners? You can't really allow one without the other.

But the bible is clear that both sex outside of marriage and practicing homosexuality are sins. in fact, they are pretty much the same sin.

[Sparko]

Certainly, but there's no way to legislate every possibility. That is why the Book of Order begins with God, Jesus, and the Bible as our authority, with God alone being the Lord of the Conscience. Thus we need to get away from trying to articulate every single issue that might arise and back to a prayerful discernment of God's will and purpose as a community.

I agree that the PCUSA doesn't NEED to legislate every possibility, but in this case, the clear purpose is to allow practicing gays into your denomination's clergy. Not all congregations will of course, but many others will. It is eroding your denomination from within.

[Hamster]

Even if they think homosexuality isn't a sin, throwing chastity outside of marriage under the bus is throwing the baby out with the baptism water. It's like making profanity acceptable because without it people with tourette's syndrome wouldn't be able to communicate. Why can't they just recognize gay marriage ceremonies as valid if that's the case? But I am not that familliar with the denominations or church politics, and as Pilgrim pointed out they still expect members of the church to act in good faith

[RumTumTugger]

In some states it is outlawed in some it is not. In others the question has not been decided. Which raises an interesting question. Does the state define marriage or does the church? Or does the state merely confer benefits to the married. And, actually, homosexual marriage is not outlawed anywhere. You can't be jailed for it like in the early part of the 20th century when different sex couples could be prosecuted. In the current legal understanding saying it's "against the law" merely means the state doesn't recognize the union for legal purposes. If you can find someone to do the ceremony, you can get married, just don't expect the state to necessarily recognize it.

And that wasn't the whole point anyway. For some there is the idea that we have replaced the working of the Spirit with the words of the Book of Order and so are becoming increasingly pharisaical in our understandings. As it happens the entire form of government was under question this year with an entirely new Book of Order, so to speak being proposed. It was called "The New Form of Government." Affectionately known by its acronym, "NFOG." Don't thing that didn't come with all sorts of interesting humor at Presbytery meetings!

At any rate, promiscuity and celibacy are still issues that each ordaining body has the right to address, and even to deny ordination because of.

So it does not bother you tha tit also removes the constitutional requirement that all ministers, elders, and deacons who are married remain faithful their spouses?

[Pilgrim]

It doesn't remove that requirement, only that specific language that was added about 15 years ago to begin with. It still maintains the Bible and the confessions as our guides and affirms God as Lord of conscience. In short, no, this language does not bother me. If you need the book of order to tell you that there's a problem with sleeping around and promiscuity then the problems are deeper than the book of order can fix.

[RumTumTugger]

It doesn't remove that requirement, only that specific language that was added about 15 years ago to begin with. It still maintains the Bible and the confessions as our guides and affirms God as Lord of conscience. In short, no, this language does not bother me. If you need the book of order to tell you that there's a problem with sleeping around and promiscuity then the problems are deeper than the book of order can fix.

Pilgrim that is the problem this change was put in place by those who do not accept that the bible says what it says about sexuality as well as other things. I"m sorry Pilgrim but I find it hard to believe that their leaving the biblical language in there is nothing more then lip service to try and make sure that those congregations like mine and I hope yours don't up and leave seeing the writing on the wall. Or did you forget that other change that happened that they were leaving it to each presbytery's own conscience on what the bible has to say about things? Sheesh here in the San Francisco Bay area we are being asked to allow the ordination of a women who does not believe that she needs to accept the bible as having anything to say with how she lives her life. This change will allow that ordination(she is a practicing lesbian) the San Francisco presbytery has decided that it's conscience is fine with someone not wanting to follow scripture even if local congregations still do, So much so that they will put blocks on those congregations who do want to be scripturally sound on how they choose their pastors. The church I was married in is having such blocks in the way of hoops they have to go through in their search for a new pastor because the higher ups in the San Francisco presbytery did not like it that their candidate was not called by the church for biblical reasons. Can you honestly think that this is just not another stepping stone into going the way of the American Episcopal church to force us to accept things that are not scriptually sound? Don't get me wrong Pilgrim I think there still might be hope for our denomination but there wont' be if those of us who want to remain scriptually and foundationally sound don't keep holding the leadership that is growing more and more unbibilical in it's views to the fire letting them know they are going the wrong direction and if they don't listen it will be they who are at fault for following the World instead of God.

Am I surprised by this move, no. I've been watching the slow eroding of the faith of my families denomination for decades praying we will outlast those who are not following God in this hoping that the split I see coming wont' happen, but readying myself for it.

[RumTumTugger]

I agree that the PCUSA doesn't NEED to legislate every possibility, but in this case, the clear purpose is to allow practicing gays into your denomination's clergy. Not all congregations will of course, but many others will. It is eroding your denomination from within.

As someone who as been watching this for decades I'm afraid that Sparko is right our denomination is being eroded from within just like the American Episcopalian church was. when it has been left to the presbyteries, synods and congregations to decide in their own conscience what the bible says to them? Can you sit there and say that this change will have no effect? Pilgrim you cannot be unaware of the fact that we have congregations in our denomination that don't believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation(I know of one such a congregation it is the reason I am not going to my local PCUSA instead I choose to go to one much further away)

Sparko please keep my Denomination in your prayers I am concerned by what I see coming. pray that my congregation remains strong in our following the Word both Jesus and scripture. pray that my Paster will lead us with wisdom through the turmoil that is to come.

[Sparko]

As someone who as been watching this for decades I'm afraid that Sparko is right our denomination is being eroded from within just like the American Episcopalian church was. when it has been left to the presbyteries, synods and congregations to decide in their own conscience what the bible says to them? Can you sit there and say that this change will have no effect? Pilgrim you cannot be unaware of the fact that we have congregations in our denomination that don't believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation(I know of one such a congregation it is the reason I am not going to my local PCUSA instead I choose to go to one much further away)

Sparko please keep my Denomination in your prayers I am concerned by what I see coming. pray that my congregation remains strong in our following the Word both Jesus and scripture. pray that my Paster will lead us with wisdom through the turmoil that is to come.