Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Church|Tue, Mar. 24 2009 04:27 PM EDT

PCUSA Committee to Consider Removal of 'Homosexual Perversion' from Document

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

Members of a committee in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will gather this week to consider proposed changes, including the removal of a negative reference to homosexual behavior, to a historic document.

The General Assembly Special Committee on Correcting Translation Problems of the Heidelberg Catechism is scheduled to begin a two-day meeting on March 27.

Last June, the General Assembly, which is the highest governing body of the denomination, approved a proposal to begin revising the Heidelberg Catechism – a document of the Reformed Christian faith that is part of the PC(USA)'s constitution.

Presbyterians at the biennial meeting debated the current Miller-Osterhaven translation of the Heidelberg Catechism, which was adopted by the PC(USA) in 1967. Much of the controversy revolved around a reference to "homosexual perversion" among a list of sinful behaviors that is not found in the original German text.

Opponents of the current translation argued that the original text and all subsequent translations do not contain any reference to homosexuality and are seeking for a more historically faithful and accurate translation.

Question 87 in the translation reads:

"Q. 87. Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?

A. Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'"

Opposing the revision, professors Bruce L. McCormack, E. David Willis, and Michael D. Bush from Princeton Theological Seminary and Erskine Theological Seminary, argued that those proposing for changes fail to understand how the Book of Confessions function.

"It is not the Latin and German texts from the sixteenth century that guide our Church, but rather it is the English texts adopted by the deliberative assemblies of the Church and published in the Book of Confessions by which every officer of our Church has vowed to be guided," they said. "These English versions have been responsibly translated and carefully chosen as 'faithful expositions of what Scripture teaches us to believe and do.'"

This week, the special committee will consider the proposed revision and report back to the 219th General Assembly in 2010.

The meeting comes as PC(USA)'s 173 presbyteries are currently voting on whether to delete a fidelity and chastity requirement for clergy from the constitution and open the way for the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    sigh..in these end days..the seperation between the sheep and the goats is ever widening

  • Chas »
    Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    We should all pray for this denomination, because every other month they are voting about something immoral that is no longer considered immoral.

    Voting doesn't make something that was immoral..moral. Truth is not something to vote on. It is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

  • Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Semper,

    And I know people who fall on God's strength and learn the proper way of dealing with it, who are now heterosexuals.
    I guess it's all in whether you try and do it alone (which ends in failure) or do it God's way.

  • Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:44 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    semper, but I can choose to give in to or not give into temptation and I also know that God tempts no one to sin one but He does test His children.

  • Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Believer-

    You can't choose temptation.

  • Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    semper, God would never give me those thoughts but He may allow those thoughts to come into my life. And as a matter of fact I deeply struggled with those thoughts as a teen before I became a Christian. Plus, I am not saying the choice is an easy one and depending on your family life, personality, and life experiences it can be a very difficult one as in the example you shared. But at the same times with the example you shared you assume his sexual struggle was the only thing struggle he was dealing with in his life when it could have only been the tip of the iceberg!

  • Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    believer-

    What you said is totally wrong. I knew someone in high-school that struggled so much with it. He was unhappy and depressed and was constantly trying to "not be gay." His parents and the school told him the exact same thing you're saying. Then he committed suicide. I hope God gives you homosexual thoughts for even just a day, then you will see. To have that temptation is not your choice. To commit the crime, THAT is your choice. People do not CHOOSE to be gay. They choose to act on that feeling.

  • Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    to MickeyC,

    You should really do some research before you spout off hatred and mis interpretations like you are.

    1st, Lots daughters forced him to have sex because they thought that the judgement on sodom was all over and they wanted to repopulate. It was sin in that they did not trust in God to do his work.

    Second, just because a person believes the bible is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, doesn't mean that that person hates a homosexual.

    Third, David and Jonathan were not Gay, having love for a man isn't unheard of even in that day, I have a best friend that I love dearly but doesn't mean I have or would have sex with him. Even Jesus said of loving other men. It doesn't mean he is Gay.

    The PCUSA gave up worshiping God years ago, I figured that they would give up the scriptures and all that "evil" wording that convicts people of their sins as well, well here it is. People, all of us are sinners plain and simple, the more this world trys to downplay the truth the more they will fall as fools.

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ra, I totally believe there is a point when a person chooses to be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. It may not necessarily be a concious decision but a decision none the less. And there are many factors that lead to that decision and later on down the road they can choose to change that decision.

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    randerson,

    And you didn't even answer my question. Since Mickey is gone, I suppose your answer will do.

    Who do gay men marry? Who are they attracted to?

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:11 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    randerson,

    I'll let mickey answer my question. Thanks for your input though.

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    "Mickey,

    Who do gay men marry? Or have attraction to? "

    Prophet,
    Why do straight people marry? Or have attraction to?

    Was there a point in every straight person's life when he/she CHOSE to be straight?

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Mickey,

    Who do gay men marry? Or have attraction to?

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:54 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    dp

    Rom 1:26 Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;
    Rom 1:27 and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

    "also the males having left the natural use of the female,"

    "natural" (5446) means "physical"
    "use" (5540) means "employment i.e. spec sexual intercourse"

    "affections" = desire for sexual intimacy.



    i find it interesting your attempt to discuss romans, how liberally you bring up some strokes of a scripture and dismiss others.

    consider also addressing (niv) "lust", "their women", "abandoned", and "shameful" as well why" even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." (why would their women do the same thing their men did)

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:12 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    "Not theory, but truth."

    Either post the proof or we will all know you don't have any and are simply fabricating again.

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:11 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    "Your childish rantings and attempts to gain sympathy for your sin doesn't work on the mature Christian, any more than it works on God."

    Certainly you can beat your kids all you want, it's none of my business, but when you come here spewing hate and venom you'll see most adults won't put up with your childish nonsense. You quite obviously have problems in your own home and I would suggest you tend to those and don't take on those of us who will set you straight.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "Nice theory but no proof. Try again"

    Not theory, but truth.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:52 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    No hate here. Just truth. But, just like my children, when they get reprimanded for doing something they shouldn't you fall on the "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....you must hate me! Why do you hate me soooooooooooo! Why do you treat me so bad?! Why? Why?"

    Your childish rantings and attempts to gain sympathy for your sin doesn't work on the mature Christian, any more than it works on God.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:33 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    "Simply put...David and Jonathan were under the law. If they had been homosexual they would have been put to death. That type of behavior was absolutely not tolerated and they would have been take out and stoned."

    Nice theory but no proof. Try again.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:31 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 5

    "You know it. I know it. All the true Christians of the world know it."

    Nope good Christians don't know anything of the kind. It is only those who have personal problems and use Christianity to cover up their hate.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    Lloyd,

    "What I can't understand is people claiming to be Christians dening the Bible condems homosexulatiy."

    You know it. I know it. All the true Christians of the world know it. But the immature want to hold on to their sin, and justify it by saying "God says it's okay." The Bible says that because of false doctrines there will be those that call good evil, and evil good. This is a perfect example.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    The PCUSA has long ago abandoned the Biblical authority of the Bible.
    Why should homosexuality be any different?

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:32 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    What I can't understand is people claiming to be Christians dening the Bible condems homosexulatiy.

    Read the text and the Bible (OT and NT) is clear about it!

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:43 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    ukulele,

    Then that means I'm into incest. I kiss my dad and mother. And my grandparents. And my aunts, uncles, cousins. And even my kids. Does that mean I'm a pedophile?

    LOL. But I do like your "pink-tinted glasses" analogy.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Since you mention it, the US is about the most uptight nation in the world concerning such things-in most countries, not just the east, the men greet one another with a kiss. And Paul admonished the saints to greet one another with an holy kiss-I guess, by Mickey's view, we were all told to be gay with each other. People need to stop seeing everything through the pink-tinted glasses of homosexuality.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    ukulele,

    Don't forget that David kissed Jonathon. Mickey doesn't understand cultural distinctions. He thinks that David kissed Jonathon out of passion and perverted love. When, in fact, kissing was a much used form of greeting...even among other cultures. There was nothing romantic about David kissing Jonathon. If kissing was the evidence that Mickey uses, then Jesus and Judas were gay lovers as well.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Mickey, you have, apparently, no idea how something is proven in an way. You make an assumption out of a couple facts-
    1: Ruth stayed with Naomi, her mother-in-law, who she loved, rather than returning to her family.
    2: David and Jonathan loved one another beyond the love of women, and made a blood covenant with one another.

    From these two things, you have made an asusmption, primarily based upon your opinion and an extremely modern and western way of looking at things. You ignore culture, history and other scripture when making your assumptions. And, because there is nothing else to back yourself up, you say, "Prove they weren't gay". Doesn't work that way-the burden of proof is upon the one claiming that which isn't said.
    Facts: David married women, and is never said to be with a man sexually. He followed the law od moses, which said that to lie with a man as with a woman is abominable and deserving of death, yet he is said to be a man after God's heart. Does David sin? Sure, and he is called on it and repents. But he never repents of sodomy because he didn't engage in it. You speak from a point of silence and expect us to prove what is already clear in the Bible.
    Fact: Ruth married naomi's son, then her kinsman, Boaz. Never anything about any other relationship than her dedication to her mother-in-law, who was berift of all family. Ruth was a good woman who was willing to give up her comfort to care for her. To claim anything else is assumption, and weak assumption, for assumption on anything not specified in the Bible MUST agree with what it DOES say, and to say they were gay goes against the rest of the biblical narrative.
    So, I say to you, Prove they WERE gay.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Simply put...David and Jonathan were under the law. If they had been homosexual they would have been put to death. That type of behavior was absolutely not tolerated and they would have been take out and stoned.

    The OT is quite good at pointing out the sin of the people.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "Then you'll be able to post the verses saying that they were heterosexual. We'll all be waiting. "

    The Bible doesn't say they were homosexual or heterosexual. Those are English words. The Bible doesn't say either. For you to say they were gay or homosexual is completely wrong, MickyC!!! Please, at least play by your own rules. :D

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    ""Homosexuality is a sin."

    Nope and the Bible never says it is."

    What Bible do you use? It surely isn't the greek/hebrew, KJV, NASB, NIV.

    Here, let's try this. The Bible does say that men giving up the natural (physical) use (sexual intercourse) of the female and having desire for sexual intimacy with other men is sin.

    Is that better?

    Rom 1:26 Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;
    Rom 1:27 and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

    "also the males having left the natural use of the female,"

    "natural" (5446) means "physical"
    "use" (5540) means "employment i.e. spec sexual intercourse"

    "affections" = desire for sexual intimacy.


    The Bible also doesn't say that being drunk is sin. It doesn't say that murder is sin. It doesn't say that adultry is sin. See...those are English words just like homosexual is. This is why Romans discribes the action itself as so many people would have different names for it. That way people like MickeyC's word games only look foolish to those of us who use logic and rational.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:38 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    I Samuel 25:40

    "And when the servants of David were come to Abigail to Carmel, they spake unto her, saying, David sent us unto thee, to take thee to him to wife."

    II Samuel 3:2-5

    "And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; And his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David's wife. These were born to David in Hebron."

    II Samuel 11:2-4

    "And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house."


    So please shut up about the lie that David was hommosexual. That is a lie from Satan himself. Are you his child?

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:47 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    "I don't know. Is that how you do it? Or do you actually cut them out. Apparently you cut out the scriptures that show that David and Ruth were both heterosexual."

    Then you'll be able to post the verses saying that they were heterosexual. We'll all be waiting.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:45 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "Where anyone gets an idea that Ruth and Naomi were lesbians, or David and Jonathan were gay,"

    Then prove they weren't..

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:43 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    ukelele

    Amen. And note that Ruth married a man. And David married a woman, and even lusted after and committed adutlery with a woman.

    Does anyone else find that to be a "gay" reaction?

    Anyone who claims that David and Ruth were gay are, simply put, really stupid.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:28 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    Mickey~
    Where anyone gets an idea that Ruth and Naomi were lesbians, or David and Jonathan were gay, is beyond me-except maybe from Satan. How sick, to see that a woman cannot love and hold to her mother-in-law enough to leave her family and follow her back to a land she doesn't know. This devotion, not lesbian lust, is why Ruth was blessed with being placed into the lineage of both David, as well as the Messiah, Jesus. It just shows how shallow people have become, that they can't understand devotional love and friendship unless it's viewed through the dirty filter of filthy sexual perversion. David loved Jonathan with a love beyond the love of women-that tells me right there it wasn't sexual-it was a deep friendship. Just because you've never been able to get beyond lusting for another man to experience true friendship doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means you're too shallow to get it. Your mind won't allow you to see anything but the filth in which you wallow. I suppose you're also of the type that figures that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with John since John considered himself 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. Sad, sick, and unfortunate. There's much more to relationships aside from sex, but the homosexual movement is completely identified by nothing BUT sex-which is why it sees gay sex in everything, even in godly bilical relationships.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    jn, it is pretty pathetic how far some will go to get the sexual practices of homosexuality condoned, to take a wonderful love relationship between a mother in law and her daughter in law and try to introduce sex into the equation and then to do the same with two men who were closer than brothers truly shows how hard-up some are to justify sexual practices that are totally contrary to and in complete violation of God's original and only design for not only sexual intimacy, but marriage as well.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Mike,

    "How do you do that with the Bible? Do you just black out the passages you don't like and underline the ones you do? Just asking...."

    I don't know. Is that how you do it? Or do you actually cut them out. Apparently you cut out the scriptures that show that David and Ruth were both heterosexual.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Actually Mike, there is proof to the contrary. It's in black and white in the Bible. David was a heterosexual. He married a woman. He committed adultery with a woman. If you want, I can show references, but it will do no good. You don't believe in the Bible.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    bass, here is God's standard with regards to marriage and sexual intimacy. In Genesis 2:21-24 and Matthew 19:4-6 God declares His original and only design for marriage and there are no other forms of marriage that God ordains in the Bible and God's original and only design for sexual intimacy is that it is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman who have been united as one for life in His sight. So neither same-sex marriage or sexual intimacy outside of marriage abide by God's standards so are therefore sin in the sight of God.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bass, Numbers 35:31 is the exact passage I was referring to.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    bass, do you find anywhere in the Bible where were given permission to no longer abide by the 10 Commandments. As for the other laws you mentioned if you would read Numbers 22 I believe you will see that only murder required the death penalty all other violations where the death penalty could be invoked could be resolved and in fact were by lesser penalties.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GOD our father in heaven is our creator,since he made us, he also put his laws in every mans heart. GODS word says he has written his laws on our hearts.Its the guiding light in everyone of us.Its called a conscience,meaning with knowledge.When we do things that are wrong, or sinful we do it WITH the KNOWLEDGE that its wrong!GOD has given us everything we need to know.However because he wants us to love and obey him, He gives us the choice on what were going to do with it.Disobey,get punished. Obey get blessed,rewarded.Yes there are rewards waiting in heaven for some of us.Awsome!

    Bless the name of JESUS
    DeaconDon

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:10 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "prophet, I've found a solution to the trash put out by mickeyc, I just hit the ignore button!"

    How do you do that with the Bible? Do you just black out the passages you don't like and underline the ones you do? Just asking....

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    prophet, I've found a solution to the trash put out by mickeyc, I just hit the ignore button!

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Ok. So David did marry a man, didn't he? And he lusted after a man and committed adultery with a man, didn't he?"

    I see no proof to the contrary. Remember God saved Lot who later had sex with his own daughters.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    I believe the issue being referenced in the article is a bit more basic than much of the discussion implies. The fact that homosexuality is not mentioned in the original document is true. The revision we are using as a denomination (PC(USA)) recognizes that the Biblical quote in question appears incorrectly quoted in the original document and so the homosexual perversion was added as a correction. Many, if not most members of the PC(USA) still feel that the correction made was appropriate and that the language should remain.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Ok. So David did marry a man, didn't he? And he lusted after a man and committed adultery with a man, didn't he?

    *sigh*

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "How so? You still claiming that David and Jonathon were gay? If you are, then you are skewing the scriptures. Actually, you're making up things that aren't even there."

    The evidence supports the idea and you've yet to show anything that proves otherwise.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Bass,

    What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mickey

    How so? You still claiming that David and Jonathon were gay? If you are, then you are skewing the scriptures. Actually, you're making up things that aren't even there.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links