Presbyterian Church (USA) Votes to Allow Gay Clergy

[Pilgrim]

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.

Indeed!

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.

Thanks for being faithful in the process.

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.

Indeed. For example, the New Wineskins (Formerly The Confessing Church Movement.) actually endorsed the idea of encumbering church property so as to make it undesirable for a presbytery to claim the property in the event of a congregations separation. Such things are to be Spirit lead processes and the result of good stewardship on the behalf of the congregation, presbytery and denomination, not a political machination. I'm so tired of the politics. So incredibly tired.

[RBerman]

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.

As I said, I do share your disappointment that more people aren't more involved, and that people show up to vote who seem unfamiliar with the previous discussion that's gone on. We have the same general problem in the PCA. But legislation is not the solution to this problem, and pretend legislation is not the solution to any problem. Consensus is built painfully and slowly, one conversation at a time. Circumventing that process through legislation is exactly the sort of political maneuver you ought to despise.

As for worship at General Assembly and Presbytery, I am very glad we do it, though some of my more business-minded brothers might differ. I'm told that worship was a heavy part of the Westminster Assembly as well, but it doesn't appear to have adversely affected the result; quite the contrary.

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.

Or possibly people (on both sides of gay ordination) who believe that the gospel involves Kingdom living as well as soul-winning. Don't despise other parts of the body for not being your part.

[Pilgrim]

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.

There is a nuance there. Inerrancy of the current text was abandoned, not of the original manuscripts.

[RBerman]

There is a nuance there. Inerrancy of the current text was abandoned, not of the original manuscripts.

By you, maybe. There are plenty of people in the PCUSA who believe that the current texts accurately convey errors of the original texts with regard to patriarchalism, exclusivism, homophobia, etc. Surely you know some of them.

[Sparko]

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

was that abuse possible without the change to the constitution?

[Pilgrim]

By you, maybe. There are plenty of people in the PCUSA who believe that the current texts accurately convey errors of the original texts with regard to patriarchalism, exclusivism, homophobia, etc. Surely you know some of them.

I don't know anyone in the PCUSA who holds to the complete inerrancy of the text as it it currently given to us. Though I do know some who are as you describe. This is why our statement is that the Scriptures are the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ. And why we affirm Christ and not the Bible as first.

[Pilgrim]

was that abuse possible without the change to the constitution?

Yes.

[Sparko]

Yes.

so how many congregations within the PCUSA were headed by practicing Gay clergy before the change then?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I'm so tired of the politics. So incredibly tired.

This is why we have dogmas...
The boundary markers of the Faith...

Without them, the Faith becomes rationalistic,
And: By reason derived = humanistic...

And God thereby is rejected...
Even if [nominally] affirmed...

God bless you, Pilgrim...



I pray that the new converts coming to your congregation are bringing lots of children...

[Pilgrim]

This is why we have dogmas...
The boundary markers of the Faith...

Without them, the Faith becomes rationalistic,
And: By reason derived = humanistic...

And God thereby is rejected...
Even if [nominally] affirmed...

God bless you, Pilgrim...



I pray that the new converts coming to your congregation are bringing lots of children...

As it turns out, they are. But I don't like thinking of it that way. It sounds like our concern then is merely for the legacy of the church when we talk in those terms. You know, will we still be here in ten years. Rather, I simply want people who love God now, children or not. If we're here ten years from now great, if not, at least we loved God.

[Pilgrim]

so how many congregations within the PCUSA were headed by practicing Gay clergy before the change then?

I don't know the exact number though I am personally aware of about a dozen churches were gay clergy and elders were serving.

[Sparko]

I don't know the exact number though I am personally aware of about a dozen churches were gay clergy and elders were serving.

openly practicing homosexuals? and they were not reprimanded or shut down by the PC(USA) despite going against the wording added in the '90s?

[RBerman]

I don't know anyone in the PCUSA who holds to the complete inerrancy of the text as it it currently given to us. Though I do know some who are as you describe. This is why our statement is that the Scriptures are the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ. And why we affirm Christ and not the Bible as first.

I don't know anyone in the PCA "who holds to the complete inerrancy of the text as it it currently given to us" either. The discussion about inerrancy is normally about the original manuscripts. Do you know people in the PCUSA who say that the original manuscripts do not reflect an inerrant message from God? Hedrick?

"We affirm Christ first, and not the Bible" is not a helpful distinction to make among Christians. The Bible is a revelation of Christ. When the Bible is denied (as, for instance, the Jesus Seminar does), our vision of Christ is diminished. This is why the first chapter in the Westminster Confession is about the Bible, and the second chapter is about God. It's not because that Bible is more important than God. It's because God has chosen to reveal himself through the Bible, and thus the Bible is core to any discussion of what God is. Attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible are attacks on the authority of the Bible and the character of God revealed in the Bible. As in, "The BIble shows God as inciting the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. God can't be like that. It must just be the biases of a Bronze Age tribe being attributed to God." Or "The prohibitions against homosexuality in Scripture just reflect the horror and prejudice of primitive people." And so on. People who say such things would say that they are affirming Christ first, but they are mistaken.

[Pilgrim]

openly practicing homosexuals? and they were not reprimanded or shut down by the PC(USA) despite going against the wording added in the '90s?

The folks I am aware of were all ordained before 1994. Probably half are retired since then. Openly is an interesting term. Did the people in the congregations know? Yeah, it was kind of an open secret. Were they widely advertising their sexuality? No. Most were also single as far as I know.

[Sparko]

The folks I am aware of were all ordained before 1994. Probably half are retired since then. Openly is an interesting term. Did the people in the congregations know? Yeah, it was kind of an open secret. Were they widely advertising their sexuality? No. Most were also single as far as I know.

so they were "grandfathered" in after the change or what?

What I am asking is if the wording added to the constitution was ever enforced? Or did the PC(USA) turn a blind eye to the violations?