Comments for Sexuality Issues at General Assembly at http://www.pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 5 out of 5 comments http://www.pres-outlook.com Thu, 09 Sep 2010 02:40:59 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.pres-outlook.com/blog/Sexuality-Issues-at-General-Assembly.html#comment-4043 AWC, In this post when you talk about retranslating the catechism you completely neglect to mention the significant voices who oppose this move [url]http://www.ga2008.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=407&Itemid=183[/url], namely Bruce McCormack and E. David Willis from PTS, both representing the prestigious Charles Hodge Chair of Systematic Theology. You also neglect to mention that the text that was added in the 1960s was the full citation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and not just some random reference to "homosexual perversion." You were certainly right to muse if the votes about a human sexuality curriculum and the HC were harbingers for later votes on homosexuality in the church. That being said were the opposing voices wrong to be concerned about the "progressive"/liberal agenda? - Dennis Coles Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:09:17 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/blog/Sexuality-Issues-at-General-Assembly.html#comment-4030 Good post, Adam. Good coverage all around. I might add that the Presbyterian Outlook website and coverage is superb! My two cents. I think if this GA passes the Boston Overture, it will first remove the AIs which is a major step that do not require presbytery vote. Further, I think there is a very good chance it will pass in the presbyteries as well. Times are changing. - John Shuck Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:54:51 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/blog/Sexuality-Issues-at-General-Assembly.html#comment-4028 First of all I thank you and the Outlook for the great coverage of the GA. I happened to get an email alert from the Outlook a couple of weeks ago about GA and that is why I viisited the site. I found the language change in the Heidelberg Catechism interesting. What I've discovered as a gay man in the PC (USA) is that things tend to be so wishy-washy and not so clear. So unlike Presbyterians that want the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Even knowing the background of the Heidelberg C. if one were to just simply read it without knowing the history, I from my perspective would have to ask what is "homosexual perversion"? The fact the two terms are together implies that there can exist a "homosexual non-perversion". I think most Presbyterians would agree that there is heterosexual perversion and thus we also have heterosexual non-perversion. Taking the role of the ordinary person in the pew, it seems to me that our constitution (BoO and Confessions) should be clear enough that we don't have to have knowledge of what went on when a committee produced it so we would have to know the real intention. It should be quite black and white. It's another thing when speaking of the Bible for certainly no one living today was there when it was written. History and knowledge of background are essential in knowing what the Bible says to us as Christians. Is it asking too much of the GA and the PC (USA) at large to just simply take time to say what you really mean instead of using wishy-washy language that has to be interpreted and thus brought into legal challenages? The references to ex-gays perfectly illustrate my point. It is my experience as a gay man in exploring the ex-gay movement is it's existence is based on the idea that there is really not such thing as a gay person to begin with. A gay person is simply confused. The gay person is really hetero as God created the gay person to be. So if that be the case, how can one supporting ex-gays support a confession that includes the word "homosexual perversion"? The fact is that homosexuals do not exist in their world. It is a case of good heterosexuals who have gone astray. The more accurate word in the confession would be "heterosexual perversion". Maybe the PC (USA) will eventually be clearer in it's talk and walk about LGBT persons. I'm quite hopeful and thus am committed to staying around until this happens. I think more positives are happening these days than the negatives in the past. Yours in Christ, Earl Apel Deacon, Mount Auburn Presbyterian, Church Ciincinnati, OH - Earl Apel Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:01:49 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/blog/Sexuality-Issues-at-General-Assembly.html#comment-4027 First of all I thank you and the Outlook for the great coverage of the GA. I happened to get an email alert from the Outlook a couple of weeks ago about GA and that is why I viisited the site. I found the language change in the Heidelberg Catechism interesting. What I've discovered as a gay man in the PC (USA) is that things tend to be so wishy-washy and not so clear. So unlike Presbyterians that want the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Even knowing the background of the Heidelberg C. if one were to just simply read it without knowing the history, I from my perspective would have to ask what is "homosexual perversion"? The fact the two terms are together implies that there can exist a "homosexual non-perversion". I think most Presbyterians would agree that there is heterosexual perversion and thus we also have heterosexual non-perversion. Taking the role of the ordinary person in the pew, it seems to me that our constitution (BoO and Confessions) should be clear enough that we don't have to have knowledge of what went on when a committee produced it so we would have to know the real intention. It should be quite black and white. It's another thing when speaking of the Bible for certainly no one living today was there when it was written. History and knowledge of background are essential in knowing what the Bible says to us as Christians. Is it asking too much of the GA and the PC (USA) at large to just simply take time to say what you really mean instead of using wishy-washy language that has to be interpreted and thus brought into legal challenages? The references to ex-gays perfectly illustrate my point. It is my experience as a gay man in exploring the ex-gay movement is it's existence is based on the idea that there is really not such thing as a gay person to begin with. A gay person is simply confused. The gay person is really hetero as God created the gay person to be. So if that be the case, how can one supporting ex-gays support a confession that includes the word "homosexual perversion"? The fact is that homosexuals do not exist in their world. It is a case of good heterosexuals who have gone astray. The more accurate word in the confession would be "heterosexual perversion". Maybe the PC (USA) will eventually be clearer in it's talk and walk about LGBT persons. I'm quite hopeful and thus am committed to staying around until this happens. I think more positives are happening these days than the negatives in the past. Yours in Christ, Earl Apel Deacon, Mount Auburn Presbyterian, Church Ciincinnati, OH - Earl Apel Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:01:17 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/blog/Sexuality-Issues-at-General-Assembly.html#comment-4023 I get the feeling that it is, Adam, but I don't think the deletion of B will make it thru the presbyteries. Sadly, I think our road to full inclusion will be much longer than that. But then again, perhaps not. Time will tell... - Jill Patterson Tolbert Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:46:28 +0100