Comments for It’s up for grabs: A status update on the voting for the New Amendment B at http://www.pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 41 out of 20 comments http://www.pres-outlook.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:56:45 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4469 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 - Daniel Fultz, Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:13:29 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4461 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? - Rev. David McCann Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:57:18 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4453 "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? - j shuck Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:26:41 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4452 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 ! - Hamer, Karen Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:16:10 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4451 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. - j shuck Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:46:27 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4450 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. - Robert Tolar, Jr. Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:10:07 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4449 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. - j shuck Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:42:46 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4448 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. - Rick Brand Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:52:59 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4447 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. - Rick Brand Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:48:20 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4444 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. - Susan Phillips Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:35:09 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4443 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. - Mariam Touba Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:09:24 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4439 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. - pj Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:04:20 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4437 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?" - Susan Phillips Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:56:09 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4432 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. - Ed Wegele Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:48:45 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4431 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! - Don McLean Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:16:35 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4430 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. - pj Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:25:14 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4429 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. - Joao Soares -Trustee- Newark, NJ Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:55:52 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4428 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. - Jeff Chandler Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:15:41 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4424 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. - Susan Phillips Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:50:45 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis3/1-news-a-analysis/8492-its-up-for-grabs-a-status-update-on-the-voting-for-the-new-amendment-b.html#comment-4423 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. - Jeannie Dixon Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:06:56 +0100