Google+
Fidelity-chastity on the ropes, nFOG holds slim lead, Belhar teeters: An update on amendment voting
Written by Outlook staff   
Tuesday, 19 April 2011 23:00

UPDATED APRIL 19, 2011 – The Presbytery of deChristo voted on Saturday to a 62-62 tie – which counts as a collective “no” vote – becoming the third presbytery to turn away from supporting elimination of the fidelity-chastity ordination requirement (in 2009 it voted 59-48 to overturn the policy).

However, given that 16 presbyteries have reversed their vote in the opposite direction, time is running out for those who hope to retain the constitutional prohibition adopted in 1997 that has denied ordination of all those sexually active outside of heterosexual marriage.

The proposed new Form of Government amendment continues to hold a slim lead in presbytery voting. The Belhar Confession is drawing a solid majority, but it continues to track just below the two-thirds margin required to be added to The Book of Confessions.

So far, 80 presbyteries have voted to support Amendment 10-A, which would delete from the PC(USA) constitution the requirement that candidates for ordination practice “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.” Sixty (60) presbyteries have disapproved the amendment. Compared to the last round (in 2008-09) of voting on that proposed change, sixteen (16) presbyteries have switched from opposition to support, while three (3) presbyteries have withdrawn their support.

Passage of the amendment requires 87 affirmative votes, including a minimum of net nine presbyteries to switch from opposition to support, so the net change so far of 13 presbytery votes indicates a strong trend toward passage. Thirty-four presbyteries have yet to vote.

Support for the proposal to replace the Form of Government section of the denomination’s Book of Order holds a slim 72-62 margin. A simple majority of 87 votes is needed for approval, and 48 presbyteries have yet to vote.

Support for adding the Belhar Confession to The Book of Confessions leads 68-43 in voting so far. The confession was written to guide the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and was recently adopted by the Reformed Church in America and will be considered at the 2012 general synod meeting of the Christian Reformed Church in North America.

The proposal to add it to The Book of Confessions requires support by two-thirds (116) of the presbyteries to pass. Of the presbyteries that have voted, 61 percent have endorsed its adoption. In order to pass, 48 of the 62 presbyteries that have yet to vote on the proposal must approve it. For final adoption, the 2012 General Assembly must also approve the change.

                                                           Summary as of April 19, 2001

Amendment

Yes

No

Needed for approval

Ordination Standards

80

60

87

New FOG

72

62

87

Belhar Confession

68

43

116

Do you want to track the voting on these amendments? The official tabulation of votes is managed by the Office of the General Assembly (OGA). Some affiliated advocacy organizations are also tracking the votes on their Web pages.

Office of the General Assembly

Covenant Network – which supports ratification

Presbyterian Coalition – which opposes ratification

 

Comments  

 
#15 Tim Thomas 2011-04-11 16:28
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/06gay.html One of many links that shows support that reparation thearpy does not work. I for one is a walking testamony that it does not work. While I do not have the sad story that Scott has to tell. I applaud Scott that he has "found a way out". My experience was with one that is well known and often quoted, I wasn't shown a way to change I was told to mask and keep it below the surface and God would take the "gay away". I attemped to do just that and that's where my story takes a turn. I grew distant from a family that loved me and even became depressed. Thank God I had a PCUSA pastor that always let me know that she never stopped loving me and neither did God. I have found my way back to the table and know I am loved and accepted by God. I acccept the Bible as my one rule of faith and strive to live it each day. Where we differ is in our experience and interpetation of the text. What I find weird and disturbing is that the Bible and Jesus himself talks directly to divorce, yet we accept it as common place. How can we pick and chose what to believe? Sorry for the ramble and this not being very well put together. But we are discussing something that is dear and near to my heart. Its so easy to see the speck in anothers eye and forget the log in our own.. I pray for the day the PCUSA is at peace and more about doing the will of God than fighting about who is and isn't worthy of God's grace and call.
Peace
Quote
 
 
#14 Greg Scandlen 2011-04-11 14:48
I can relate to Scott's story. I was born an alcoholic and spent many, many years drinking and placing booze over all other values. Like Scott I was able to wear a mask and stayed functional during that time, but alcohol was my god. I was saved by AA and acknowledgment of "a higher power" about 22 years ago. It took another 19 years before I identified Jesus Christ as that higher power.

I remain a sinner, but I am confident that God has forgiven me. And I live in joy because of it.
Quote
 
 
#13 Elder Reid Stewart 2011-04-11 14:20
Ms. McGinney,
I must agree with the first getleman that responded to your post. You do seem a bit arch and condescending. But I would really want to know what one thing has to do with another.

I would ask you about Jesus' reply to the woman caught in adultery, as so many have tried to hit me over the head with it. Jesus told the woman that He wasn't going to condemn her. But He also told her to go, and "sin no more." Does the fact that the we know the world is round void the word of Christ? Hardly.

As for reparation therapy being harmful, I haven't heard the information that leads to your making the claim, but unless Scott is damaged and doesn't know it, it would seem your assertion is suspect. I do know that I don't think the therapy is effective; the only thing that will change a person at this level is the grace of God. Yes, we possess so much more knowledge in this day, but the wisdom of man is nothing when compared to God and His Son.
Quote
 
 
#12 David McCann 2011-04-11 10:02
Leanne, what is harmful is stating something as fact without any substantiating proof. What is harmful is treating people with a condescending, judgmental, and self-righteous attitude. What is harmful is claiming that since we now have discovered many laws of physics and nature the Bible no longer contains the God's revelation for our lives so it is no longer relevant. Instead of being intolerant of others and discounting their transformation experiences, if we are to move forward as God's people, we need to have, as the apostle Paul said, the mind of Christ, the same faith, and one baptism, which means accepting the authority of scripture as "the only rule for faith and manners." (G-1.0137)
Quote
 
 
#11 Dave Watson 2011-04-08 08:24
As a matter of fact, the Christian Reformed Church has not adopted the Belhar Confession, but is considering it and is scheduled to vote on its adoption at its annual Synod in 2012. There is a strong possibility that it will not be adopted as a Confession, but rather as a kind of Contemporary Testimony (not as binding as a Confession).
Quote
 
 
#10 leanne mcginney 2011-04-07 07:15
Scott, It is well-known that gay reparation therapy is harmful, so I am sorry to hear that you are on staff at such a place.

Holly, What part of "love your neighbor as yourself is confusing." The world is no longer flat.and

Excuse me for being so blunt, but you both are still fighting a a cause that is harmful to others if not yourselves, and has long since discredited.
Quote
 
 
#9 Elder Reid Stewart 2011-04-06 14:11
Scott, I so appreciate such an honest revelation from "inside" gaylife. When you read I Corinthians, Paul states that grace can be given to anyone who repents. He specifically said that some of the Corinthians had been homosexuals before being redeemed. In the same letter, he commands the Corinthians to no longer associate with anyone claiming to be a Christian, but is sexually impure. I'm so happy that you were finally brought onto the right path. And I hope the commissioners of the presbyteries that have yet to vote on this issue choose not to approve the ordination of unrepentent homosexual folk as officers or ministers. I really do believe that if we go this route, the PC(USA) will ultimately cease as a church.

At the same time, the truth is this vote is not about sex. It is about the "renewing of our minds" and obedience to revealed Word. Unrepentent gayfolk are simply sinners, like we all were once.
Quote
 
 
#8 John James 2011-04-05 10:26
To Penn Hackney.

I understand that we all interpret the Bible differently. However, the web site you refered us to does not even appear to be Christian. At best it is Universalist. Don't think this is where we should be getting hermeneutics/exegesis from. Here are some other thoughts from the site:

"All, or almost all, theistic religions are "bottom-up" faiths. That is, their beliefs, practices and holy books are the creation of humans trying to comprehend the deity or deities that they have created.
Few, if any, of the theistic religions are "top-down" faiths. That is, their beliefs, practices and holy books represent revelation from God to humanity."

This site describes dozens of faith groups, from Asatru to Christianity to Wicca to Zoroastrianism. We cover new religious movements, including dangerous cults. We describe non-theistic ethical belief systems, like Agnosticism, Atheism and Humanism."

"
Quote
 
 
#7 James Leslie 2011-03-22 12:26
How do we maintain peace, purity and unity of the Church when we can't agree on defining what is pure? Whatever will we argue about (discuss passionately) when this passes? This passionate discussion has been going on for as long as I can remember.
Quote
 
 
#6 Bob Gillette 2011-03-21 19:27
The response from Holly Janiszewski puts the basic, "elephant in the room" issue squarely before us. We know what Leviticus says, but there is abundant room for honest differences about what it means. Is it an order from God that applies to all people for all time, or was it created to meet the needs of extended families living in a wilderness thousands of years ago in goat hair tents that provided only a bare minimum of visual privacy? And is "an abomination" sin or only something that observers may find ugly and distasteful? We don't stone adulterers to death these days, we don't condone slavery as the ancients did, and we let women speak in church. Maybe it's time to stop treating the Holy Bible like a cookbook for Christians. Maybe it's time to accept people with different but honestly held views as children of God, rather than as creatures of Satan.
-- Bob Gillette
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh