| PC(USA) opens door to ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians. Vote may be prelude to ‘seismic’ change |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon, Outlook national reporter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tuesday, 10 May 2011 23:05 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has dropped its prohibition on ordaining sexually active gays and lesbians – prompting some to rejoice in a move towards equality and others to lament what they see as the denomination’s spiritual decline.
Your Responses (22)
![]()
Robert Drake
said:
|
|
Jupiter Florida This is simply absurd, anybody tyat thinks this fracture will not split the church in half, are deaf and blind. One writer pointed out that our Korean and ethnic bothers and sisters will have a great problem with this vote, should also count the moderate conservatives like my family and I. Gays and Lesbians are all in deed loved by our Lord, and I beleive they may serve as deacons, elders, and ministers, however, chastity outside of marriage must be the standard as it is what our Lord commands. Therefore, it is also rediculas to beleive that this vote will not lead to our denomination recognising gay marriage. We have destroyed ourselves, we have deluted the truth, I hope the champions of 10-A are happy. Goodbye all, we will be seeking a new church home. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj Well, this past Sunday something amazing happened. We openned the doors, as we have done every Sunday in this town since 1816, and we had church, songs were sung, prayers made, a a sermon preached. As I am sure all active PCUSA congregations that existed 6 May, were there open for business 7 May as well. Regadless of how one feel on the issue of 10-A. But make no mistake, the social compact of the PCUSA (1983-2011) is over. The implied trust and is null and void. The egg cannot be glued back together. Post 10-A passage there was no earthquake or otherwise weather related event (that's 21 May for those who believe such nonsense). Evolutionary changes in religious organizations are not revolutionary, there will be no villagers with pitch-forks at the castle walls demanding the heads of the bishops. But change, even revolutionary change is very subtle, gradual, sometimes happens is such a way the ground does change and we do not even notice it. There will be mile-posts and signs along the way as the PCUSA winds down or morphs into something else all together. First sign post is the gathering of the dissaffected congregations this summer. What will come of that, a new church within a church? Another sign post will be the first time someone is denied membership in a presbytery or ordination on both sides of the isle, because of 10-A. The third sign post will be of course the court cases in response to that action and the fall-out from as more churches seek to take their property else where. And even if 10-A never existed, and all were at peace, the church still faces a very painful and protracted restructure in the next 5-7 years as 1 in 3, 1 in 4 churches close. merge, union or simply vanish as the denomination ages, people walk, and otherwise drop out. Many fine young men and women in Seminary now will never be employed in the church, find a paying job, or support a family. And that is fact, regardless of 10-A or not. The theological Holy Grail of progressives for over 30 years has been achieved. I wonder how that victory tastes about now. |
Matt Jensen
said:
|
Salt Lake City, UT What a joke this church is. Like all the other mainline protestant churches, it stands for nothing but its own unity, and even then only unity between liberals. It's past time we stopped mourning this meaningless church's self-inflicted demise. |
G. Ram
said:
|
Dallas, Texas Mr. Berkley: Thank you for your comments as you speak directly to my feelings on this subject. We are new to the Presbyterian family, having grown up in the Methodist church. I learned of the decision today in our church. I was so distracted with seeking bible verses on the subject that I lost tract of the sermon. I do not know what this will mean for our own congregation and we will be patient and await that decision. Should the decision be in favor of adopting these amendments, we will not in good faith be able to remain with this facet of the Presbyterian church. |
CHARLES SANDEFUR
said:
|
las vegas, NV TO James D. Berkley, YOU TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH....ONLY BETTER. |
Trish Rogers
said:
|
... We always ask where is the Spirit leading us today. It's wonderful to see the church following a path of inclusion rather than exclusion. I don't think that Jesus ever asked us to decide who God love's most.Moreover, it's not smart. Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, said, "I am convinced that if the rate of change inside an organization is less than the rate of change outside, the end is in sight." The world has been leading on this path. IF we want to stay vital, we need to catch up, to stand with the just. |
Marcia Lewis
said:
|
Moberly, MO For those of us who choose to stay in our hometown churches worshiping as we have for years with our friends and families despite our strong opposition to this ruling based on our understanding of the Word of God which shall never change - where is our financial "relief of conscious?" |
Dan Wolpert
said:
|
MN I've always felt that making ordination standards about one issue is an enormous error and distracts the majority from confession, repentance, and accountability in their spiritual life. We ordain people who: don't tithe, are mean, are divorced, don't come to church much, never participate in mission, abuse their kids, love war and violence, just to mention a few things. All of these are behaviors that go against Biblical teachings and what God wants, yet we turn a blind eye because they are the sins of the majority and not a specific minority. If we only ordained those who actually practiced Christianity as Jesus preached, we wouldn't have enough folks to fill our Sessions. I would suggest we quite worrying about this one issue and start trying to practice our faith. Peace, Dan |
Penn Hackney
said:
|
Pittsburgh, PA Thank you, Carl Wilton, for your thoughtful response. It inspired me to make just two additional comments. In addition to wondering why remarriage after divorce and interracial marriage were not "enduring standards" of "Biblical morality", I would add the ordination of women. Those were surely “seismic changes” that, in my view, theologically *require* the amendment that has apparently passed. Where have those "anchors" gone?" Second, the language of the present section that excludes anyone from office who is honest enough to acknowledge "any ... practice which the confessions call sin" exposes the factual and theological impossibility (if not hypocrisy) of an “anchor” for ordination standards based on sexual orientation or activity. In my view the new language gets the focus right, and is based on truly Reformed principles of human depravity and God's grace. On issues of this caliber, the desideratum of following “centuries of tradition” is no more persuasive than were the counter-Reformation insistence on that standard in the 16th Century. |
Patricia Slomanski
said:
|
Benson, N. C. Dr. Berkley, Thank you so much for your tireless prophetic efforts in espousing the truth of God's Word in regards to human sexuality. You and several others have pounded and pounded the truth into the hearts and minds of Presbyterians for years. Sadly, it seems that the majority of the denominational leaders and laity have closed their ears to your faithful message. Instead of accepting and following what God's Word clearly says to us about human sexuality, they have decided to be the "deciders" who will determine what is moral or not moral. They, in fact, have thumbed their noses at God's Word, and, as the Book of Judges tells us over and over: "...the people did what was right in their own eyes." Like you and thousands of other Presbyterians, I grieve on this day. Surely God must grieve, also, as His children have turned their backs on the Bible, which is not a witness among many, but THE witness without parallel(Confession of 1967). For your tireless efforts I give thanks to God. For the church of my childhood which I have dearly loved, I pray for God's mercies as it, as you say, wanders off after Baal. Tears are being shed, and hearts are broken on this day as our beloved denomination's witness to the world has been compromised and diminished. It is my prayer that the Holy Spirit will convict it of its erring path and bring it back unto God's Holy Self. May it be so in the coming days. |
Penn Hackney
said:
|
Pittsburgh, PA In response to Jim Caraher, it seems to me that the new language will engender *more searching* and *more personal* scrutiny of a candidate's life style. Especially if unmarried, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and currently or in the past have lived with a romantic partner. |
David McCann
said:
|
Ada, Oklahoma I have a couple of observations. As Sherrie has pointed out, 10-A will also allow the ordination of active heterosexuals who are not married. Speaking from an ethical viewpoint, we have started down the slippery slope. At what point will we ordain those who have multiple sexual partners? After all, Abraham had Hagar, Kings David and Solomon had a large retinue of wives. At what point will we be unable to define sexual misconduct? Can we even define it now? At what point will folks be denied ordination or censured and stripped of ordination because they believe it wrong to ordain practicing homosexuals and practicing unmarried heterosexuals? My second observation has to do with the wording in 10-A that reduces scripture to a "guide." That means scripture is no longer "the only rule of faith and manners" (G-1.0307)nor will those who are ordained have to live "under the authority of scripture" (W-4.4003d). Again we are now heading down the slippery slope of universaism. At what point, will acceptable statements of faith include references to and reverence of Muhammed and the Quran, Buddha, the Rig Veda and Vishnu,the Analects of Confucius, the teachings of Lao Tzu, to name a few? At what point will sermons be preached off of texts other than the Bible? It seems to me there was either poor judgment in wording or a deceptive deliberate intent in the writing of 10-A to make scripture a mere guideline, which has moved the Presbyterian Church into the realm of universalism. Unfortunately, the debate on 10-A was focused below the waist, instead of above the neck, and the result, I believe, is the biggest theological shift ever in the Reformed tradition by reducing scripture from the Word of God to a book of mere guidelines on par with all the gibberish published in the self-help section of local bookstores. I'd be curious to know if others share this theological concern about this sudden shift in our understanding of scripture. |
Timothy Filston
said:
|
Signal Mountain, TN I was taken aback at first by the way the Outlook article is framed, that removing the "fidelity and chastity" clause assumes that gays and lesbians may now be ordained. That section was added to the Book of Order mainly to reinforce what is clear throughout the confessions and scripture about ordination standards. But, I'm not suggesting the article has gotten it wrong, because this vote is a symbolic act, and symbolism is just about all that the PCUSA points to for direction. It has not identified with any clear confessional standard for some time. Instead, PCUSA culture regards the Gospel message as symbolic in order to grant the broadest interpretive license. For more than a generation, this approach has been presumed to be the most fair, open position and therefore the most intellectually "honest." However, it actually represents a very narrow commitment (e.g. doctrine) to Hegel's school of thought. A good image for it is the melting pot, where truth is found only in a blend of competing trendy ideas rather than, for example, any plain-sense reading of scripture. This idea that pluralism makes the world more fair and better is the secular trend that the the denomination is chasing. Although some in the PCUSA privately might not agree with this doctrine of pluralism, make no mistake that it is the doctrine by which even many evangelicals are functioning within the denomination. So, a church that has adopted this melting-pot doctrine must resort to symbolism to maintain its identity/unity rather than basing it squarely upon its documented convictions (i.e. essential tenets). Through this symbolic gesture then, it has cracked open the door to allow gay and lesbian ordination. I like what Chesterton said over a hundred years ago about this kind of thing. "I freely confess all the idiotic ambitions of the end of the nineteenth century. I did, like all other solemn little boys, try to be in advance of the age. Like them I tried to be some ten minutes in advance of the truth. And I found that I was eighteen hundred years behind it." Dr. Timothy H. Filston Signal Mountain Presbyterian tfilston@signalpres.org www.signalpres.org |
Jim Caraher
said:
|
Chicago, IL If I was a Presbyterian, I would be quite content with this change which will enable gays to be full, honored participants in all aspects of church life. However it would bother me immensely that my church now has nothing definitive to say to a sex drenched culture on God's counsel to us as sexual beings. It would bother me immensely that my church appears to lack the moral clarity of the Lutherans who recently embraced "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same gender relationships." Would any serious, conscientious Christian really want to be part of a church that had as little to say on race and gender as the Presbyterian church now has to say on the issue of sex? |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertvile, nj In my military days you learn to get outside of a problem or issue by stepping back and getting up, above an issue to a "12,000 ft view" of a very complex situation. The 12K foot view is that the issue 10-A, in essence has little to do with the PCUSA proper. The PCUSA exists as a legal entity, laws of incorporation, has staff, pays people, but as a functional, national, really pluralistic and diverse national religious denomination, has ceased to functional as a Church or national denomination on a constitutional/confessional basis. Has been for quite sometime. 10-A is only the logical consequence of the fracture and dislocation of national old main line Protestant religious denominationalism in a post-modern, fractured, polarized national condition. The supporters of 10-A tend to be syncratic, pan-universalist, experienental in their religious and social outlook. The process of 10-A is but a road sign to the eventual, 7-10 years union of progressive/liberal religious groups, PCUSA, UCC, CC(DC), RCA into a new construct that welcomes sexual and as well as behavoral variations. The "refugees" from this slow moving process, will find themselves migrating over time to those organizations that share their simular beliefs and values. This is now, has happened, and will continue in the future. Those opposed to 10-A I am sure will assume they can covenant or form some type of new denomination within the denomination, some forms of associations, what have you, but the progressive/liberal majority will never allow such, that would involve money, property,or power over process. I served in National Capital and Baltimore Presbyteries, I know how they think. Religious traditionalists are more than welcome to leave or move along, just drop the keys off before you go. As far as clergy pensions, health care of those who would like to leave, get a grip. If you think the PUCSA will take care of you when the demographic time-bomb of retired clergy costs vs. actual paying, viable churches is the story that has yet to be told. But that is not the issue today. |
Don McLean
said:
|
Portsmouth VA There are several things in play here. First, how much of what the Bible says is intended to be universally followed, and how much simply reflects human customs and culture of Bible times? I don’t propose an answer here, other than that the Bible is God’s Word for us, but you can look to past issues like slavery, the role of women, divorce, and even the conduct of warfare (the herem; see Joshua 6:16-21, 8:21-28, 11:9-12, and lots of others). Our beliefs in these areas have changed as the reality of the Cross and Resurrection have continued to work on and in us. Judaic religion definitely believed that homosexuality (or sexual deviance in any form) was a major sin. The debate is at least in part about how to understand the role of the Bible in our lives. ALL of us are inconsistent! Let’s keep talking. Second, and equally important to me, is this: How much does the Holy Spirit continue to work in our midst? I am a later-in-life convert to being Presbyterian. One of the powerful things I was taught about our polity is this: we believe that when we are gathered prayerfully to make decisions, as in Presbytery meetings or General Assembly, and open to the Holy Spirit, the decisions we make are guided by that same Spirit. NOWHERE in the debate am I hearing the question forcefully asked: “Is this what God in the Holy Spirit is moving us to do?” Again, I don’t have the answer! – only God does. But if we have faith, we might just want to believe that God isn’t abandoning us to our own devices. Here’s a concept most folks haven’t thought of: because of our characteristic openness to debate, is it possible that God has chosen us, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), to go through this angst, this trauma, for HIS purposes? Third, and related to that, is the fact that the old G6.0106b forcefully blocked the Spirit from working! Here’s how: by mandating in a book (the Book of Order) what Sessions and Presbyteries are supposed to do, the Holy Spirit is cut off from its rightful place at the table when we examine and consider God’s people for special service. Doesn’t matter whether God might or might not want to move this person into ordained service; doesn’t matter that good, loving counsel and perhaps career choices other than ordination could be revealed through talking and sharing; with G6.0101b in place the discussion couldn’t even take place. We need to step back and make room for the Holy Spirit to work! That might or might not mean some persons get ordained to service – it all depends on how the Spirit speaks. My final thought is I want us all to pray for each other. Especially we need to pray for those who will sit on various Examination Committees or other boards. In this climate, it’s going to require courage to listen for the Spirit, and then to step forward and do what each of us hears the Spirit calling us to do, because no matter what it is, somebody’s going to disagree. Let’s trust God’s Spirit to pull us all together! Don McLean, Pastor Portsmouth, VA |
Joe Duffus
said:
|
Gainesville Va In a sense, this vote is an acknowledgement of reality that flaky congregations have been doing this on their own for years without sanction or punishment of any kind, and now they can do it even more openly. But it’s also obvious that, thus emboldened, the next move will be to allow gay marriage ceremonies, etc. in the church. Gradye Parsons said they attributed the "victory" to a few factors including that many large churches had left PC(USA) in disgust between this vote and the last, so the denomination’s political center has shifted to the left in their absence. To me, this cements that the PC(USA) is dying. One of the things that has really bothered me about this lengthy campaign is that it is being done in the face of obvious statistics about declining church numbers. This vote pretty much guarantees more flight, weaker churches, continued fractiousness over sexual ethics and church property issues as the traditionalists fall away and leave the liberals to sleep in the smaller bed they have made. Their stance is: better a smaller, even dwindling church with no standards and a rubbery understanding of Scripture than a larger church full of the "diversity" of opinion they claim to champion. The burden of victory now is for them to show that there is blessing in this. When shall we see the flood of new, active, eager disciples whose energies have supposedly been thwarted all these years by their inability to honestly declare their sexual identity? Isn't the point of having elders, deacons and ministers to bring confessing people to Jesus and nurture them in the faith? To speak plainly, I don't expect it, certainly not in numbers great enough to offset the continued drifting away of those saddened by this seismic leap away from traditional Christian morality. |
Sherrie Lavelle
said:
|
Silver City, NM The PC(USA) also opens the door to the ordination of heterosexuals who are sexually active outside of marriage. THAT is even more "seismic," and has been pretty much ignored. The vote was to do away with fidelity or chastity requirements period, no sexual orientation specified. We have effectively voted to separate our sexual behavior from our Christian walk. God have mercy. |
Rev Dan Clark
said:
|
Warminster, PA Well, old friend Bill Silver, who started all of this way back in the late 70's(has it been that long?), take some comfort in your grave. You really "honked off" the denomination with your "I want to be ordained but hey, I am gay" attitude but, in the end, the justice of your position could not be denied. Thanks, Bill. |
Carl Wilton
said:
|
Point Pleasant Beach Mr. Berkeley is correct in objecting to Ms. Scanlon's misleading description of the church's prohibition on the ordination of self-avowed, practicing gays and lesbians as a "14-year-old requirement." While it's true that the specific language of G-6.0106b is only 14 years old, let's not kid ourselves: Amendment 10-A is a historic change to centuries of tradition, founded on long-established biblical interpretations. That was abundantly clear 15 years ago (to this observer, anyway), in the floor debate at the Albuquerque General Assembly, as G-6.0106b was being hammered out by means of a motion and a series of refining amendments. There was scant opportunity for comment by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (who would likely have cautioned the Assembly to mend some of the careless wording of that section, especially the unnecessarily global clause, "any practice that the Confessions call sin.") It was a rushed job. There was much talk, at the time, of the urgent need to "lock in" the traditional understanding of sexual ethics by means of an amendment, before it was too late. Such comments reveal that proponents of G-6.0106b were running scared, even 15 years ago. Many could see a gradual trend towards altering ordination standards, a steadily growing consensus that change is necessary. Traditionalists were eager to throw out a constitutional anchor, so the ship whose sails were even then starting to fill with a fresh wind couldn't leave the harbor. Well, a majority of the presbyteries has now voted to cut that anchor cable. The ship will soon be free to venture into relatively uncharted waters, where only a handful of denominations worldwide have been before. Mr. Berkley bemoans the fact that there are so few other denominations who will be joining us in exploring those waters. Yet, does change happen in the church in any other way? What about the prohibition of slavery, and the acceptance of both remarriage after divorce and interracial marriage? A "we'll be all alone out there" argument, similar to the one Mr. Berkley is now making, was frequently deployed at the time. It, too, cited centuries of tradition and long-established biblical interpretations. Had the church heeded that argument, we'd be in a very different place right now - a place I'd venture to guess that not even Mr. Berkley would like to be. Now, I realize we can't generalize from those earlier controversies, predicting exactly where the PC(USA) is going to come out on the sexual-ethics debate, decades from now. Will today's bare majority become future years' unquestioned consensus? Enough Presbyterian ministers and elders now believe that's a risk worth taking. Only time will tell if the breeze that's filling the sails is - as many now believe - not an ill wind, but the wind of the Spirit. |
Covenant Network of Presbyterians
said:
|
... A Statement by the Board of Directors of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians May 10, 2011 The Covenant Network of Presbyterians is deeply grateful for the passage of Amendment 10-A, which replaces a contested sexual ethic in the Presbyterian Church’s ordination standards and reaffirms the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life. This is a change for which we and many others have worked for years. We rejoice that gay and lesbian Presbyterians, gifted and called by God, are now able to serve more openly in ordained office. We believe that the church will be strengthened by this change. At the same time, we recognize that Presbyterians are not of one mind about the wisdom of this reform and the interpretation of scripture in matters of sexual ethics. Amendment 10-A permits Presbyterians to hold and respect diverse views. The Covenant Network has always had the unity of the church as one of its primary goals. We therefore will continue to promote dialogue and shared mission across the church. We pray that all Presbyterians may strengthen and support one another, witnessing to the Gospel, promoting reconciliation through Jesus Christ, and working together to realize the reign of God in all creation. |
James D. Berkley
said:
|
Seattle, WA It is fundamentally misleading to write that "[t]he historic move will end a 14-year-old requirement that those being ordained as ministers, elders or deacons practice fidelity if they are married or chastity if they are single." It is simply not true. Fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness were not suddenly imposed 14 years ago! These virtues have been expected of Christian leaders since there have been Christian leaders. Think of it in the negative: What Christian church has ever been in favor of infidelity in marriage and unchastity in singleness? What nonsense! Fidelity and chastity were not imposed suddenly as if they had been foreign to Christian practice since the apostles. What happened 14 years ago is that Presbyterians had become so dismissive of biblical morality--morality that had always been assumed as baseline sexual practice--that finally the PCUSA was forced to write the enduring standards into our Book of Order. Without them being spelled out clearly, the weasely ones among us were ready to claim that such standards didn't actually exist. So the standards were made abundantly clear. Now the PCUSA is acting as if we can make up this morality thing as we go along, as if it is up to us to determine by popular vote what God's will is for our sexual behavior. Nonsense! What the PCUSA has done is to wander off after Baal. God gave us the Law, but we have now made a golden calf out of homosexual angst. Disgraceful! |







