Presbyterian Church (USA) Votes to Allow Gay Clergy

[Hamster]

Even if it is, judging that this offense is so much worse than anything else suggests that you're being moved by non-Christian influences. This extreme reaction to homosexuality alone is to me a sure sign that the reaction is not just Christian. I accept that Christians can in good conscience think it is prohibited.

Regardless of how you feel about gay people or gay marriage, that priest willingly betrayed the Church he believed was established by God. He committed deliberate fraud, with the authority of his priesthood, in a building that's supposed to be the house of God. I don't know if I agree with the church being flattened, but I can understand why they took the desecration of a sacrament so seriously. I say this as a struggling gay guy who has strong empathy with gay people trying to find their place in the Christian world.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I hope that's what he meant, but I'm not so sure.

That's pretty much it...

Even if it is, judging that this offense is so much worse than anything else suggests that you're being moved by non-Christian influences.

That is YOUR prejudice - God destroyed the Sodomites... The Bishop simply destroyed a once sacred vessel, a church building...

This extreme reaction to homosexuality alone is to me a sure sign that the reaction is not just Christian.

God does not unite Himself with evil... You are blinded by your human [fallen] feelings...

I accept that Christians can in good conscience think it is prohibited. I have nothing against conservatives in the PCUSA. I think they're wrong, but I accept them as fellow Christians who are doing their best to follow the Gospel.

You need to understand the difference between your well motivated avoidance of schism,
and your ill-motivated embracing of extreme heresy and using avoidance of schism as a tool of embracing it...

I cannot accept that the kind of irrational antipathy shown by this action is Christian.
I suspect Satanic influence. What would be the motivation?
To so focus Christians on an issue that is relatively minor in the New Testament
that they fail to notice more important issues, and to tie them up in internal fights.

The motivation is simple and pure...

Glorify God...
Instruct the Faithful...
Crush demonic powers...

This lecture should prove illuminating for you...
It sure was for me...
It directly addresses these issues...

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ort...ding_the_terms

Arsenios

[hedrick]

Regardless of how you feel about gay people or gay marriage, that priest willingly betrayed the Church he believed was established by God. He committed deliberate fraud, with the authority of his priesthood, in a building that's supposed to be the house of God. I don't know if I agree with the church being flattened, but I can understand why they took the desecration of a sacrament so seriously. I say this as a struggling gay guy who has strong empathy with gay people trying to find their place in the Christian world.

Of course. Removing the priest would have been completely understandable. That's not my problem. The idea of a building being desecrated however seems unscriptural. And destroying what people had built over the years because of the priest's mistake is a seriously unbalanced act.

I say mistake because the original posting suggests that it was in fact a mistake, and not intentional fraud.

[T-Shirt Ninja]

The idea of a building being desecrated however seems unscriptural. And destroying what people had built over the years because of the priest's mistake is a seriously unbalanced act.

I say mistake because the original posting suggests that it was in fact a mistake, and not intentional fraud.

The priest saw that it was two people of the same sex. He should have stopped the wedding right there and took those people in private to ask them what in the world they were doing. In Orthodoxy we take it very seriously that physical things are sanctified, including church buildings. The priest was the one who desecrated the building, not those who bulldozed it later.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Removing the priest would have been completely understandable. That's not my problem.

The Priest was removed and laicized...

The idea of a building being desecrated however seems unscriptural.

Christ removes the Lampstand of ANY local Church... [Rev 2]

And destroying what people had built over the years
because of the priest's mistake is a seriously unbalanced act.

It was the Priest who destroyed the labors of all those people over all those hard years, who had poured their lives into it, for he desecrated its heart with a sacramental lie... The destruction of the building, at that point, is but an afterthought... To make sure that it is never used again for a holy purpose...

I say mistake because the original posting suggests that it was in fact a mistake, and not intentional fraud.

It was a failure of vigilance, and a surrender to the FEELINGS of all those nice smiling people who were there to make sure this wonderful young couple got off on the right emotional foot... It was their fallen FEELINGS that he did not want to hurt...
He had lost sight of God, and could ONLY see the wreckage of fallen humanity's agony of emotions and sensations...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Regardless of how you feel about gay people or gay marriage, that priest willingly betrayed the Church he believed was established by God. He committed deliberate fraud, with the authority of his priesthood, in a building that's supposed to be the house of God. I don't know if I agree with the church being flattened, but I can understand why they took the desecration of a sacrament so seriously. I say this as a struggling gay guy who has strong empathy with gay people trying to find their place in the Christian world.

I was talking to a monastic a while back, and it turned out that Fr. Seraphim Rose, who many regard as a Saint, was a gay man in San Francisco, and had written a published letter to his parents when he was still a little tipsy after a night out to a really nice restaurant, and confessed his homosexuality, and said to not blame them that he had always been gay, from his earliest years, that they had done nothing wrong... And my friend said to me: "Gays is monasteries? There are a lot of us..."

Fr Seraphim Rose is one of the most seminal thinkers of the 20th century, singularly responsible for the rapidity of the rise of monasticism in Russia since the fall there of Communism... Due to his publishing... He was a deep thinker, and wanted the truth, and ended up in Orthodoxy as a Monk, which is how he gratefully died...

Orthodoxy is your Home, my Brother, if you will but come here and see...

We are ALL of us in recovery here... From all manner of sins...

The place for gays in Orthodoxy is the same place as for the rest of us poor spiritual slobs,
and that place is repentance...
For in that place, is the Kingdom of God, and service to God, and to God's creation...

Arsenios

[RumTumTugger]

Of course. Removing the priest would have been completely understandable. That's not my problem. The idea of a building being desecrated however seems unscriptural. And destroying what people had built over the years because of the priest's mistake is a seriously unbalanced act.

I say mistake because the original posting suggests that it was in fact a mistake, and not intentional fraud.

While I would not go so far as Arsenio he is right homosexual acts are not glorifying to God he has stated it is anathema to him.and that priest was wrong he knew what the bible said about homosexual uinions but choose to accept the World's ways instead of God's.

Just as the Worldly liberals who have taken over PCUSA are wrong, Hedrick. Glorifying homosexual acts and not calling them the sin they are is but a symptom of what is wrong with you Worldly Liberals, you are not accepting Gods word on such things you want to follow the Worlds way instead of God's. The World says homosexual acts are OK, God says it is anathema to Him. The World says go ahead if you want to have sex without the benefit of a marriage between a man and a woman it's ok The God says fornication and adultery are anathema to him. Just like in the American Episcopalian denomination the Worldly Liberals in PCUSA go with the world in both cases but that is not the worst of it, there are also worldly congregations that deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation and an eternity with God( I know of one such church under the auspices of the San Francisco Presbytery which I mentioned before) If the San Francisco Presbytery was for the mission God gave us why are they allowing a congregation to deny one of the top foundational doctrines of Christianity hmm. Because they would rather follow the darkness of the world then shine a beacon of Gods light into the dark in order to appear to be relevant to those who want nothing to do with the light.

So Hedrick no I do not like where you and the rest of the liberals are leading PCUSA I and others like me will keep trying to be the light and leaven with in the PCUSA but on that day when it is shown that your hearts are to hard to allow the light in then by your own choice there will be a schism like there was when the American Episcopalian denomination made the decision that it was the World's way not God's that should be followed.

Sorry if you don't like me pointing out that you are following the World in your views but Truth is Truth no amount of spin will make it anything else.

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim, honestly I can't believe that you can't seem to realize that this is a move by liberal and often times heretical Christians to work homosexual clergy into the PCUSA. Most of my liberal Christian friends on facebook are celebrating this as a momentous occasion for the gay movement. Yes, it cuts out some previous language that was made back in 1994. But whenever one decides to take down a fence, they should always ask the question of why it was put there in the first place. I think the why is extremely clear to most people on both sides of the debate. Why can't you see this?

Not to be rude but I'm clergy in the PCUSA involved in the most intimate details of this debate as a pastor and as a committee member and chair of more than one presbytery committee over the years. What I see is probably more balanced and complete than what most people here see.

What I see here and in many places is a knee jerk reaction going both ways. The reality is that most people on different sides of this issue are actually pretty faithful people and these are what I would call "faithful" differences. That is, there's no evil cadre of folks on the opposite side of our opinions trying to destroy us or the church. There is, for the most part, faithful people trying prayerfully to figure out and apply what they understand. They're all passionate because what we believe about scripture and our faith is terribly important. So the passion is good. What's worse than any issue of sexuality is the way already ordained folks are forsaking their sacred vows, taken as they were ordained to "be friends to their colleagues in ministry" as they shake their fingers in each other's faces and raise their fists and voices in anger.

If members are wrong on the issue of sexuality it's not a deal breaker for me. I think people can be faithfully wrong. What I do know is that God has given us work that we're still able to do together and the people on the other side of the issue may just be wrong, rather than evil. We all still confess Jesus as Lord. And you know, the words as they stand now are closer to the original language than the words they replaced (those words that were added in the mid 90's interestingly did not affirm the lordship of Jesus Christ in any way and it's very interesting to me that no one seems to care about that.)

So there's that FWIW.

[RBerman]

there will be a schism like there was when the American Episcopalian denomination made the decision that it was the World's way not God's that should be followed.

To be precise, another schism. The OPC, EPC, and PCA departed the PCUSA and its progenitor denominations during previous iterations of the "Does the Bible mean what it says?" debate that continues to drain the mainline churches. Not to mention the millions that simply stopped showing up anywhere once the lampstand of truth was removed.

[RBerman]

If members are wrong on the issue of sexuality it's not a deal breaker for me.

Is there any line that's too far for you, Pilgrim? I'm not being facetious. Where are you willing to take a stand and say, "Unrepentant X is grounds for excommunication," or "Belief Y is grounds for defrocking"?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Not to be rude but I'm clergy in the PCUSA involved in the most intimate details of this debate as a pastor and as a committee member and chair of more than one presbytery committee over the years. What I see is probably more balanced and complete than what most people here see.

Then you will be held to the greater account...

My Spiritual Father, a monk and a priest, likes to pontificate:
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests..."
And he walks in fear of being one of them...

What I see here and in many places is a knee jerk reaction going both ways.

Then you have a VERY shallow and VERY psychological and VERY delusional perception.

The reality is that most people on different sides of this issue are actually pretty faithful people and these are what I would call "faithful" differences. That is, there's no evil cadre of folks on the opposite side of our opinions trying to destroy us or the church. There is, for the most part, faithful people trying prayerfully to figure out and apply what they understand. They're all passionate because what we believe about scripture and our faith is terribly important.

This is true of EVERY heresy that has attacked the Body of Christ... It is HOW demonic forces HIDE their presence and make their evil to be like light...

So the passion is good.

At the expense of obedience and truth???

What's worse than any issue of sexuality is the way already ordained folks are forsaking their sacred vows, taken as they were ordained to "be friends to their colleagues in ministry" as they shake their fingers in each other's faces and raise their fists and voices in anger.

By your standards, their passion is good... Passion is what we are to overcome... Obedience to the commandments of Christ is what is important...

If members are wrong on the issue of sexuality it's not a deal breaker for me. I think people can be faithfully wrong. What I do know is that God has given us work that we're still able to do together and the people on the other side of the issue may just be wrong, rather than evil.

They ARE wrong, and on a matter that is by Christian standards egregious... Practicing homosexuals have no place in the leadership of the Body of Christ...

We all still confess Jesus as Lord. And you know, the words as they stand now are closer to the original language than the words they replaced (those words that were added in the mid 90's interestingly did not affirm the lordship of Jesus Christ in any way and it's very interesting to me that no one seems to care about that.)

Those words were added BECAUSE they were needed in the aftermath of the demonic sexual revolution of the 60s... Prior to the cultural impact of that revolution, it was not needed... And now, it is becoming more and more clear that it is no longer possible to keep it in, and so they took it out, and have turned over the PCUSA to demonic powers... Who knows, they will probably do some very good philanthropic works, joining with the Masons, the Elks, the Eagles, and other social service clubs, overlooking that now they are now mostly but glorified drinking clubs...

Social do-gooding is not the Way to Christ - It is a consequence... You cannot substitute philanthropy for repentance from self...

Arsenios

[Pilgrim]

The resurrection and the trinity immediately rise as lines for me. As chair of The CPM I directed members many times to deny candidacy to inquirers who could not affirm both. And your question is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Because I said what I did you immediately question if I have standards at all. That we do that to each other is a bigger problem than issues of sexuality. For what's worth I would not vote to ordain a person engaged in extra marital sex at all. The current wording of the book of order affirms that a's well. People are forgetting that the BOA is a huge document and qualifications for ordained office are not contained in that one section alone.

[hedrick]

Not to be rude but I'm clergy in the PCUSA involved in the most intimate details of this debate as a pastor and as a committee member and chair of more than one presbytery committee over the years. What I see is probably more balanced and complete than what most people here see.

I participate in this and a larger forum. Reactions on both are a lot more extreme than within the PCUSA. Within the Church, liberal groups are avoiding provocative statements, and most conservative groups are advocating calm, along the lines you mention. However individuals, the of course the Lay Committee, are at times going further.

Some people honestly can't participate in a church that accepts certain things. I can honor that even if I disagree with it. There is presumably a limit for each of us to what we can accept. I'd like to be as hospitable as possible for those who are willing to continue working within the Church. As I said above, I think that will be most of us, but not all.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I participate in this and a larger forum. Reactions on both are a lot more extreme than within the PCUSA. Within the Church, liberal groups are avoiding provocative statements, and most conservative groups are advocating calm, along the lines you mention.

Calm is good, whether being good-ized or evil-ized...

Stay calm, keep your eyes on Christ,

And do not retreat in the face of evil...

Very Orthodox...

Martyrs are calm...

Tyrants try to keep control:

"Don't upset anyone!"
"This is VERY emotional!"
"Tell everyone to calm down..."
"They HATE gays... "
"They don't care about truth,
"They are just emotionally very upset..."

However some people honestly can't participate in a church that accepts certain things. I can honor that even if I disagree with it. There is presumably a limit for each of us to what we can accept. I'd like to be as hospitable as possible for those who are willing to continue working within the Church. As I said above, I think that will be most of us, but not all.

Some will depart...

Noah departed...

God bless those with integrity...

I do not see enough back-bone in the PCUSA to stand up to this demonic assault...

Nor do I see how there CAN be...

Arsenios

[Pilgrim]

snip screed

George, I appreciate you as a brother in Christ, and since this is a conflict in my own house please excuse me if I don't engage the Orthodox in it.