Today is a big day. We'll be hearing a lot during the plenary business meetings today, and we'll be hearing from some of the most controversial committees - those that dealt with issues of ordination and Israel & Palestine. As I sat in these committees, and as I heard Overture Advocates, commissioners, advisory delegates and those in the open hearings all speak to these issues, I noticed one tactic being used that stood out over all others: a tactic of fear.
There is a general undercurrent of fear amidst some folks here at the assembly. This fear is often presented in the following way: "If we adopt _____, then people are going to leave the church." Or, you may have heard: "If I have to go back to my presbytery and tell them _____, I am positive that they will leave the denomination." This fear is a fear of dissent, of schism, of churches leaving the denomination over a decision that is made here in San Jose this week. I heard it from overture advocates, I heard it from YAADs, I heard it from TSADS and many others.
After hearing it so much, I can only guess that it is a tactic being used by folks from certain conservative affinity groups; by causing people to think that voting a certain way will cause the church to split, perhaps they can sway them in a different direction. After all, who wants to be the one to vote for the recommendation that will divide the church?
Over and over again, I heard it. During the Church Orders and Ministry Committee, one commissioner stated that "If this passes - we're going to bleed!" Later on, an Elder Commissioner from southern California said, "We're not going to bleed - we're going to divide. 22,000 in our presbytery will go to 4,000. San Diego will break off and make their own, Santa Barbara will make their own..."
This is a weak argument. According to numbers just recently released, the PC(USA) denomination lost 57,000 members this year - we're going to lose members regardless if we pass a recommendation to delete G-6.0106b or not. Furthermore, we're going to lose members if we DON'T pass a recommendation to delete G-6.0106b. It's not only those who are against the ordination of LGBT folk who may leave the church. There are those who are for it, those who are working for a just church, who may leave if they don't see the denomination change its ways.
When did the most important thing become the number of churches, or the number of congregants in each church? We're called to live in the way of Jesus, to seek to understand God's hopes and dreams for the world, and to live lives working for the kingdom of God. This "battle-cry" of fear, this attempt to make people think that a specific issue is going to be the one that will break apart the church, seems to be a tactic being used to create fear in the people here making decisions this week.
As we enter into this day, I'd encourage you to listen for this battle-cry. Listen to how many people try to tell us that if we recommend to remove G-6.0106b, if we take a critical stance against the State of Israel, if we do these things, our churches will be leaving in droves and they'll all want to take their property with them. As we approach these very important issues, I hope we'd listen to the wisdom of William Sloane Coffin. In his book "Letters to a Young Doubter," he has this great line that I want to share with you:
"It's always a good time to change your mind when to do so will widen your heart."
My prayer is that those in the Presbyterian Church (USA) would be known for having wide hearts.
Some folks have responded privately to me that I was misjudging folks with whom I disagree. A couple responses:
- I'm not speaking for the Outlook on this matter; this is my own take on this issue.
- A blog is an open forum - readers are invited to leave a comment. There is also some difference between straight news articles like you'll find in News and Analysis and blog posts.
- I wasn't saying that everyone who is against the ordination of LGBT folk is motivated by fear. I was saying that there is a group of people here at GA, who I've observed, that I think are trying to use a tactic of fear in their arguments.
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Your Responses (17)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Response from Barbara Kellam-Scott,
July 11, 2008
Yes, let's not worry about authority
Yes, let's not worry about authority
Thank you, Tom Eggebeen, for stating again where we should not bother to spin our wheels. I really have less than no interest in continuing to engage a dogpile picking at my honest expression of faith, which at worst is an attempt to disclaim any authority to pick at others' expressions. If any of you want to engage me in substance, please come to my Yahoo group (link below) and take on my actual interpretations.
I must, however, take one last stand to clarify what I've said and not said: Walter Taylor charges me with denying what I affirmed at my ordination. I have said explicitly that I do indeed "receive and accept the Scriptures ... as God's Word to [me]," but there's no way every English word (in which version?) can be God's words every day. It takes work to hear the Word, sometimes more than other times and from other passages. Women know this particularly well because we have to search behind the interpretive layers to find, for instance, that all the nouns of the creation of humanity from dust are grammatically feminine. No, it's not a big deal theologically, but it's at least as big as the grammatically masculine words for God. And I invite you to tell any woman you know about it and ask her if it matters. Join the struggle, Walter. Wrestle with me and the cloud of witnesses with this amazing heritage we have. Wrestling, after all, is the whole name of the game (Israel).
bks
I must, however, take one last stand to clarify what I've said and not said: Walter Taylor charges me with denying what I affirmed at my ordination. I have said explicitly that I do indeed "receive and accept the Scriptures ... as God's Word to [me]," but there's no way every English word (in which version?) can be God's words every day. It takes work to hear the Word, sometimes more than other times and from other passages. Women know this particularly well because we have to search behind the interpretive layers to find, for instance, that all the nouns of the creation of humanity from dust are grammatically feminine. No, it's not a big deal theologically, but it's at least as big as the grammatically masculine words for God. And I invite you to tell any woman you know about it and ask her if it matters. Join the struggle, Walter. Wrestle with me and the cloud of witnesses with this amazing heritage we have. Wrestling, after all, is the whole name of the game (Israel).
bks
Response from Tom Eggebeen,
July 10, 2008
Where from Here?
Where from Here?
Now that we’ve demonstrated what we all knew last year and the year before, that we have varying takes on Scripture and how it’s to be read, received, interpreted, preached and lived … Where do we go from here?
I’ve had the privilege of reading Gerald Sittser’s book, “Love One Another: Becoming the Church Jesus Longs for,” wherein Sittser reminds us, There is something more important than being right. That something is being loving. Jesus Christ, the LORD of the church, calls us to obey one supreme command: to love one another as Jesus has loved us No disagreement is so important, no division so final, no clash so intense that we are relieved of the responsibility to live like Jesus.
Even as I type these words, I can hear a chorus of folks saying, “Well, Jesus spoke pretty harshly to the Pharisees and told His disciples to shake dust at those who didn’t receive them.”
Yes, yes, yes … but if those be the words that guide and determine how we deal with one another in the same household of faith, those of our kind, who profess the name of Jesus (what shall we do with that? Declare them lairs, deceivers, deceived?), then we have broken with the One who dies for the world and offers forgiveness to all. And if all we call love are those who stand in agreement us, then how can that be labeled love. Jesus put His finger on such tiny sentiments when He asks, For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Love, defined by God, draws the circle large.
We have driven the stake into the ground so many times, we have drawn lines in the sand, and while feeling some personal victory in hurling charges at one another, questioning one another’s faith, and going through every statement with a fine-toothed comb hoping to find some error, some misstatement, something we can question dogmatically, we further crucify Jesus on the cross of our own pride and stubbornness.
We must never forget who crucified Jesus: religious folk who were expert at straining gnats and swallowing camels.
Being raised in the heart of Dutch Calvinism, a graduate of Calvin College and Western Theological Seminary, having read most of Calvin and tons of Calvinist scholars, I know the value of dogma, but Rob Bell of Mars Hill in Grandville, MI accurately writes: The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up, and, Doctrine is a wonderful servant and a horrible master (Velvet Elvis, p.25).
At this point in time, we have substituted pronouncements for conversation. Email doesn’t help; in cyberspace, we can safely hide behind our self-erected monuments of rectitude, believing the other to be enemy.
Is this what Jesus would have for us?
Believe what you will, believe what you must, but we must not break faith and trust with one another. There is something more important than being right
I’ve had the privilege of reading Gerald Sittser’s book, “Love One Another: Becoming the Church Jesus Longs for,” wherein Sittser reminds us, There is something more important than being right. That something is being loving. Jesus Christ, the LORD of the church, calls us to obey one supreme command: to love one another as Jesus has loved us No disagreement is so important, no division so final, no clash so intense that we are relieved of the responsibility to live like Jesus.
Even as I type these words, I can hear a chorus of folks saying, “Well, Jesus spoke pretty harshly to the Pharisees and told His disciples to shake dust at those who didn’t receive them.”
Yes, yes, yes … but if those be the words that guide and determine how we deal with one another in the same household of faith, those of our kind, who profess the name of Jesus (what shall we do with that? Declare them lairs, deceivers, deceived?), then we have broken with the One who dies for the world and offers forgiveness to all. And if all we call love are those who stand in agreement us, then how can that be labeled love. Jesus put His finger on such tiny sentiments when He asks, For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Love, defined by God, draws the circle large.
We have driven the stake into the ground so many times, we have drawn lines in the sand, and while feeling some personal victory in hurling charges at one another, questioning one another’s faith, and going through every statement with a fine-toothed comb hoping to find some error, some misstatement, something we can question dogmatically, we further crucify Jesus on the cross of our own pride and stubbornness.
We must never forget who crucified Jesus: religious folk who were expert at straining gnats and swallowing camels.
Being raised in the heart of Dutch Calvinism, a graduate of Calvin College and Western Theological Seminary, having read most of Calvin and tons of Calvinist scholars, I know the value of dogma, but Rob Bell of Mars Hill in Grandville, MI accurately writes: The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up, and, Doctrine is a wonderful servant and a horrible master (Velvet Elvis, p.25).
At this point in time, we have substituted pronouncements for conversation. Email doesn’t help; in cyberspace, we can safely hide behind our self-erected monuments of rectitude, believing the other to be enemy.
Is this what Jesus would have for us?
Believe what you will, believe what you must, but we must not break faith and trust with one another. There is something more important than being right
Response from Walter Taylor,
July 10, 2008
...
...
To Barbara Kellam-Scott,
Two things I would say.
1) Your notion of revelation reminds me of what I once heard characterized as "the inspiration of the moment."
2) Your comment about one of the "Constitutional Questions" asked at ordination and installation seems to forget an important point in it. You state, "I affirm, as I did at my ordination (ruling elder), that it contains "the unique and authoritative witness" to what others of God's beloved children, in very different times and places from mine, could make of their experience of Grace, their wordS, interpreted and reinterpreted through millennia of oral tradition, commentary, selection, redaction, translation, and versioning."
What you have forgotten is that this same question asks you to affirm that the Bible is "God's word to me." You have denied that in your posting.
Two things I would say.
1) Your notion of revelation reminds me of what I once heard characterized as "the inspiration of the moment."
2) Your comment about one of the "Constitutional Questions" asked at ordination and installation seems to forget an important point in it. You state, "I affirm, as I did at my ordination (ruling elder), that it contains "the unique and authoritative witness" to what others of God's beloved children, in very different times and places from mine, could make of their experience of Grace, their wordS, interpreted and reinterpreted through millennia of oral tradition, commentary, selection, redaction, translation, and versioning."
What you have forgotten is that this same question asks you to affirm that the Bible is "God's word to me." You have denied that in your posting.
Response from Barbara Kellam-Scott,
July 05, 2008
authority
authority
Dennis, we certainly have different views of Scripture, but I'm not sure which is higher, lower, or more dangerous to the community. (At least in using that word you've kept to a piece of the topic of the original blog of this thread.)
I am sure that you've misunderstood my claim of authority, because I claim authority only to say what does or does not witness to God's Grace to me and at a particular moment (though I will acknowledge there are some small bits in which I almost never find Grace, and those I avoid). I don't see how that authority can be questioned. What I most appreciate about my community (PCUSA large and small) supporting that authority is that my community is officially open to hear what I have found, and that the cloud of witnesses (including those represented in the Bible as actors, recorders, and interpreters) is ready to engage me in the continuing work of interpretation. I don't consider that work any more finished than the witness, and I thank God for it.
bks
I am sure that you've misunderstood my claim of authority, because I claim authority only to say what does or does not witness to God's Grace to me and at a particular moment (though I will acknowledge there are some small bits in which I almost never find Grace, and those I avoid). I don't see how that authority can be questioned. What I most appreciate about my community (PCUSA large and small) supporting that authority is that my community is officially open to hear what I have found, and that the cloud of witnesses (including those represented in the Bible as actors, recorders, and interpreters) is ready to engage me in the continuing work of interpretation. I don't consider that work any more finished than the witness, and I thank God for it.
bks
Response from Dennis Coles,
July 04, 2008
...
...
@bks
Wow, you have a very loooow view of Scripture. Of course we live in a post-historical critical era and must take historical, cultural, rhetorical context into consideration when engaging in interpretation. It seems as though you've taken a position that places yourself over, or at least on par with the text. That seems dangerous, unwise, and ultimately untenable for the denomination.
It is dangerous because you, a redeemed-sinner is making yourself an authority on what and what does not count as a witness to God's grace. It is unwise because, well to put it crudely, who the heck are you? Should the witness of Scripture bow before you just because you happen to live at this time and in this place, where we 'know so much better than they [the writers, redactors, oral sources] did.' Lastly it is untenable because it represents the worst of Protestant ecclesiology, hyper-individualization of interpretation. We read Scripture as a community, a global and historical community. Your position on what or what does not count as God's word is measured against that cloud of witnesses, you would do well to keep that in mind.
Wow, you have a very loooow view of Scripture. Of course we live in a post-historical critical era and must take historical, cultural, rhetorical context into consideration when engaging in interpretation. It seems as though you've taken a position that places yourself over, or at least on par with the text. That seems dangerous, unwise, and ultimately untenable for the denomination.
It is dangerous because you, a redeemed-sinner is making yourself an authority on what and what does not count as a witness to God's grace. It is unwise because, well to put it crudely, who the heck are you? Should the witness of Scripture bow before you just because you happen to live at this time and in this place, where we 'know so much better than they [the writers, redactors, oral sources] did.' Lastly it is untenable because it represents the worst of Protestant ecclesiology, hyper-individualization of interpretation. We read Scripture as a community, a global and historical community. Your position on what or what does not count as God's word is measured against that cloud of witnesses, you would do well to keep that in mind.
Response from Barbara Kellam-Scott,
July 01, 2008
Foundational issues
Foundational issues
Friends, much as I appreciate the conversation I see going on here, it also seems we're again talking past each other because we're speaking somewhat different languages. I see phrases like "God's revealed word" (and sigh relief that it's a small w), and even Drew talks about "the intent of" single verses from Genesis. These just aren't concepts that are either going to win over "the other" or beat her/im into submission.
I myself do not believe that the Bible is God's or anyone's revealed word. I affirm, as I did at my ordination (ruling elder), that it contains "the unique and authoritative witness" to what others of God's beloved children, in very different times and places from mine, could make of their experience of Grace, their wordS, interpreted and reinterpreted through millennia of oral tradition, commentary, selection, redaction, translation, and versioning. They include witness to some things that were not from Grace. I promised only to struggle to let that witness reveal God's Word to me, and sometimes, with some of the words, it's a losing battle. A big part of the reason I'm a Presbyterian (or active in any church, I must say), is that this church empowers and encourages me to continue that work of interpretation, always embracing the possibilty that I could be entirely wrong. I welcome the opportunity to hear others' interpretations, but I cannot start from an assumption that they're right and I'm wrong (or the other way around). It is indeed a process of discernment that must always be open to coming to the unexpected — to God doing something new, in 2008, with me and with you.
All that said, I have a very simple question for all and sundry: Please show me the biblical evidence for our definition of "marriage." I don't mean "he took her to wife," which is just as well translated "as his woman." I've seen mentions of wedding feasts, but nothing of any of the vows and rites that we find so crucial. To go back to Genesis, who married Adam and Eve? Oh yeah, it's a story told by others long after the putative events, not a timely record that we would recognize as historical. But if this is the ultimate model of God's revealed intention for all humanity, and if the writers of the story had a concept of marriage that we would recognize, wouldn't they have put something of it in their account?
bks
I myself do not believe that the Bible is God's or anyone's revealed word. I affirm, as I did at my ordination (ruling elder), that it contains "the unique and authoritative witness" to what others of God's beloved children, in very different times and places from mine, could make of their experience of Grace, their wordS, interpreted and reinterpreted through millennia of oral tradition, commentary, selection, redaction, translation, and versioning. They include witness to some things that were not from Grace. I promised only to struggle to let that witness reveal God's Word to me, and sometimes, with some of the words, it's a losing battle. A big part of the reason I'm a Presbyterian (or active in any church, I must say), is that this church empowers and encourages me to continue that work of interpretation, always embracing the possibilty that I could be entirely wrong. I welcome the opportunity to hear others' interpretations, but I cannot start from an assumption that they're right and I'm wrong (or the other way around). It is indeed a process of discernment that must always be open to coming to the unexpected — to God doing something new, in 2008, with me and with you.
All that said, I have a very simple question for all and sundry: Please show me the biblical evidence for our definition of "marriage." I don't mean "he took her to wife," which is just as well translated "as his woman." I've seen mentions of wedding feasts, but nothing of any of the vows and rites that we find so crucial. To go back to Genesis, who married Adam and Eve? Oh yeah, it's a story told by others long after the putative events, not a timely record that we would recognize as historical. But if this is the ultimate model of God's revealed intention for all humanity, and if the writers of the story had a concept of marriage that we would recognize, wouldn't they have put something of it in their account?
bks
Response from Drew Tatusko,
June 30, 2008
...
...
Question is this: What is the intent of the Genesis passages (1:27, 2:24) without which we would not be having this discussion at all? Is it not for the purposes of pro-creation? What of relationships that cannot or choose not to pro-create?
Two caveats, I am not convinced that Paul had homosexual relationships in mind at all that would be of a committed nature. In fact it is hard to argue that the general context from what we know that the idea of homosexuality would be all that supported in the Jewish diaspora or elsewhere. But contexts do change over time and hence our readings change over time. Gagnon makes two points here:
1. That sin itself was not seen as something we can control, and so homosexuality is no different. Therefore, it should be struggled with at all costs as other sins. However, the tension point in Romans is that we are all sinners, that the law condemns us as a result, and that because of the resurrection there is no longer condemnation. While it does not give license to sin, the law is no longer the means by which salvation can be achieved. It is wholly an act of grace by God that saves. That is a point that I have not seen much of in Gagnon's argument. Now I am sure he has accounted for it before, but the several pieces of his I have read make no attempt to voice the tension between the law and grace which seems essential.
2. The issue with slavery and why it is not a good comparison seems to do with the tensions regarding slavery in Scripture. True there are tensions, but these have to do with the treatment of a slave and not the existence of slaves. The message is clear, it is OK to have a slave, just treat them well. If you are a slave, find God in the midst of your lot in life. Now our enlightened intuition tells us that even benevolent slavery is not a good thing. That itself is in tension with Scripture. Moreover, in keeping with Genesis, there is a clear order of creation in which a woman has a certain set of roles to perform and a man has a certain set of roles to perform. And again, these do have to do with the same order of creation that Gagnon argues as foundational to Paul and even Jesus. So I would ask for consistency here. If the order of creation goes beyond anatomical differences, then the differences that are complementary need to be consistent else our decisions are quite arbitrary with the role of women in the church.
In short the role of women in society and the homosexual issue come from the same set of socio-cultural assumptions that all have to do with the proper ordering of creation. Even though the role of women became more "equal" for Paul in some circumstances, it is clear that they still had a role that was subservient to men. And this still seems to be the main issue with homosexuality - a disturbance of the assumed order of complementary roles. The Catholic church is perhaps the most consistent here.
The main question is this: Can two people in a loving relationship regardless of gender receive the grace of Christ?
So my position is rather in keeping with Paul and the evidence to which I have been a witness of homosexual unions - the love and grace of Christ can indeed be received in the context of these relationships and it is best therefore to err on the side of grace where God is clearly present.
Two caveats, I am not convinced that Paul had homosexual relationships in mind at all that would be of a committed nature. In fact it is hard to argue that the general context from what we know that the idea of homosexuality would be all that supported in the Jewish diaspora or elsewhere. But contexts do change over time and hence our readings change over time. Gagnon makes two points here:
1. That sin itself was not seen as something we can control, and so homosexuality is no different. Therefore, it should be struggled with at all costs as other sins. However, the tension point in Romans is that we are all sinners, that the law condemns us as a result, and that because of the resurrection there is no longer condemnation. While it does not give license to sin, the law is no longer the means by which salvation can be achieved. It is wholly an act of grace by God that saves. That is a point that I have not seen much of in Gagnon's argument. Now I am sure he has accounted for it before, but the several pieces of his I have read make no attempt to voice the tension between the law and grace which seems essential.
2. The issue with slavery and why it is not a good comparison seems to do with the tensions regarding slavery in Scripture. True there are tensions, but these have to do with the treatment of a slave and not the existence of slaves. The message is clear, it is OK to have a slave, just treat them well. If you are a slave, find God in the midst of your lot in life. Now our enlightened intuition tells us that even benevolent slavery is not a good thing. That itself is in tension with Scripture. Moreover, in keeping with Genesis, there is a clear order of creation in which a woman has a certain set of roles to perform and a man has a certain set of roles to perform. And again, these do have to do with the same order of creation that Gagnon argues as foundational to Paul and even Jesus. So I would ask for consistency here. If the order of creation goes beyond anatomical differences, then the differences that are complementary need to be consistent else our decisions are quite arbitrary with the role of women in the church.
In short the role of women in society and the homosexual issue come from the same set of socio-cultural assumptions that all have to do with the proper ordering of creation. Even though the role of women became more "equal" for Paul in some circumstances, it is clear that they still had a role that was subservient to men. And this still seems to be the main issue with homosexuality - a disturbance of the assumed order of complementary roles. The Catholic church is perhaps the most consistent here.
The main question is this: Can two people in a loving relationship regardless of gender receive the grace of Christ?
So my position is rather in keeping with Paul and the evidence to which I have been a witness of homosexual unions - the love and grace of Christ can indeed be received in the context of these relationships and it is best therefore to err on the side of grace where God is clearly present.
Response from Brian Rihner,
June 30, 2008
...
...
"There is enough reasonable doubt in the [Biblical] text to suggest that same sex relationships are not all sinful". Drew, I think this is well stated - probably the key discussion point. Of course I disagree with the statement, but it is a starting point.
I don't see how it could be deemed reasonable to assume that same sex relationships are not all sinful from a text that never even hints that any type of homosexual relationship is blessed by God, and, which, when it talks about sexual relationships that are blessed, always describes them between a man and a women within a life-long marital commitment.
What is the Biblical argument for this "reasonableness"? Given God's original creation of male and female and Christ's definitive endorsement of this God-designed sexual order (Matt. 19) how is it reasonable to jump to the conclusion that God really meant to say that some homosexual relationships were blessed too?
Saying that one Greek word in 1 Corinthians "might" not mean "homosexual relationships" does little to further a positive affirmation of some homosexual relationships.
Again - as I have said before - the burden of proof is on the liberal/progressive viewpoint given what the only clear sexual ethic is in the Bible - man and women within the bounds of marriage. A man can have a loving relationship with another man - the Bible simply says that that relationship is not to be a sexual one or it is not blessed by God - it is sinful.
As to my "let you destroy yourself" comment, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My point was simply that, if homosexual relationships are sinful, it would not be loving to tell people that they are OK, anymore that it is loving to tell someone who continually commits adultery, lies, and exploits the poor that it is OK. Sin is destructive in all its forms - it is loving to encourage sinners to repent.
As to your comments about slavery and women - Gagnon does a good job of showing that category mistake people make in this regard. For one, they do not have anything to do with sexual relationships. A better comparison to look at would be incest or bestiality.
I don't see how it could be deemed reasonable to assume that same sex relationships are not all sinful from a text that never even hints that any type of homosexual relationship is blessed by God, and, which, when it talks about sexual relationships that are blessed, always describes them between a man and a women within a life-long marital commitment.
What is the Biblical argument for this "reasonableness"? Given God's original creation of male and female and Christ's definitive endorsement of this God-designed sexual order (Matt. 19) how is it reasonable to jump to the conclusion that God really meant to say that some homosexual relationships were blessed too?
Saying that one Greek word in 1 Corinthians "might" not mean "homosexual relationships" does little to further a positive affirmation of some homosexual relationships.
Again - as I have said before - the burden of proof is on the liberal/progressive viewpoint given what the only clear sexual ethic is in the Bible - man and women within the bounds of marriage. A man can have a loving relationship with another man - the Bible simply says that that relationship is not to be a sexual one or it is not blessed by God - it is sinful.
As to my "let you destroy yourself" comment, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My point was simply that, if homosexual relationships are sinful, it would not be loving to tell people that they are OK, anymore that it is loving to tell someone who continually commits adultery, lies, and exploits the poor that it is OK. Sin is destructive in all its forms - it is loving to encourage sinners to repent.
As to your comments about slavery and women - Gagnon does a good job of showing that category mistake people make in this regard. For one, they do not have anything to do with sexual relationships. A better comparison to look at would be incest or bestiality.
Response from Drew Tatusko,
June 29, 2008
...
...
Brian:
I too have done my fair share of exegesis so that is a red herring.
Issue of what the Bible explicitly teaches is also not all that compelling nor is the argument from tradition. Regardless of Paul's idea of slavery and how they should be treated, it is clearly never said that we cannot own workers to tidy up the place or tend to our fields without giving them a fair wage. The treatment of women and people of color follow the same course.
My argument is that there is enough reasonable doubt in the text to suggest that same sex relationships are not all sinful. The fear issue to which this post points is a reactionary response that will perhaps skew the results and the actual decision in order to provoke a disapproval of the GA's decisions which is based not on sound discussion, but on rhetoric. That is the part that is unhelpful. Clearly the charge is for people to go back to their presbyteries, engage in heartfelt and intentional discussion over the standards, and to approach this in as rational and level-headed manner as possible without using emotion as a level to elicit response. Doing otherwise would not be loving God and each other with our whole minds - an important command Jesus issued.
What is important is for everyone to bring their assumptions to the table and lay them bare for critique. We all have a tendency to bring untested assumptions to the table that we are overly protective of to a detrimental degree. If people's minds are made up before this process in the presbyteries begins it will be a disservice to the church and to this denomination. All sides of the issue have to be willing to give something up and to change in the process or the entire idea of "once reformed, always reforming" will be ignored as people become entrenched.
"I will encourage you destroy yourself" - I am not sure what this means. Unless you are suggesting that all people who are in same-sex relationships are going to hell. The evidence that homosexuals are destroying themselves runs in the other direction. Affirming these relationships will do a great deal to reduce the already dis-proportionately high suicide rate among closeted gay persons. Affirming this as a quite natural aspect of human sexuality would seem to promote health rather than harm.
I too have done my fair share of exegesis so that is a red herring.
Issue of what the Bible explicitly teaches is also not all that compelling nor is the argument from tradition. Regardless of Paul's idea of slavery and how they should be treated, it is clearly never said that we cannot own workers to tidy up the place or tend to our fields without giving them a fair wage. The treatment of women and people of color follow the same course.
My argument is that there is enough reasonable doubt in the text to suggest that same sex relationships are not all sinful. The fear issue to which this post points is a reactionary response that will perhaps skew the results and the actual decision in order to provoke a disapproval of the GA's decisions which is based not on sound discussion, but on rhetoric. That is the part that is unhelpful. Clearly the charge is for people to go back to their presbyteries, engage in heartfelt and intentional discussion over the standards, and to approach this in as rational and level-headed manner as possible without using emotion as a level to elicit response. Doing otherwise would not be loving God and each other with our whole minds - an important command Jesus issued.
What is important is for everyone to bring their assumptions to the table and lay them bare for critique. We all have a tendency to bring untested assumptions to the table that we are overly protective of to a detrimental degree. If people's minds are made up before this process in the presbyteries begins it will be a disservice to the church and to this denomination. All sides of the issue have to be willing to give something up and to change in the process or the entire idea of "once reformed, always reforming" will be ignored as people become entrenched.
"I will encourage you destroy yourself" - I am not sure what this means. Unless you are suggesting that all people who are in same-sex relationships are going to hell. The evidence that homosexuals are destroying themselves runs in the other direction. Affirming these relationships will do a great deal to reduce the already dis-proportionately high suicide rate among closeted gay persons. Affirming this as a quite natural aspect of human sexuality would seem to promote health rather than harm.
Response from Brian Rihner,
June 29, 2008
...
...
Drew – I think the term you are looking for is “proof-texting” – but I think you miss my point. I was not using 1 Cor. 6 as an example of how homosexual behavior is sinful (although I think the Bible clearly says it is in other places, quite possibly in this scripture, see below) – but I was using it along with the other scriptures listed to illustrate that both Jesus and Paul used fear as a valid tactic (in these cases fear of eternal punishment ).
I know the Greek (and Hebrew) have done the exegesis, and have read the competing scholarship on the homosexual issue in the Bible (Gagnon, Rogers, et al). It shows me that homosexuality is sinful in all of its forms. Even at times when I have wanted it not to be so – I had to let the Bible change me – I have no right to change the Bible.
You see the burden of proof in this issue is squarely on the liberal point of view (homosexuality in some forms in God blessed). For almost 2000 years the orthodox view has been the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality. If the Christian viewpoint is to be changed – something must change – either ignoring the Bible’s information or interpreting it differently.
As I said above, I have studied the issue, prayed about it, dialogued about it – and I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful in all its forms (Matthew 19:4-6, Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1, Lev. 18,20 et al). There are others that disagree in the PC(USA) and that is their right to do so. But the burden of proof is on them – and they must be very very sure that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is OK is some instances. For if they are wrong they have caused others to sin in the name of God – see Matt. 18:6 and James 3:1 (I suppose again, more battle-cries of fear).
So – to come full circle – the issue isn’t about fear really. The prophets used fear countless times in the Bible as a valid method of enticing people to turn to God and follow him. Jesus used it, so did many of his followers.
The issue is really about truth. In the homosexual discussion – does the Bible teach that it is sinful always or not? If it does teach that it is always sinful, which I believe it does, the only loving thing for me to do is to tell those who are practicing homosex that God wants them to repent and stop sinning. This should be my same response to those committing adultery, not forgiving others, disregarding the poor, or slandering their neighbor.
It makes no sense for me, with what I believe regarding about the Bible’s teaching on sexuality, to say to someone – “I love you so I will encourage you destroy yourself”.
Truth - John 8:31,32
I know the Greek (and Hebrew) have done the exegesis, and have read the competing scholarship on the homosexual issue in the Bible (Gagnon, Rogers, et al). It shows me that homosexuality is sinful in all of its forms. Even at times when I have wanted it not to be so – I had to let the Bible change me – I have no right to change the Bible.
You see the burden of proof in this issue is squarely on the liberal point of view (homosexuality in some forms in God blessed). For almost 2000 years the orthodox view has been the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality. If the Christian viewpoint is to be changed – something must change – either ignoring the Bible’s information or interpreting it differently.
As I said above, I have studied the issue, prayed about it, dialogued about it – and I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful in all its forms (Matthew 19:4-6, Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1, Lev. 18,20 et al). There are others that disagree in the PC(USA) and that is their right to do so. But the burden of proof is on them – and they must be very very sure that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is OK is some instances. For if they are wrong they have caused others to sin in the name of God – see Matt. 18:6 and James 3:1 (I suppose again, more battle-cries of fear).
So – to come full circle – the issue isn’t about fear really. The prophets used fear countless times in the Bible as a valid method of enticing people to turn to God and follow him. Jesus used it, so did many of his followers.
The issue is really about truth. In the homosexual discussion – does the Bible teach that it is sinful always or not? If it does teach that it is always sinful, which I believe it does, the only loving thing for me to do is to tell those who are practicing homosex that God wants them to repent and stop sinning. This should be my same response to those committing adultery, not forgiving others, disregarding the poor, or slandering their neighbor.
It makes no sense for me, with what I believe regarding about the Bible’s teaching on sexuality, to say to someone – “I love you so I will encourage you destroy yourself”.
Truth - John 8:31,32
Response from lexmel,
June 28, 2008
battle cry of fear
battle cry of fear
What fear? That God will exact Eternal punishment on sinners? That Christians who see other Christians in sin and are calling them on it and are sounding the warning? Gee, sorry I offend you by caring for this and the eternal rest of your life. This is why people don't go to church - they hear the truth that sets them free to attend the church of their choice. If you read your Bible, it explains that Christians are not to associate with unrepentant, Christian sinners. When the buildings, programs, and denominations are run by human beings there will always be sin and error. If one is truly Christian, you will read the Bible and discuss it with others more learned than you, follow the instructions for the abundant life God has for you and tell sinners what you found when you confessed your sin whatever it may be, actually repented, and sought God's will for your life. Until such a time as we can bring our God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - back into focus from ourselves (Baal), we are only worshipping us (Baal) not God. Remember Christianity is about following Christ, not anyone's ability to tolerate childish, leadership wanna bes who insist on being recognized and rewarded for openly defiant, sinful behavior. How can anyone be considered for leadership when all they think about is themselves first? You can sit in your garage and never become a car. You can sit in church and never become a Christian too.
Response from Drew Tatusko,
June 28, 2008
Facts about Mainline Attendance Rates
Facts about Mainline Attendance Rates
Elise: "we're not making disciples of Jesus Christ"
The fact about the numbers is that it has been statistically substantiated that declining attendance has to do primarily with the demographic imperative - mainline churches do not have as many babies as they do in conservative and non-denominational churches (including Catholicism). The problem is in retaining young adults after they have left for college. But it's not a theological issue and there is no evidence to suggest it. Age, cohort, and demographic imperative variables are what are significant predictors.
So to this degree, a battle cry of "fear" is supported with poorly construed data (which does not exist) or assumptions that theology and doctrine will lead the mainline churches to decline.
Further, we can also predict quite accurately that when a given religion becomes normative it will lose its fervor and membership will have weaker social links. The more sectarian a group becomes in its cultus, the more likely members will stay. This can be linked to ANY ideological premise that exerts an "us v. them" mentality. Here again, the predictor is not theology, but strength of dogma to maintain a sectarian or cultic social structure. H.R. Niehburh argued something like this in the 20's with the Social Sources of Denominationalism. But even that is ignored with this kind of argument.
If you want to increase membership, make membership requirements far more stringent, and enforce legal strictures that are far tighter than anything in the Book of Order even before GA218.
And oh yeah, marketing and media tactics help this too when you have a consumer base to work. Mega-churches are awesome at this and have the mega budgets to sustain it, mainlines are not.
Brian: Interesting proof-testing. The word "arsenokoitai" is the issue here. Other versions would have it say "male prostitutes" (NRSV) or "abusers of themselves with men" (KJV). Perversion and abuse are the issues here and because of this reasonable doubt that must be taken into account with many "traditional" assumptions about the issue, the decision to delete was rendered in order that local presbyteries can discern what is right for themselves and hence for the greater church.
What we need are open conversations about this where the adjudication is suspended until the discussions have taken place. Starting any study or discussiona about something knowing what your decision will be from the beginning is not helpful or productive to a discernment process.
I would suggest more Presbyterians sit down and discuss this face to face with homosexuals who love and are seeking Christ. Otherwise it remains abstract and unhelpful to the church.
So there is a fear here - of change and of the identity of the PCUSA. But fear demands education or fear will overcome Christ's call to the church to reform and continue to reform.
The fact about the numbers is that it has been statistically substantiated that declining attendance has to do primarily with the demographic imperative - mainline churches do not have as many babies as they do in conservative and non-denominational churches (including Catholicism). The problem is in retaining young adults after they have left for college. But it's not a theological issue and there is no evidence to suggest it. Age, cohort, and demographic imperative variables are what are significant predictors.
So to this degree, a battle cry of "fear" is supported with poorly construed data (which does not exist) or assumptions that theology and doctrine will lead the mainline churches to decline.
Further, we can also predict quite accurately that when a given religion becomes normative it will lose its fervor and membership will have weaker social links. The more sectarian a group becomes in its cultus, the more likely members will stay. This can be linked to ANY ideological premise that exerts an "us v. them" mentality. Here again, the predictor is not theology, but strength of dogma to maintain a sectarian or cultic social structure. H.R. Niehburh argued something like this in the 20's with the Social Sources of Denominationalism. But even that is ignored with this kind of argument.
If you want to increase membership, make membership requirements far more stringent, and enforce legal strictures that are far tighter than anything in the Book of Order even before GA218.
And oh yeah, marketing and media tactics help this too when you have a consumer base to work. Mega-churches are awesome at this and have the mega budgets to sustain it, mainlines are not.
Brian: Interesting proof-testing. The word "arsenokoitai" is the issue here. Other versions would have it say "male prostitutes" (NRSV) or "abusers of themselves with men" (KJV). Perversion and abuse are the issues here and because of this reasonable doubt that must be taken into account with many "traditional" assumptions about the issue, the decision to delete was rendered in order that local presbyteries can discern what is right for themselves and hence for the greater church.
What we need are open conversations about this where the adjudication is suspended until the discussions have taken place. Starting any study or discussiona about something knowing what your decision will be from the beginning is not helpful or productive to a discernment process.
I would suggest more Presbyterians sit down and discuss this face to face with homosexuals who love and are seeking Christ. Otherwise it remains abstract and unhelpful to the church.
So there is a fear here - of change and of the identity of the PCUSA. But fear demands education or fear will overcome Christ's call to the church to reform and continue to reform.
Response from Dennis Coles,
June 28, 2008
Blogging and Editorializing
Blogging and Editorializing
AWC,
I wondering if there is any difference between blogging and editorializing. You were hired to offer your take on GA, but do you feel any responsibility to present the perspective of the "other" fairly and charitably? It seems to me that you don't, that you are using this blog (surprise!) as your bully pulpit, much like you do (appropriately) with your personal blog.
Having read this blog I think it was a mistake for outlook to hire you as their primary blogger, though your perspective is in the majority at GA, the GA is deeply divided and your perspective does not reflect that at all.
I wondering if there is any difference between blogging and editorializing. You were hired to offer your take on GA, but do you feel any responsibility to present the perspective of the "other" fairly and charitably? It seems to me that you don't, that you are using this blog (surprise!) as your bully pulpit, much like you do (appropriately) with your personal blog.
Having read this blog I think it was a mistake for outlook to hire you as their primary blogger, though your perspective is in the majority at GA, the GA is deeply divided and your perspective does not reflect that at all.
Response from Tom Eggebeen,
June 28, 2008
Threatening to Leave
Threatening to Leave
I add my concurrence to the writer of this thread.
The threat of leaving has long been a tactic used by the more conservative branch of Presbyterianism - whether it be J. Gresham Machen in 1929 or the Presbyterian Layman today.
And the “liberals” have used it, too. What’s up with us?
I've been a pastor for 38 years and married for 41 - one doesn't leave; no matter what - you work it out, and learn from one another, walking humbly with God and with your spouse. The church of my ordination gave me a gift, and whether I like it now or not, it's the church that laid hands upon me, the church through which Jesus called me.
I cannot abide with such thinking. The threat to leave, in my mind and heart, discredits the Lord Jesus and denies the framework of Paul. To leave, one has to claim the words “more” and “better” – I love Jesus more than you do, I know Him better than you do, I honor the Bible more than you, my theology is better than yours.
And maybe that’s the point: “more” and “better” – believing ourselves to be “more” and “better” is contrary to biblical humility and love, rendering us more like the Pharisee praying self-confidently in the temple.
Yes, we have “problems,” but a little church history tempers the panic we feel, and some “count-your-many-blessings” piety changes the way we value things.
Now that Willow Creek has issued its self-study and the Barna Group has released its findings on evangelical youth, we’re learning one simple truth: no one can claim superiority, and success in numbers is a passing phenomenon. After all, we were the megachurches of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (all the downtown tall steeples). Within the tale of church history, there is a gracious ebb and flow, driven by the Spirit, to both set before us encouraging models and to temper the rise of pride inherent in any form of success.
There is a larger test before us – that of loving one another as Jesus loves us – the constant discipline of forgiving and forbearing, washing one another’s feet – serving rather than being served – holding our little theological agendas lightly because the fellowship of faith is our testimony to the world (the world will know we’re His disciples by our love), not out pronouncements or our talking points.
Our failure to walk arm-in-arm condemns us to “loving those who love us,” and in the face of such dysfunctional love, Jesus rightly asks, “What reward do you have?”
The threat of leaving has long been a tactic used by the more conservative branch of Presbyterianism - whether it be J. Gresham Machen in 1929 or the Presbyterian Layman today.
And the “liberals” have used it, too. What’s up with us?
I've been a pastor for 38 years and married for 41 - one doesn't leave; no matter what - you work it out, and learn from one another, walking humbly with God and with your spouse. The church of my ordination gave me a gift, and whether I like it now or not, it's the church that laid hands upon me, the church through which Jesus called me.
I cannot abide with such thinking. The threat to leave, in my mind and heart, discredits the Lord Jesus and denies the framework of Paul. To leave, one has to claim the words “more” and “better” – I love Jesus more than you do, I know Him better than you do, I honor the Bible more than you, my theology is better than yours.
And maybe that’s the point: “more” and “better” – believing ourselves to be “more” and “better” is contrary to biblical humility and love, rendering us more like the Pharisee praying self-confidently in the temple.
Yes, we have “problems,” but a little church history tempers the panic we feel, and some “count-your-many-blessings” piety changes the way we value things.
Now that Willow Creek has issued its self-study and the Barna Group has released its findings on evangelical youth, we’re learning one simple truth: no one can claim superiority, and success in numbers is a passing phenomenon. After all, we were the megachurches of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (all the downtown tall steeples). Within the tale of church history, there is a gracious ebb and flow, driven by the Spirit, to both set before us encouraging models and to temper the rise of pride inherent in any form of success.
There is a larger test before us – that of loving one another as Jesus loves us – the constant discipline of forgiving and forbearing, washing one another’s feet – serving rather than being served – holding our little theological agendas lightly because the fellowship of faith is our testimony to the world (the world will know we’re His disciples by our love), not out pronouncements or our talking points.
Our failure to walk arm-in-arm condemns us to “loving those who love us,” and in the face of such dysfunctional love, Jesus rightly asks, “What reward do you have?”
Response from Elise Hawke,
June 28, 2008
...
...
This "Battle Cry of Fear" is a typical Presbyterian response (BTW, I am a life-long Presbyterian). We are in complete denial that anything is very seriously wrong in our denomination. Numbers are indeed important and significant in our denomination as a whole (I would agree that it's different when speaking about individual congregations) and most definitely points to the fact that we're not making disciples of Jesus Christ. It's significant that the bleeding shows no sign of stopping. It is also significant that non-denominational churches in the U.S. are growing at incredible rates. And yet, we continue to do the SAME things over and over and over: we have the same debates, produce the same curriculums, come up with the same inane overtures (limiting cow flatulence?!), and have the same complacency about the gospel while the world is starving and dying physically and spiritually.
Let's be realistic that there IS a problem. Since many don't go to the scriptures or regard them as pertinent to the matter, I'll leave you with a reference to a secular book: "Leading Change" by John Kotter, published by the Harvard Business School Press. Kotter contends that not admitting there's a problem, making excuses for the organization's short-comings, or thinking that the status quo isn't so bad will cause an organization to go nowhere (if not die). "How big a deal is this sort of complacency?" he asks. "A huge deal." (p. 38) The answer is to establish a sense of urgency in the complacency-filled organization. Otherwise any change initiative goes nowhere.
I can't think of a greater urgency than telling a dying world about Jesus Christ. Yet, although individual churches are doing something about it, as a whole the PCUSA can't get it's act together to do anything about it. It's not a fear tactic. It's reality.
Let's be realistic that there IS a problem. Since many don't go to the scriptures or regard them as pertinent to the matter, I'll leave you with a reference to a secular book: "Leading Change" by John Kotter, published by the Harvard Business School Press. Kotter contends that not admitting there's a problem, making excuses for the organization's short-comings, or thinking that the status quo isn't so bad will cause an organization to go nowhere (if not die). "How big a deal is this sort of complacency?" he asks. "A huge deal." (p. 38) The answer is to establish a sense of urgency in the complacency-filled organization. Otherwise any change initiative goes nowhere.
I can't think of a greater urgency than telling a dying world about Jesus Christ. Yet, although individual churches are doing something about it, as a whole the PCUSA can't get it's act together to do anything about it. It's not a fear tactic. It's reality.
Response from Brian Rihner,
June 27, 2008
Fear or Simply and Observation
Fear or Simply and Observation
“Battle Cry of Fear”???
How do you know that these commissioners are not simply making an observation? Or are only liberal observations valid at this GA? These people are simply pointing out that decisions and choices have consequences.
Battle-cry of Fear. Interesting choice of words.
Using those words – Jesus himself used this “extremely weak argument” numerous times:
Luke 13:2-3 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
Matthew 5:30 “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
Jesus – and his “battle-cry of fear”
Paul used it too -
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I guess that’s why Coffin was quoted and not the Bible in this post.
Well at least these commissioners that are using this “tactic” are in good company.
My prayer is that this GA and the PC(USA) will follow God’s revealed word instead of their own feelings and ideologies.
How do you know that these commissioners are not simply making an observation? Or are only liberal observations valid at this GA? These people are simply pointing out that decisions and choices have consequences.
Battle-cry of Fear. Interesting choice of words.
Using those words – Jesus himself used this “extremely weak argument” numerous times:
Luke 13:2-3 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
Matthew 5:30 “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
Jesus – and his “battle-cry of fear”
Paul used it too -
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I guess that’s why Coffin was quoted and not the Bible in this post.
Well at least these commissioners that are using this “tactic” are in good company.
My prayer is that this GA and the PC(USA) will follow God’s revealed word instead of their own feelings and ideologies.
Write a Response
someone wrote in a reply:
"We have driven the stake into the ground so many times, we have drawn lines in the sand, and while feeling some personal victory in hurling charges at one another, questioning one another’s faith, and going through every statement with a fine-toothed comb hoping to find some error, some misstatement, something we can question dogmatically, we further crucify Jesus on the cross of our own pride and stubbornness."
It's funny how all these learned Elders forgot Jesus only asked us to go into the world and make disciples, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He gave us a clear picture of who will be accepted on judgement day: the ones who gave water, visited sick and imprisioned, clothed the naked and .... It's not about how we get along with members of our own faith but how we get along with members in our Christian faith. Mahatma Ghandi was quoted ( paraphrase(?), it's late and we don't have all the new upgrades for spell check yet) "I'd be a Christian if it weren't for the Christians." Seems we've been discussing the ability of people to read and study Scripture and find acceptance of who they sleep with in order to qualify to be Ministers of the Word and Sacrament we totally forgot about the one in need - physically and of God. If we'd quit looking at ourselves and focus on finding God's call for our lives, most everyone would be happy and we could have the abundant life God promised in spite of what we didn't get.
How about if the practicing homosexual wants to really make a difference as a pastor (good word to research etiologically too!), lead worship in a prison, a nursing home, a group home for developmentally disabled, make friends with homeless, visitors to the food pantry, clothes closet, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, heck VBS and church camp. Bring them God's word, not yours, how he saved your life from sin, your soul from death with the gift of his Son on the cross at Calvary and his resurrection. Heck, how many people have you invited to church, for God's sake, that came and joined and their life was changed? What was it Martin Luther King, Jr. said (again paraphrased), "If you're going to be a street sweeper, be the best street sweeper you can." "Bloom where you are planted" is other's mantra to me.
Look for solutions to your problem you have with the established system. The other comment, same somebody, about e-mails: "At this point in time, we have substituted pronouncements for conversation. Email doesn’t help; in cyberspace, we can safely hide behind our self-erected monuments of rectitude, believing the other to be enemy."
Realize that the Presbyterian system is man's interpretation of what ecclesia looks like when only the outline is given in the Bible - something akin to the Book of Order: a member is one who participates in the work and worship of the local church; or even the Biblical reference to the marriage feast in Cana. After all, your Elder oaths included serve with imagination! Heck all I wanted to do was use gardening on the campus of our church as a segue to introduce people to the Gospel. I couldn't do it my way in the large scale we could have so I did what I could when I could. Go figure Elders would reject using God's nature to tell History.
If anyone contiues to debate the ability of practicing homosexuals to be ordained, please think first: do they need the permission for this sexual relationship (that's all it really is, I can't imagine friendship would cause such a stir) or is the guilt of their silence that great? I know the guilt in silence of my sinful, heterosexual exploits nearly killed me.
Thank God for his grace and mercy to give me ears to hear and eyes to see the error of my ways through people who loved me enough to tell me the truth and graced with patience to see me through to the other side. To Him only belongs the Glory and Praise!!