Presbyterian Church (USA) Votes to Allow Gay Clergy

[Pilgrim]

The difference is that participation as ordained presbyters is not simply "fixing gutters" or other such things, it is an explicitly stated obligation we have as officers that we agree to at our ordinations. And really, my solution is much less draconian than yours. Seriously, defrock them for missing a meeting? No, just tell them they can't vote. And really the point is not to get it to pass but to bring up the point in such a way that it will cause people to re think their lack of commitment to an obligation they have already agreed to.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Well, I ran into my local, friendly, neighborhood Presbyterian Pastor at Fred Meyer's,
and I asked him:
"Is it as bad for you and for your church as it looks with this gay clergy vote?"

He replied: "It is as bad as it looks, and worse... The Church is being destroyed..."

All I could do was put a hand on his shoulder and say: "I am sorry..."

And the words, the very last words, of St. John Chrysostom came to mind...
As he was on a forced march in his 80s to slave labor in a mine somewhere...
And his last words words, as he blessed those with him, were:

"Glory to God in all things..."

And his holy soul passed from this world...

We still have this relic, his holy and incorrupt hand, that gave the blessing:

The handwriting is clearly upon the wall...

Arsenios

[RBerman]

The difference is that participation as ordained presbyters is not simply "fixing gutters" or other such things, it is an explicitly stated obligation we have as officers that we agree to at our ordinations. And really, my solution is much less draconian than yours. Seriously, defrock them for missing a meeting? No, just tell them they can't vote. And really the point is not to get it to pass but to bring up the point in such a way that it will cause people to re think their lack of commitment to an obligation they have already agreed to.

You are willing to accuse men in a roundabout fashion of violating their vows, rather than bringing them up on charges straightforwardly, which would be the appropriate thing to do if they are really oathbreakers. If you considered them oathbreakers, you would not consider defrocking to be draconian. Either they are elders in good standing, with voting privileges, or they are not. You may not approve of how they exercise their right to vote. They may feel the same about you. Are you really drafting legislation that you don't intend to pass, just to complain about elders who only show up to vote on the issues they consider important? That doesn't seem like a good use of the time of the church courts. If you want to editorialize, write an editorial. Or give a sermon. Do you give sermons at your presbytery meetings like we do?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

And I just got this e-mail from one of the best friends I have in our local Presbyterian Church, a spiritual pillar of that church, and of the community, for that matter, and very articulate [eg note the typo's] I had sent the link to the Archimandrite's video addressing the 2010 Assembly... Here's the response...

"George, thanks for sharing.
I've forward this on to a few friends.
We will withdraw our membership if the local church does not take a position away from the denomination.
This has battle has made us weary.
Our gifts must go to God's glory,
not man's shame."

This, from a couple who have supported their Presbyterian Church for some 45 years now...
Who have spiritual gifts...
Who are entering retirement...

"Good-bye" if there will be carnal rule in their clergy...

God bless them...

I hope they hold local title to their beautiful facility
and can keep it out of the carnal hands of shame
who are taking over their national Church...

I observed the beginnings of this rotting of the Presbyterian Church
over 50 years ago, when I was confirmed into it, not believing in God...
I saw the hypocrisy then, at age 14, and fled from it,
Knowing it would come to a bad end...

And here we have the results...
Practicing homosexuals as pastors of God...
Carnal sinfulness approved...

And this evil doing calling evil...
The good who disapprove of evil...
Because they discern the evil
Writ LARGE in un-Godly carnal deeds...

Glory to God in ALL things...

At least it's all coming into view...
And for the Faithful into great clarity...

What was hidden no longer is hiding...
And we can see what it was hiding...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

You are willing to accuse men in a roundabout fashion of violating their vows, rather than bringing them up on charges straightforwardly, which would be the appropriate thing to do?

It is called PURGING THE PARTY of those who are NOT your supporters...
Dictatorial politics to get rid of enemies...
Hidden in apparently benign rules...

Oh, your Church is under attack all right...
Carnal clerical rule is the new rule...

And for those of you in the Presbyterian Church
Who are holding to Sola Scriptura...

Where are the Sola's holding back
This carnal assault?
There is no effective resistance...

A similar assault is underway in Orthodoxy...
But with less impressive results...
Yet not without effect...
And not going away...

Luk 18:8 When the Son of man comes,
shall he find the Faith upon the earth?

Arsenios

[RBerman]

It is called PURGING THE PARTY of those who are NOT your supporters...
Dictatorial politics to get rid of enemies...
Hidden in apparently benign rules...

Well, he says it's directed at people of both "parties" who only show up to vote on this issue. I wonder which party is more likely to do this, but utlimately that's not the point. Political strongarming is not the way to try to force people to be more involved. It just makes them feel less welcome and more likely to leave altogether. It's not as if the PCUSA has such a glut of new members that they can afford to alienate people on the margins.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Well, he says it's directed at people of both "parties" who only show up to vote on this issue. I wonder which party is more likely to do this, but utlimately that's not the point. Political strongarming is not the way to try to force people to be more involved. It just makes them feel less welcome and more likely to leave altogether. It's not as if the PCUSA has such a glut of new members that they can afford to alienate people on the margins.

Well, activists DO show up, and they then control, by their numbers who HAVE shown up, the OUTCOME which you are now witnessing, for a small number of them, by showing up, can vote in their agenda... THEN, you see, they take away the vote of those who were NOT showing up regularly, cover it with the lie that it is for BOTH parties, and THEREBY CONSOLIDATE THEIR RULE...

So you can see that this is merely a lie that is covering their purging of their enemies... The lie is the plausibility of the argument that if you don't show up, you don't care, and you thereby forfeit your vote... You and your Church have been TARGETED, my Brother, just like the Episcopal Church was targeted...

The assault is demonic, to destroy the Presbyterian Church...
The Latin Church was assaulted by boy-loving homosexual priests, and heavily damaged...
But they did not make active homosexuals Bishops and priests...
I don't think the Presbyterians will do as well...
The Episcopalians sure fell...

Yet life goes on...

Arsenios

[Sparko]

Pilgrim do you think this change WON'T be abused by some congregations who will allow practicing homosexuals to become clergy?

[hedrick]

Well, activists DO show up, and they then control, by their numbers who HAVE shown up

Just to be clear, the discussion is about Presbytery meetings. The people who vote are pastors, and elders, of whom a fixed number are sent by each Session. Our pastors and elders are not somehow going to be replaced by activist (unless of course they are themselves activists, which is sometimes the case). The concern, however, is that they may not bother to show up for meetings where proposals are presented and discussed in detail, but may show up for the final vote without proper preparation. At least I think that's Pilgrim's concern.

There is some reason for it. But I can say in the case of our Presbytery, that we did ask people to attend the preparation if they were going to vote, and that there were careful presentations, both for 10-A and Belhar. In addition, our Session talked about it at some length.

I'm all for doing as much as we can to promote careful decision-making, but this is not the result of a few agitators, and there are at least as many agitators on the conservative side, some of whom are even more agenda-driven and border-line hysterical as the pro-gay folks. You may not agree with our decision, but it is not the result of carelessness. I believe people knew what they were getting into. There have been three major studies of sexuality by the denomination in the last 40 years. The most recent two recommended this outcome. That doesn't mean they're right, but the decision is consistent with the direction of the PCUSA back at least to 1925, and is the direction that we believe Christ is leading us.

[hedrick]

Look at the bigger picture, Pilgrim. Every generation of PCUSA clergy has said, "Well, Belief X may be wrong, but it's not wrong enough to disqualify someone from office. We're all sinners, trying to faithful serve our Lord. But Belief Y... that would really show that we're dealing with a person who doesn't understand Scripture." History shows that one generation's Y becomes the next generation's X, with homosexuality being merely the latest case in point. See also penal substitution, exclusivity of the gospel, virgin birth, miracles, women pastors, etc.

I understand the claim, but i don't believe it. Aside from ordination issues, the other things you list are the 5 "fundamentals", and those were already considered non-essential in 1925. I honestly don't think our theology has drifted much since then. I've been active in the PCUSA since around 1968. I don't see much change since then, and in fact in the last few decades a lot of people think it might have gotten slightly more conservative.

On ordination of women and gays, I agree. But I think the seeds for that were present in rejection of inerrancy. As far as I'm concerned the only reason that ordination of gays didn't come up in 1925 is that our members are, after all, members of the wider American culture, and it has a horror of homosexuality that is only now beginning to subside. Just as we had to start dealing with the role of blacks and women as a culture before our churches could do so. Much to our shame as Christians.

[RBerman]

On ordination of women and gays, I agree. But I think the seeds for that were present in rejection of inerrancy.

That is true, which is why the game was really up once inerrancy was abandoned. It's just taken a little while for all the implications of that error (from my perspective) to infiltrate all the different elements of church policy and polity. Which is exactly when people say, "I can accept a lot from my church, but not this" about gay issues, they are about 80 years late to the party.

[Pilgrim]

You are willing to accuse men in a roundabout fashion of violating their vows, rather than bringing them up on charges straightforwardly, which would be the appropriate thing to do if they are really oathbreakers. If you considered them oathbreakers, you would not consider defrocking to be draconian. Either they are elders in good standing, with voting privileges, or they are not. You may not approve of how they exercise their right to vote. They may feel the same about you. Are you really drafting legislation that you don't intend to pass, just to complain about elders who only show up to vote on the issues they consider important? That doesn't seem like a good use of the time of the church courts. If you want to editorialize, write an editorial. Or give a sermon. Do you give sermons at your presbytery meetings like we do?

Not me personally, but someone always does. We always include worship as part of the gathering. (though, to tell the truth, I'd prefer it if we didn't.) But I get your point and it makes sense. Though, preaching a sermon to people who aren't there doesn't seem particularly meaningful either.

[Pilgrim]

It is called PURGING THE PARTY of those who are NOT your supporters...
Dictatorial politics to get rid of enemies...
Hidden in apparently benign rules...

That accusation is unfair and beneath you. How do you know that the people I'm most concerned with aren't the ones who pushed this new wording? For that matter, no one here knows how I personally voted on this issue. You only have my response in the aftermath of the decision. The assumptions you are all making are insulting and lacking the grace you preach.

On both sides of the issue people came out of the wood work whom non of us had seen for ages. My frustration is not with a specific position but with people on both sides who have made this the only issue they'll bother with. Heck, one person, on the pro side of the issue, showed up, took the floor, said his piece, cast his vote and then left the meeting. He didn't even have the common curtesy to even finish out a single meeting.
[/QUOTE]

[Pilgrim]

Well, he says it's directed at people of both "parties" who only show up to vote on this issue. I wonder which party is more likely to do this, but utlimately that's not the point. Political strongarming is not the way to try to force people to be more involved. It just makes them feel less welcome and more likely to leave altogether. It's not as if the PCUSA has such a glut of new members that they can afford to alienate people on the margins.

I've been in the congregation I'm currently serving for about 8 months. We've received 30 new members in that time. It's not the denomination, it's lazy congregations. And, IMHO, people who are more interested in the politics of dogma than in inviting people to know the good news of the Gospel.

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim do you think this change WON'T be abused by some congregations who will allow practicing homosexuals to become clergy?

I'm quite sure it will be abused. We are a church made up of sinners after all.