Comments for Where do we go from here? at http://www.pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.pres-outlook.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:55:11 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8931-where-do-we-go-from-here.html#comment-4749 I have been reading “readers’ outlook” for several months with all of the pros and cons of allowing gays and lesbians, etc., to be ordained. Presbyterians take a long time to decide to change something. I was caught in the web of letting women into the decision-making process. I was only the fourth woman to be elected moderator of Pueblo Presbytery. The previous three … (served) over some 15 years. (Pueblo Presbytery was established not long after the Rev. Sheldon Jackson got First Church in Pueblo, Colorado, started in 1870.) Someone pointed out recently that the younger generation has no problems with gays, lesbians, etc., being ordained, so it won’t be long until there will be no questions. I am also wont to point out that we don’t have any trouble electing divorced persons to any office and Jesus spoke out against divorce. I have a feeling that God gets a lot of laughs over us. - Becky Proudfoot Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:06:30 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8931-where-do-we-go-from-here.html#comment-4728 In a piece as thorough going as the one above there is much to digest and discuss. However the author's statistics on divorce are outdated an incorrect related to church members/participants. George Barna has done the only extensive study on this matter and it behooves Christian leaders to be aware of the truth of the level of divorce in the church. ttp://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm comments extensively on Barna's findings, but suffice to say 25% of Presbyterians have experienced a divorce, and 2in3 marriages will go the distance, those who fail in their first marriage tend to repeat this unfortunate experience, thereby skewing the overall percentage of all christian marriages since second marriages fail at a rate of 3 in 4 for those prior divorced. On disciplining in the church I have been part of actions that were mediated for slander, and mishandling church funds. In both cases the persons were more outraged by the accountability than anything, saying they had not done anything sexual and therefore any supposed transgression had not reached the level appropriate for church discipline. In premarital cases, i have had very few couples living together of those who were all were willing modify their lifestyle and repent of their action when asked if this fit their own belief system, let alone that of the church. If we love God's children we disciple them according to God's word. Our society says do not judge me, I merely ask people to judge their own behavior. Finally the glaring omission in this article is our relationship with the world church, another supremely unchallenged omission that demonstrates our continued paternalism to other cultures and our brothers and sisters in Christ, let alone those yet too know our Lord. Jim Conner Arcadia Presbyterian Church Arcadia California from in Cairo Egypt - Jim Conner Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:07:27 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8931-where-do-we-go-from-here.html#comment-4723 The situation is complex. First, although I agree with your implied accusation of hypocrisy, it's worth noting that the issues with gays and heterosexual offenders aren't exactly the same. Our standards involving adultery are clear. It's actually bringing the disciplinary cases that doesn't happen. But with gays the issue isn't disciplinary cases. All the ruckus is caused by remedial cases, where someone accuses a part of the Church (often one they aren't involved in) of allowing accepting gays when they shouldn't. This is at the bottom a difference about Scriptural interpretation. I.e. these are heresy trials, not disciplinary cases. Your observation however is quite correct: People are concerned about this issue when they don't seem to be concerned in the same way about other behavioral issues. That suggests to me that the accusation about being influenced by the culture may have it reversed. It's pretty clear that Americans have a visceral reaction to homosexuality. The pattern of concern we're seeing suggests to me that what is going on is more due to our general cultural attribute towards homosexuality than to concern for Scripture. If we were really seeing a renewed commitment to church discipline it would be more widely shown. Now the fact that there's a strong cultural motivation doesn't disprove the Scriptural arguments. But it should at least give one pause. - Charles Hedrick Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:30:34 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources3/presbyterian-heritage-articles3/8931-where-do-we-go-from-here.html#comment-4722 I have some observations: If you recall, Fidelity and Chastity is worded the way it is because people said it was inappropriate to discipline only gays. The fact that it is being enforced only against them suggests that the original concern was justified. I don't quite want to say that the broadened wording was done in bad faith; perhaps commissioners really expected the provisions to be enforced broadly; but if so I think the evidence was all against them. However I would argue that the actual procedures we're seeing involving gays aren't really discipline. We have moved to a very narrow definition of discipline, which is seldom invoked. We can't do discipline for all sin, or our churches would be empty. Broad Christian tradition is to invoke discipline only in the case of publicly scandalous behavior. I believe discipline is currently used primarily in cases of sexual misconduct by pastors or officers that abuse their leadership position in the Church. In that case it's needed to protect the Church. But the proceedings involving gays generally aren't disciplinary. They are remedial cases where an intervenor objects to the fact that a church or Presbytery accepts homosexuals. The complaint is against a church body, not an individual. I believe they are really heresy trials. The issue isn't prosecuting someone's moral failures, but enforcing standards that are at the bottom doctrinal. That's not necessarily illegitimate in a connectional church. But I do find it a bit odd that this seems to be the primary area where it's being done. I've always suspected that even if there is a valid Biblical case against gay Church leaders, the actual motivation is more than just Scripture. If the issue were purely a concern for Scripture we'd see concern and action distributed across a wide variety of issues. In our culture there is an obvious visceral negative reaction to homosexuals. I think there's really good reason (even based on your own observations) to suspect that this is part of what is going on. So I think there is a significant cultural component to the objections against gays. Of course that fact doesn't make the Scriptural concerns go away, but when there are strong emotional motivations behind a particular interpretation of Scripture, we need to be particularly careful about our interpretation. I think the claim that we're being pushed by the State is unjustified (or, given how things are going, perhaps simply premature). It may very well happen in the future, but it hasn't yet. Rather, the more liberal wing of our Church, and the leaders moving the State in this direction are motivated by the same concerns (and may to some extent be the same people). - Charles Hedrick Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:22:23 +0100