Become our Friend on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Font Size: +A -A RESET
It’s up for grabs: A status update on the voting for the New Amendment B PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook editor   
Monday, 23 February 2009 00:00

So how goes the voting on ordination standards for Presbyterian ministers, elders and deacons? An article written by Leslie Scanlon appearing in this week’s edition of The Presbyterian Outlook reported the latest vote tallies as the magazine went to print. But the tallies have changed considerably since then.

Will the New Amendment B get ratified by the presbyteries?

Answer: It could go down to the wire.

If it does get approved, more than thirty years of definitive policies for the sexual behavior of church officers will suddenly become much less specific.

Seventy-nine presbyteries have voted thus far. Thirty-four have voted in favor of the new amendment. Forty-five have voted their opposition.

Ninety-four presbyteries will be casting their votes over the next three months’ time.

A simple majority – 87 presbyteries – is needed for the new amendment to prevail.

To borrow from the CNN playbook – following the lead of commentator John King – we have sorted through the past voting patterns of the presbyteries to form our own categories of red – solidly conservative; blue – solidly progressive; and purple – on-the-bubble – presbyteries.

Of the 34 presbyteries that have voted their support for the New B, just 17 came from blue presbyteries. Thirteen came from purple, and four came from red – historically conservative – presbyteries . This bodes well for those pushing ratification.

Of the 45 presbyteries that have voted their opposition to the New B, 36 were already solidly red presbyteries, nine purple, and none have been blue – historically progressive. In one of those purple presbyteries, Cincinnati, they prevailed by a tie: 83-83.

In other words, the voting is trending strongly away from the 73.4% to 26.6% margin of victory conservatives enjoyed in the last vote, taken on the “local option” amendment in 2001-02.

Then again, those promoting passage, such as the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, have a big mountain to climb. The voting patterns on the previous amendment referenda produced 77 presbyteries to be red, 58 to be purple and just 38 to be blue. Adoption of the New B amendment will require all the remaining blue presbyteries (21) to approve, plus 32 out of the 36 purple and/or 37 red presbyteries to vote in the affirmative.

On the other hand, if those opposing the amendment simply hold on to the 37 yet-to-vote red presbyteries and add just five purple presbyteries, they will prevail.

The vote reversals from red to blue came as stunners. The first presbytery to tilt was Western North Carolina; it is home to the Presbyterian Lay Committee, which publishes the passionately-conservative newspaper, The Layman and distributes it free of charge to nearly a half-million Presbyterian homes. Also in the area are the Montreat Conference Center and the homes of many retired ministers and elders.

The Presbytery of Charlotte, the fourth largest presbytery in the country, had voted by a nearly two-to-one margin its support of the fidelity-chastity rule in 1997 and supported it against the “fidelity-integrity” amendment the following year. But this year it approved the new proposal by a margin of 133-124.

The Presbytery of Greater Atlanta has supported the fidelity-chastity rule, but by closer margins. This purple presbytery tilted the other way, 243-233.

The presbytery of Sheppards and Lapsley, in central Ala., always has voted its support of the traditional position by a two-to-one vote, but this time it went the other way by a narrow margin of 77-75.

The proposed amendment to the denomination’s Book of Order (G-6.0106b) reads as follows:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

This language would replace the following paragraph, ratified in 1997:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”

While neither paragraph mentions same-sex relationships, the policy adopted 12 years ago was formed to preclude from ordination any person engaging in sexual relations outside a heterosexual marriage. The new language, along with the negation of judicial rulings and authoritative interpretations, means that Presbyterian church law precluding ordination of sexually active heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals would become a possibility – to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Trackback(0)
Your Responses (41)Add Comment
Response from Daniel Fultz, Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church, March 11, 2009
Dear Editor
As to the amendments: I was about 16 when Martin Luther King, Jr. came to speak to our church in Virginia. Dr. King came to encourage our support of civil rights activities in Alabama. A popular concern then was “states rights.” After his talk a group of adults were gathered around him in a circle. Parroting what I had heard adults say I blurted out, “Why should we get involved in someone else’s fight?”

The adults gasped and all took a step back. Dr. King’s response however was very kind and loving. He smiled at me and said, “Because that is what Jesus did. Jesus got involved in other people’s fight.”

Incarnation is God getting involved in our fight. Apart from incarnation we are little more than inept Pharisees bickering over legalisms. As followers of God incarnate in Jesus Christ we are called to do the same, get involved in other people’s fight. As I look over the amendments this year, and every year, I ask myself, ‘Who is left out? Who is being silenced? Whose concerns are not being heard? For I know that is where Christ can be found.

Daniel Fultz
Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church
Victoria, Texas
Response from Rev. David McCann, March 10, 2009
...
As I read the many comments about amendment 08B, I wonder: Is it really about presbyteries and sessions being in the best place to decide who should be ordained? If that is true, and if that is what is really meant by this amendment, then doesn't that mean ordination exams are now optional? After all the presbytery should determine if a candidate really needs to take ordination exams, since they know the individual so well. That would also apply to the national standard that they have a college degree and a degree from an accredited seminary. Those degrees should be optional as well, since the presbytery knows the candidate and we should not have national standards telling us who we can and cannot ordain. No, I think amendment 08B is all about politics. As a church, we really don't care about people anymore. We don't care about the gospel of Jesus Christ anymore. We don't care about God's plan for creation anymore. All we care about is power. We want it and want to make sure other folks don't have it. That is why the PUP report was a failure -- folks turned it into a tool for gaining more power, which is was not meant for that purpose. What has occured in the PCUSA is that power is now our new god. That is what we worship. We worship it on the national level. We worship it on the presbytery level. And we worship it in the local church. That is why we see consistent conflict on all levels of the church. It's all about power: who has it and who wants it. As long as we worship power, the PCUSA has no future. It will not survive. God will not bless it. Instead, God will withdraw God's blessing and allow it to die, so a new church, one that will worship God and seek to share the gospel of Jesus Christ, can be born. So we have a choice. We can either destroy the idol of power or we can destroy the PCUSA. Which will it be?
Response from j shuck, March 03, 2009
...
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. Their blood will be on their own heads." (Lev. 20:13)

So then will you be the one to take the lead and follow this biblical injunction? Or are you going to reject the Bible's authority and clear commandment?

Response from Hamer, Karen, March 03, 2009
Re:
I never wished I could be an elder in the church until now. Because then I would be able to go to Presbytery this Saturday and speak out against Amendment B. This is what I would say:

THIS I KNOW...that our beloved denomination is in serious decline. Many are leaving the PCUSA. Why? Because the teachings of Holy Scripture are not held in highest esteem any more. Because there are many who are seeking to lead us astray.

We are told that the sins of adultery, fornication and homosexuality are O.K. We are being led to believe that the Bible really doesn't mean what it says on these and other topics related to Biblical morality, even though the words are right before our eyes in black and white.

We are being asked to not only have the Bible and our beloved Confessions guide us, but now Jesus is added to the mix, as if Jesus would hold a more enlightened view of the teachings of the Bible and our Confessions.

Do we really want to be like Jesus? Then STOP THE STORM. Our PCUSA boat is sinking.
Do we really want to be like Jesus? Then tell the sinner, come to HIM and HE will make it so you never thirst again. Go and sin no more.
Do we really want to be like Jesus? Then believe Him when He said He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. That He and the Father are One. And that if we love Him we WILL KEEP his commandments.

My friends, the Word of God says:

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." (II Tim. 3:16)
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to HIS WIFE, and THEY will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24)
"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." (Heb. 13:4)
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Lev. 18:22)
Paul, in Romans calls homosexual acts "unnatural relations", "shameful lusts", "indecent acts", "perversion", "sexual impurity that degrades bodies".
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. Their blood will be on their own heads." (Lev. 20:13)

But, guess what? Ezekiel 33:8 tells us their blood will also be on OUR hands if we don't warn them so they will be able to escape God's wrath.

No, we don't want to give a warning. We want to say, along with the world, your behavior is O.K. It's O.K. to jump off a cliff. It's O.K. to continue in sin. God won't really judge you. WE have the knowledge of what is good and evil. We ate the apple...so we know that now.

My friends, we must heed Moses' words on this issue; "Be strong and courageous." We MUST follow his advice and NOT turn aside to the right or to the left. Do we want to be among the cursed who add to or take away from Holy Scripture? (Rev. 22:18-19) Do we want the praise of men, or the praise of God?

There could be better days ahead for our beloved denomination if we heed the words of Moses as God's people were about to enter the Promised Land, aftering wandering aimlessly in the desert for forty years: "Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time." (Deut. 4:39-40)

In closing, I believe what is happening to our denomination is EVIL. Join me with David and Paul when I plead for you to:

"Depart from evil, and do good." (Ps. 37:27)
"Hate evil, you who love the Lord." (Ps. 97:10)
And lastly, "Overcome evil with good." (Rom. 12:21)

VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT B !
Response from j shuck, March 03, 2009
Standards or Discrimination?
The proposed G-6.0106b has higher standards than the current wording. Here is the text:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

These standards apply to all who would be ordained officers (not just to some) and they are standards regarding the whole of one's life (not just one aspect of life).

The new G-6.0106b is a theologically sound text that reflects our treasured Reformed principles.
Response from Robert Tolar, Jr., March 03, 2009
Pastor
Has it ever occurred to any of us Presbyterians that if we approve this proposed amendment there will be no ordination standards? Our previous standards have been steady... like them or not. If approved, there will be a huge lack of unity. A lack of unity leads to a broken and confused organization... whether that organization be a school, business or church. Varying standards are no standards at all.
Response from j shuck, March 02, 2009
...
Jack wrote in the article:

"If it does get approved, more than thirty years of definitive policies for the sexual behavior of church officers will suddenly become much less specific."

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It would be a bad thing if these 'definitive policies' were accurate, just and faithful to biblical and scientific truth.

They are not. Simply saying all sex is good in marriage and all sex is bad outside of marriage is a flimsy ethic. It does not take into account the complexity of human relationships.

It says nothing about:
1) fidelity
2) consent
3) power
4) love

It says nothing about human relationships, that may include but are not limited to sexual expression. My marriage is more than sex. It is about a life.

In my church, a couple celebrated their 22nd anniversary last month. They would be married if the state would grant them a marriage license. Other than that legal document they live in fidelity within their covenant. A covenant of marriage in the eyes of God if not yet in the eyes of the state or the church.

So, it will be a good thing when these 'definitive policies' are removed, because these policies are discriminatory, simplistic, and do not reflect the lives of real people, the witness of scripture, or the witness of God's book of nature that we discover through science.

Once they are removed perhaps we can have conversations about sexual ethics, relationship ethics and so forth that are based on reality rather than heterosexual prejudice.

In the meantime, let us not quench the Spirit of ordaining and installing bodies to ordain and install candidates whom they know to lives of Christian service.

This is not "local option." This is the Presbyterian way.
Response from Rick Brand, March 02, 2009
Let's call Sin Sin
What about calling Greed a sin? Let's call Obesity a sin. Let's call divorced remarried elders and ministers sinners. Let's call alcholism a sin. Let's call homosexuality a sin.
So now were are we? We still have to deal with sinners. Some sinners get ordained when chosen by their congregations. Let's leave it at that.
Response from Rick Brand, March 02, 2009
retired
More than 30 years spent on a debate about one small sin while Greed has destroyed our economy, Glutton has made us a nation of Obesity. Lust is still a major player in the market place, and Arrogance and Pride has led us into two major wars. It is not likely that we will come to an agreement on the mind of God on this matter. Calling homosexuality a sin does not help. We have divorced elders and ministers who have remarried, and Scripture calls them sinners. We need to get a bigger battlefield. There is a lot more evil in all of us than we have focused on.
Response from Susan Phillips, February 28, 2009
G-d is doing a new thing
Thank you, PJ, for the self-correction. I believe that if any of us is going to sincerely engage in faithful conversation within this denomination, we must presume that each loves Jesus and each treasures scripture - even if we follow and read in different ways. To presume less tempts each of us to perceive ourselves as more faithful, more biblical, more just than our sisters and brothers. Falling to that temptation will make the conversation incredibly difficult.

RE: ships sailing. I choose to believe that nothing in creation is beyond G-d's redeeming -- even us and our relationships within the PCUSA. Yes, you are right, if folks had made different choices at different times we might be in a different place -- maybe a better one, maybe not.

I'm glad that some folks who were wounded by the first amendment B did not choose to leave, but stayed, witnessed to their faith and have taught the rest of us more about covenant fidelity. Commitment isn't difficult until it is tested. I am grateful to the folks who were hurt by the actions of the 218th GA, but who have decided their relationships within the Body are worth the hard work of covenant fidelity.

Of course, each of us would prefer that the debates stop when our preferred perspective is in the majority, but that is not how life, discipleship, church or faith work are far as I can tell. Just when I think I've got it figured out, G-d reveals a new call, a new vision, a new conviction for which I must confess and be open to transformation. So, PJ et al, I suggest that no ship has sailed that cannot change directions as the winds of the Spirit blow, although we sailors can choose to fight it.

An invitation: if you would like to consider an ongoing, prayerful conversation about how we might listen to each others' stories long enough to fall in love with our sisters and brothers more than our own ideas, theology, interpretations, then let us begin with confession: godpots.wordpress.com

May the peace of the Holy One be with each of you.
Response from Mariam Touba, February 28, 2009
...
PJ, Thank you so much for these thoughtful remarks. I hope they are read and circulated. There was a brief window to make things work, and you have identified the time. There could have been dialogue on how to apply the standards (what does “self-acknowledged” mean?) and on how to better include people who will not be ordained into the work and life of the church. Even a PUP-like application could have worked if it was practiced in good faith within the culture of obedience, with the understanding that departures from the standards were exceptions made for exceptionally humble people—not a way of crashing open a door. That good faith does not exist now, and at some point it becomes disobedient to the Lord’s commission to pretend that it does. The “Justice” everyone speaks of has become a god of human making that trumped everything else.
Response from pj, February 27, 2009
...
Susan, my prior remarks were imprecise and I regret any suggestion that those words came from your mouth. I should have been clearer that those words are part of the environment in which evangelicals in the PCUSA have to live. Those words come from people like Janie Spahr and Lisa Larges and Michael Adee and Chris Glaser and so many others who are leaders in the revisionist movement. And you know what, as long as rhetoric like that is coin of the realm for theology in the PCUSA, any appeal asking "can't we all just get along together" is going to sound more than a little hollow.

There was a moment when it might have been possible to build that "let's all get along" truly inclusive church. After Amendment A failed, there were come choices before its supporters and opponents. For the opponents, the choice was to cease striving and find a way to live together under the fidelity and chastity language, or to continue the struggle to be sure PCUSA leaders not only accepted the language but actively and enthusiastically supported it. Leaders like Jack Haberer led groups like the Coalition down the former path. It was a gamble, but it seemed to be one worth taking because the other course would only lead to schism.

For Amendment A supporters a similar choice was before them. They could find a way to passively assent to the language and live together with those who disagreed. Or they could re-commit themselves to continue the struggle until the church was purified in its commitment to the justice of the gospel. They chose the latter, evidently deciding even another generation of conflict was a price worth paying in pursuit of full justice for all God's children.

And that's where the PCUSA is today.

Who could object to building an inclusive church by trusting the most local governing body to make ordination decisions? Ironically, the last time that question was raised, it was the progressive wing that objected. Pittsburgh presbytery knew Wyn Kenyon and endorsed his ordination even though he didn't believe women should be leaders in the church. The progressives objected: denying women the right to be church leaders was unjust and there was no place for injustice in the church. The GS PJC agreed, and overturned Pittsburg's decision.

There were no appeals to trust local judgement, no urgent calls to find unity in the midst of our diversity then. Just the opposite: the GA Stated Clerk politely but firmly told people "This is our standard, and if you can't embrace it and support it, then you should find a new church." In many ways, the EPC began because a number of UPCUSA people were told "your beliefs are no longer welcome here." The UPCUSA built -- and the PCUSA continues to use -- a structure of agencies and committees on representation built to be sure justice prevails in all ordination decisions.

And some day, those those agencies will be used against people who dissent from ordaining homosexuals, just as those agencies are used against people who dissent from ordaining women and visible minorities.

Susan, I accept, and do appreciate the sincerity of your appeal for us to stay together. But that ship has sailed. I saw -- and continue to see -- no stomach in the PCUSA to go back and rethink and reverse the decisions that set that ship on its way. Maybe you have the energy and desire to start that reformation in the PCUSA, and if you do, may God bless you, because it would be a worthy task -- too late for many of us, but perhaps just in time for others.
Response from Susan Phillips, February 27, 2009
"love one another as I have loved you"
Wow pj, you tried to put some pretty mean-spirited words in my typing. I didn't say or imply any of that. So I'll hand those words back to you.

Several years ago an Elder came to me and said, "I think I'm going to have to leave this church because our denomination hasn't taken a strong enough stand against homosexuals." Tears came to my eyes as we spoke and I tried to explain how much he meant to me as a brother in faith. Four days later, another Elder came to me and said, "I think I'm going to have to leave this church because our denomination hasn't taken a strong enough stand in support of gays and lesbians." I could see her pain and I grieved when she withdrew her membership.

I believe we are each indispensable members of the Body of Christ (Can the eye say to the hand, "I have no need of you?") PJ - I need you. I need your presence to live more faithfully into experiencing the body of Christ. If you leave to join another denomination, our need for each other is not decreased. So, my question is: "How are we going to learn to love each other?"
Response from Ed Wegele, February 26, 2009
I am a label
As we enter Lent, may we all be purple. My presbytery passed this amendment last week, and to confuse this as just a homosexual issue is thinking very narrowly. Standards will be defined as each prebytery defines it. So, all of our ordinations are suspect to the wishes of each presbytery. This is not the extreme, it is the fact.

As for conservatives or liberals, we have both, and if conservatives leave, then they quit on their beliefs. When did I think I would see the day when conservatives would quit fighting for the Truth...I do not expect it now. How strong is one's faith to solely base belief on one issue?

Our denomination is being pruned, and in the very near future, the denomination will experience its own "revival". Look at the growth in the Hispanic, Korean, and African churches. Regardless of a vote, we are becoming more of what God is calling us to be, open to minister to the whole world, not just one European way. Many voices, many praises...and if that makes me a liberal...well..I have been called worse. I pray we all find grace, and may our walls be torn down, and find the unity we were grafted into at the waters of baptism.
Response from Don McLean, February 26, 2009
Pastor, Cradock Presbyterian Church
Let's face it: we're all a bunch of sinners who deserve punishment, which we don't get because of the Cross. I'm always amused by how people, in the church and outside, get cranked up anytime the subject is sex, in any way, shape, or form. To be consistent, we next need to have an added amendment that says something like this: "Also among these standards is the requirement that all candidates for ordained office exhibit love and care in their relationships, therefore demonstrating the love of Jesus Christ for all humankind." That one would take care of wife-beaters and child abusers!(Or husband-beaters - we DO live in a liberated time...) My point is, we've taken one specific kind of thing, sexual relationships, and elevated it into a special status. But how much time do you spend in sexual activity? I'd be willing to bet that for most people, it's much less than 5% of your time. So are we being good stewards of our time and energy? I know from being on my Presbytery's COM that drinking and substance abuse is a bigger issue in the church. I'd much rather see an amendment that addresses drinking and substance abuse than I would anything dealing with sexuality. Let those who know a person best - those in close contact with him or her - decide if something in a person's makeup - including his or her sexuality - is or is going to be an impediment to ministry. That means each Presbytery prayerfully considering each case, opening itself to God's direction. God won't fail us!
Response from pj, February 26, 2009
...
Susan Phillips wrote, "It saddens me that some who oppose 08-B would rather leave than stay. I believe we are all lessened when we think we do not need each other. I believe we are each indispensable within the body of Christ…"
Sorry Susan, but that ship has sailed. When the revisionists decided this was a justice issue, and there can be no local option on justice, the handwriting was on the wall. Something in this appeal doesn't add up: "You're a hateful bigot suffering from a psychological problem called homophobia who is betraying the expansive, inclusive welcome of Jesus Christ -- but you're still a crucial part of the body of Christ and our ministry is the poorer without you."
It simply seems some people are so committed to the goal of building a church where everyone feels welcome, they can't appreciate sometimes saying yes to this means saying no to that. Extending a welcome here sometimes means withholding it there. Something can't simultaneously be hateful bigotry that deserves horror and revulsion, and also part of the diverse mosaic of faithfulness to the call of Jesus Christ.
Response from Joao Soares -Trustee- Newark, NJ, February 26, 2009
up for grabs
As someone already mentioned, we have lost half of our membership in the past 40 years, we are now 2.3 million presbyterians and it makes me wonder how many of them are Christians. Not everyone is going to heaven or wants to go their. We are stuck in the debate if we should go into the business of loosing/apeasing souls instead of saving souls. We will debate that until the gates of hell are reache. Thanks to God and His Grace alone. He is sovereign and no humanistic, progressive or any new title or label that may appear, will make that decision for Him. The elect will be at His side no matter what unfortunate decision is taken by humans to destroy this once great Biblical gospel teaching church.
Response from Jeff Chandler, February 26, 2009
Heart-breaking
I wonder when the PC(USA) transitioned to the point of obsession in regards to people's feelings and neglect in regards to truth. What good is speaking in love, if we've abandoned truth? Can love even exist without truth?

Those couching this debate in terms of 'homophobia' reveal their intent not in promoting genuine dialogue or discovering the complex will of God, but rather in pushing an agenda to change a policy they perceive as unjust.

This vote, regardless of its outcome, has set the course for an accelerated decline of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Humility before God and repentance from pride are the only hope to change the course we're currently on.
Response from Susan Phillips, February 25, 2009
"my peace I give to you"
So much anger. So much fear. That's what I read here. We have loved our perspectives and opinions more than we've loved each other.

I serve a congregation of widely differing opinions on many topics of concern -- very Presbyterian. It is necessary for me to listen closely enough to each that I love them more than my own ideas, my theology. When I love my sister, brother, friend, neighbor, antagonist, enemy, then I am drawn closer to God. It is simply impossible for me to love God without loving those around me (Thanks Dorotheus!)

It saddens me that some who oppose 08-B would rather leave than stay. I believe we are all lessened when we think we do not need each other. I believe we are each indispensable within the body of Christ, regardless of which denomination you join.
Response from Jeannie Dixon, February 25, 2009
Clerk of Session
The tally on the official count (http://www.pcusa.org/generalassembly/vote08.htm) does not show this same information. It would also be interesting to see the red/blue map mentioned in the article.
Response from Milton Crow, February 25, 2009
It's not about being "nice."
"since when did Jesus become a love without going and sinning no more kind of Savior? LOVE...Absolutely, but ignore church leader who engage in proactive sinful practices because it just isn't "nice" to be so hard on some folks"

Yes, we absolutely want to set a high standard for "sexual morality," but calling someone sinfull just because they are different is a terrible kind of hatred. It undoes everything else we might accomplish as Christians. Homophobia is bigotry, pure and simple. It is an expresion of unprovoked hatred whether one is "Liberal" or "Consevative"...or blue or red or purple. If removing all mention of sexual morality is the only way to purge this cancer, then we need to do it now
Response from pj, February 25, 2009
...
Mac McKean pleaded, "LET IT GO." I did. Four years ago. I realized the liberals would not give the PCUSA a moment's rest until they got their way. They would keep the church tied up in endless debates and votes and wrangling until they finally got their position affirmed. So I gave it up and left the PCUSA. Will my former presbytery miss my vote? I don't think so.

Why did I feel I had to leave? Because the people supporting change frame it as a justice issue. There can be no local option on justice, and they would never willing leave space for people like me to act in an unjust, unwelcoming manner. I am simply taking them at their word and assuming they mean what they said. Sooner or later, I would be forced to choose between Christ and the church. And until that day came, there would be nothing but more and more debates, and votes, and paralysis.

And someday, the PCUSA will be like the Episcopal Church, with church structures solidly in the hands of revisionist teachers, and a few evangelicals scratching for whatever crumbs they can find.

For those who think this change in theology will bring new vitality, relevance and growth to the PCUSA, I have a question. In what other church has that happened? Where in the world has a church that made the change the PCUSA is contemplating making grown?
Response from Rev Nathan J Loudon, February 25, 2009
Pastor/Head of Staff
Like some I agree that it is beyond bizarre to categorize entire Presbyteries as one thing or another. I for one serve a solidly moderate to right of center theologically congregation in a "blue" presbytery. We are respected, often times applauded for our mission giving and activity within the presbytery and I feel little to NO threat to my loss of call. While I voted NOT to change the standard I do think we need to find ways of working together. Or else as the first commenter (an elder from TX) said, what will be left of us in 20 years? I am only 30 years old would like to see our denomination survive my lifetime without becoming a liberals only club. Finally, since when did Jesus become a love without going and sinning no more kind of Savior? LOVE...Absolutely, but ignore church leader who engage in proactive sinful practices because it just isn't "nice" to be so hard on some folks; give me a break!
Response from Milton Crow, February 25, 2009
Priorities
"I know of no other organization in the US where leaders care so little about the overall health and well being of their institution."

Our mandate, as disciples of Jesus, is to adhere as best we can to the Golden Rule—not coddle fear and bigotry to preserve an institution. What would be the point of that?
Response from Milton Crow, February 25, 2009
...
Here again is an illustration that the Church is not so much God's will in the world as it is the field of struggle. Christianity has always offered the best and the worst that humanity can deliver. It is an arena of sorts, where those who are passionate--either in their commitment to compassion or their commitment to hatred--slog it out.

I have faith that within two or three decades, Presbyterians will look back at our homophobia with the same sort of horror and revulsion that 1960's German Lutherans looked back at the Holocaust-enabling attitudes of their 1930's counterparts.
Response from Tome Walters, February 25, 2009
Elder, First Presbyterian Church, Seguin, Texas
Regardless of the outcome, the decline of the PC(USA) will continue and probably accelerate now. We've lost half our members in 40 years--down from 4.6 million members 40 years ago to 2.3 million today. A large number of our congregations are small, greying rapidly, and will likely close in the next 10-20 years. This relentless push to overturn long-held standards for sexual behavior is driving out other individuals and churches. Ten years from now we'll be at 1.5 million. More homogeneous: more liberal, fewer conservatives. An outcome quite acceptable to national PC(USA) leadership. As long as the departing leave their buildings and treasure on the way out the door. It does take money to fuel politically active agendas at the UN, Washington, and in the courts. I know of no other organization in the US where leaders care so little about the overall health and well being of their institution. That happens when your social and political agenda is much larger than your church agenda and you think they are one and the same.
Response from Rev. Dr. Jeff Hayes, February 25, 2009
Practices
My opposition to G-6.0106b has been fueled by, among other things, the word "practice" in "Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin ...." By emphasizing practices, we've targeted behaviors or actions for scrutiny rather than thoughts or desires, which narrows the issue dramatically. Jesus raised the thought to the level of the deed, not in order to make the law more severe, but to level the "cleanliness" between those who practice a sin outwardly and those that do so inwardly. Jesus' point is that no one is holy, no one is pure, no one is sinless. All ordained people sin willfully; we should be careful whom we scrutinize.

As to the polity issue, I do think that presbyteries and sessions are to proper place for examining candidates for ordination to determine if they are rightly called by God. G-6.0106b tried to nationalize an ordination standard that left the whole question of God's initiative out of the conversation. Trying to determine whom God calls to ministry is not possible on a national level, only on a local level. I do think Amendment 08-B rightfully places this discernment back on the local level.

Finally, if this amendment passes it will not settle this issue for our church. Instead, it will move it to the presbyteries and sessions. Again, I think that's best. As a denomination we have become too standardized, to homogeneous across congregations. Perhaps this is a central contributor to our decline: we have a distressing lack of diversity in our congregations. Healthy discernment and debate about God's choices for ministry on local levels could rectify this uniformity.
Response from James Black, February 24, 2009
Interim pastor
I opposed the recent past for two reasons: (1) The Priesthood of all believers where no one should be a second class citizen in the Church and (2) Covenant Theology which requires supposedly committed partners to remain faithful and loyal to one another as God has, in Christ, been with us. I know several gay/lesbian couples who have lived in this Biblical manner for years...past what I have observed between too many heterosexuals. We may not be able to help who we love but we can help how we love them.
Response from Mac McKean, February 24, 2009
HR sheppards and lapsley
I am sorry the vote was so close, but it is what it is. Fact is nothing in the new admentment mentions homosexuality at all. Nobody is forced to ordain or call anybody.

I voted my conscience and I am tired to voting on sexuality. I voted as I thought Christ would have....though the law of love.

I'm getting a bit tired of the smack down by those who disagree with the vote.

It is done. The presbytery spoke just like it spoke in the past when I was in the minority. LET IT GO.
Response from Dwain De Pew, February 24, 2009
...
So finally enough conservative congregations have left that this might pass. Then what is next? A move to separate Synods or simply 20 to 30% of the denomination leaving? I am one who is comfortable with the '78 AI and the present Book of Order standards, but understand that I may be wrong since I do not know the mind of God, but I fear some very tough decisions face congregations and presbyteries as the fabric gives way.
Response from L. Lynn Lamb, February 24, 2009
Christian and Presbyerian Elder
We are children of God...not some of us but all of us. The Bible tells us to welcome anyone who comes to our door as Jesus, and He alone will be our judge.

I may not be too bright but this tells me we should practice what is taught by His word and be judged for our actions.

Respectfully, Lynn Lamb East Tennessee Presbytery
Response from Jonathan Yarboro, February 24, 2009
Reverend
What concerns me is the language of winning and losing. These words have nothing to do with kingdom building in the name of God. Our Presbytery approved adoption of amendment B by a 2 vote margin. Simple majority does not feel faithful when votes are that close. I am saddened that we as a denomination presented a lose-lose proposition to Presbyteries regarding amendment B. A season of discernment and healing is what the PUP report recommended. We clearly did not heed that advice.
Response from Wesley M Cummins, February 24, 2009
Associate Pastor
In response to Karl Landstrom, you're right for a little while. Already the specifics in the Book of Confessions regarding homosexuality as sinful behavior are in the process of being removed.
Response from Chip Hatcher, February 24, 2009
Very Surprising Results
I was very surprised to see WNC, Charlotte, ETN, Greater Atlanta, Sheppards & Lapsley, Arkansas and other southern presbyteries "switch." Are Mid-TN and South LA going to follow suit? I did some counting of my own this morning, and I agree that it could go down to the wire. Really disconcerting to hear so many changing their votes because they are "tired of fighting" over the fidelity/chastity issue. I am weary of it, too, but if people are not voting their conscience primarily for that reason, then it's a weak group of saints we have in the PC(USA).
Response from Craig C. Krueger, February 24, 2009
Aftermath
I am a member of Grace Presbytery. Here we even had a discussion last spring concerning what the "standards" were. There was no uniform concensus. How can we change the constitution prior to saying what the standards are?! It seems that G-6.0106b IS one of those standards. The logic fails. A vote in favor of the amendment is a vote for confusion and division. It is not a vote for unity or healing. My guess is that many who favor some sort of standard will look to other denominations who are unafraid to say where they stand on issues.

In the past, when this has happened on a national/international level, the people tend to turn towards totalitarianism eventually in an attempt to gain some sense of a foundation.

Blessings,
Rev. Craig C. Krueger
Response from Rosario de Lugo Batlle, February 24, 2009
Rev. Dr.
I find the color terms to denote religious positions very confusing (to say the least), especially when historically (never mind the political color denotations for left and conservative states), red has denoted left (as in communist red flags). Someone somewhere decided they would pull the Saturday Night Live wool over the eyes of citizens and color the left blue. It always takes me a few seconds to remember who the reds are (conservatives???). Let's stop playing games for once, please.
Response from Tom Blair, February 24, 2009
uncomfortable...
I'm pretty uncomfortable with categorizations of any kind-- ( or is that 'profiling'?)
Response from Rev. Keith Jones, February 24, 2009
Yes
Yes, I do. Seems like we're once again defining what it means to be 'solidly conservative' or 'solidly progressive' based on how a Presbytery votes on one issue. What if rather than try to label one another we actually talked to each other and found out what we thought?
Response from Earl Tilford, February 24, 2009
It's up for grabs
We are losing the Church. If we do, we have ourselves to blame. Too many were seduced by those who advocated "tolerance" and "dialog" and not using words that "marginalize" and "cause pain." Well, sin is painful and from Leviticus to Romans to First Corinthians to Jude and The Revelation, homosexual practice is described as a sin. The Scriptures tell us God will judge sinners.

Too many of us were too tolerant. Those who want to strike down G6.0106b want that as a first step to sanctifying homosexual marriage.

Can you imagine what the Church of fifty years ago might have done if it had known where loosening our standards...one by one...little by little...would lead to this?

Shame on us for not standing firm and calling sin exactly what it is: sin.

Earl Tilford
First Presbyterian Church
Tuscaloosa, AL
Response from Karl Landstrom, February 24, 2009
...
But should New Amendment B be adopted, individuals who are pursuing same-sex practices would still be barred from ordination because of continuing provisions of G-6.0108, if faithfully enforced, which pohibit individuals from becoming candidates or officers of PC(USA) unless they adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions.
Response from David Bruce Rose, Ph.D., February 24, 2009
...
Does anyone beside me find it uncomfortable to have presbyteries categorized as Red, Blue, and Purple as if only politics and not the Holy Spirit were involved in this process?

Write a Response
smaller | bigger
NOTE: Your response to an article will be reviewed by staff before it is made available to the public for reading. The delay may be a few minutes or it may be as long as 24 hours.

busy