The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) moved forward Tuesday with proposals that would allow for practicing gay clergy while rejecting one that would have redefined the definition of marriage.
In a 41-11 vote Tuesday night, the Committee on Church Orders and Ministry recommended to the 218th General Assembly – the denomination's highest governing body – that it delete wording in the ordination standard that requires "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."
The ongoing debate over ordination requirements in the PC(USA) began Monday morning in a public hearing before the committee. Some members of the committee did not return to the meeting room after a dinner break Tuesday evening when a decision was set to be made, according to the Presbyterian news service from the General Assembly, which is meeting in San Jose, Calif., this week.
The Rev. Emily McColl, who opposed the overture, or resolution, said she was "so saddened by their absence that my heart can hardly stand it."
Debate over whether non-celibate gays and lesbians should be ordained has gone on for more than 30 years in the 2.3 million-member church. The 2006 General Assembly sparked controversy and confusion when it adopted an "authoritative interpretation" of the ordination standard, which some said gave leeway to local and regional governing bodies to ordain practicing gay ministers.
Earlier this year, however, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – the church's highest court – upheld the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard. The court ruled that although church officials are allowed to express disagreement with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, they are not permitted to disobey those behavioral standards.
Supporters of gay rights are pushing this week, during the biennial meeting, an amendment to the standard. The Boston presbytery submitted an overture, or resolution, calling for the deletion of the "fidelity/chastity" requirement. It also offered replacement wording that "reaffirms standards that are important to us in our ordination questions," as overture advocate the Rev. Roderick MacDonald stated.
McColl said approval of the proposal would mean that they will no longer be considered Reformed in their understanding of biblical interpretation and theology.
And the consequences can be severe, some said.
"Churches won't wait for the ratification votes [by the presbyteries] but will leave immediately, though I hope they won't," said committee member David Reimer, according to the news service.
McColl expressed hope that congregations that could not tolerate another debate over ordination standards be allowed to "graciously leave" the denomination, as reported by the news service. A motion urging a gracious and pastoral response to congregations seeking to leave the PC(USA) was approved.
The General Assembly will decide on whether to send the motion amending the ordination standard to the presbyteries for a vote this week. It will also consider a proposal, approved by the committee, for an authoritative interpretation that would countermand the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission's ruling requiring candidates to obey the current "fidelity/chastity" standard.
Also on Tuesday, debate over the definition of marriage ended in a vote by the Committee on Church Polity to reject a proposal that would have changed the PC(USA) constitutional definition of marriage from a man and a woman to "two people."
RSS
wbmoore,
It is so. Amen.
hlerwin,
"Many of your children or grandchildren or their children will be worshipping in healthy churches that are open to all (including gay people), and they will be Christians, too."
Actually, by definition, a healthy church is one which teaches the whole word of God. But accepting homosexuality as something God embraces goes against the Bible, and thus is heretical. Thus, if anyone attends a church that teaches this, they attned a heretical church and not one where the whole word of God is taught. Thus that is not a healthy church, and in some cases, would not be a Christian church (if God got tired of the rebellion, He will remove His torch from that church).
hlerwin, Praise the Lord! That is why we don't have "bishops" in the SBC!
That's why we have bishops, to settle all the constant bickering among the faithful. The PCUSA may vote this issue down this time, I think. Still "the moral arc of the universe is long, but it always bends towards justice." Many of your children or grandchildren or their children will be worshipping in healthy churches that are open to all (including gay people), and they will be Christians, too. I don't believe you have to change your ideas one bit. But our descendants will not grow up with "our ideas."
This motioned passed twice before and the congregations voted it down, and will again. The Episcopals had this force on them by the Bishops, who also stated there were other ways to heaven (how do they know? who do they represent?)
The major problem we face is pride, and then divison. It is a sad day when the leaders usurp authority, promote another gospel, and split the church.
They are being used, and the bigger picture is to destory the church, not advance tolerence.
A wise person discriminates who they marry, and who they associate with, and only a hypocrite would deny that.
We are the stewards of the Bride of Christ.
I really fear God, and believe in Jesus, and I hope you do too. I can not find in my heart to yield to homosexual rights, but many confuse the sexism and racism of the past with those that practice homosexual behavor. As I reflect on this it seems the culture that force sexism and racism now force a sexual practice or cult upon society, and if the Bride of Christ does not want to repeat the sinful cultural norms, they should resist the tolerence or death crowd.
hlerwin,
It seems I have hurt or upset you somehow. I am sorry. Such was not my intent. We were having what I thought to be meaningful conversation. But now you seem antagonistic.
I am mot exclusive. I know and work with (in a secular position) and play with and minister to people of all religions. I work with people who are agnostic, humanist, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. Most of them seem like good people. Most of them seem to be very moral. Most of them seem to be very productive.
It is Christ who is exclusive. CHRIST SAID HE is exclusive. John 14:6
6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
People are free to believe this or not. It is not about me. It is about God and what HE has said. If people do not believe this, it is no skin off my nose. However, I might be saddened because I care for that person and I know what God has said, and I would like that person to have the blessings that come with belief, and avoid the problems that come from not believing.
However, when people claim to be Christian and then do things that go contrary to what the Bible teaches, we each have the right and responsibility to say something. More importantly, when people being to teach something that is contrary to what the Bible teaches (heresy), we have the right and responsibility to help them see their error. If they do not stop, we have the duty to separate from them. They are free to believe what they want. We are not free to support it.
I do not live in a theocracy, and I dont think I would like it if I did. However, this does not mean I should not work to have laws passed based upon what I think is right or wrong. We each have that responsibility. For instance, I think you would agree that child pornography is wrong, that it harms people, and that it should be illegal. I would guess you would support laws that make it illegal in its various aspects.
I base my believes upon a book I believe God wrote. It does not change. God does not change.
What do you base your beliefs upon?
I think you, wbmoore, are with a group that will always exclude more people than it includes. Of course, you may go to your grave with the complete conviction that you are right. (That's doesn't mean you ARE right.) Maybe you are in the 144,000. When you get to heaven, do see if John Adams and his son are there. That anthropomorphic "heaven," based on ancient humans' idea of the king or chief or big kahuna with jewel-encrusted mansions probably will not appeal to the New England, democracy-minded Adamses. It will remind them of why they left OLD England.
matthewr1
I agree that the church should have nothing to do with heretics. However, we live in the world where heretics abound. So unfortunately we need to address the heretical teachings. No sin is better or worse than any other. But to teach that something which God calls sin as good is what God's word says will happen in the end times.
We can rejoice that the end is near. And redouble our efforts to try to reach the lost and correct the mistaken.
2 Tim 2:24-26
24 And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
But that does not mean we are to continue in fellowship with them. IF necessary, we need to expel the heretics from the Christian Church.
2 John 1:8-10
8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
I for one am quite discusted that we live in a church that blatant sin such as this is even debated. It should just outright be outlawed. These dogs are allowed to go into ministry and lead people astray with their false doctrines. I'm not even talking just about gay theologians/pastors; I'm also talking about liberal theologians, false prophets such as Todd Bentley, and the like. These dogs are all bent for destruction, why do we even give them an ear in the church? I say kick them out on the street (of course with the hope of their repentence). You think Paul would think twice about excommunicating such people?
For instance, if someone teaches that belief in Christ's saving work is not necessary to be a Christian and go to heaven, they would be teaching heresy. If the truth is pointed out to them and they insist on teaching heresy, we have a duty to name it what it is and to not have fellowship with them.
hlerwin,
I have no problem with differing interpretations of scripture amongst Christian, as long as the differences do not encourage heresy of important matters, such as sin or salvation or grace. But when someone begins to teach heresy, it is the duty of Christians to call it such.
2 Tim 2:24-26
24 And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
When someone teaches heresy, they break communion with God and the universal church and are no longer considered to be Christian.
2 John 1:8-10
8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
Rev 2:14-16
14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. 15 Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Still, wbmoore, it's really not up to you to decide who is a "Christian" or, more specifically, "your kind of Christian." The Holy Spirit enables anyone to read and be enlightened by scripture. Neither you, nor any church governing body, nor the Pope, nor James Dobson has any right to say: "You are not a Christian. Go away." Besides, the very people you don't accept don't CARE what you or anyone else thinks of them. It is not your business.
hlerwin, You are correct, Christ came to save people. Churches who do not stand on the word of God are bound to disappear. But before they do, they can lead people into hell, instead of helping lead them out of it.
The church should be a place where people grow in knowledge, sanctification, and obedience to God.
I have no issue with people in sin being in the church - until they grow past their sin or are confronted and refuse to repent - at which point, they should be asked to leave.
The problem comes when people in active sin want to attend church or become members but do not want to repent.
Accepting people who are different is not the issue. Tolerating people living in sin is one thing, condoning people's sins is a different issue entirely - nor should we encourage people to sin.