I noticed you said Spirit. Which one? It's not the doing of the Holy Spirit. I notice that this is all about their needs, not God's needs. Maybe with what they deem is good will mean different uses for communion tables in our churches. Since all of this is supposedly so good, why not an "S&M Leather Sunday" once a year to celebrate the greatness of this sexual expression? Will "party favors" become a part of Sunday worship?
From the March 2009 More Light newsletter: "Insisting upon compulsory heterosexuality or the imposition of celibacy for full participation and service in our Church is a scandal to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a barrier to the realization of God’s realm. How can we expect people to love themselves, others and even God if we are not willing to remove such prejudice in our hearts and church laws?"
I had to put on hip boots to wade into that newsletter to read such nonsense. We imposed on God to sacrifice His Son to pay for our sins, yet the More Lights call it scandalous that celibacy be imposed on them. What utter, narcissistic nonsense. There is also no civil right to be ordained. Another thing, this bit about wanting an inclusive church, well, you need to bring that up with Christ because He said "I am the way, the truth and the Light. No man comes to the Father but by me." That is anything but inclusive. Part of the More Light creed is that there are many paths. Well, then they are saying Jesus is a liar since He says He is the only way.
You and the more lights use the term "diversity" quite a bit. Well, there is nothing diverse about two men or two women, or however many of the same sex share in the bed. True diversity was ordained by God in the blessing of the union between a man and a woman. The two different bodies of opposite sexes joined together.
While we're at it, why don't you and some of your friends get the whole truth out there about your beliefs that Jesus was sexually active. Oh, and why don't you tell us about the intolerance that the More Lights and their friends have towards people that leave the gay lifestyle. They call ministries for people wanting to leave the lifestyle as "dangerous." Funny how they never mention the fact how dangerous gay sex is, just that these ministries are dangerous. As I said in a previous post, maybe I know a little bit about this subject matter as well.

Right now, huge changes are occurring in the evangelical world. More and more evangelicals are coming out of the closet, and more and more evangelical leaders are changing their minds and hearts. But it's not easy, for sure. Hard positions and lines drawn in cement are not easily modified. But it's happening, for who can resist the Spirit? It's a good day for those who have prayed long and hard for more light, a good day for those who welcome it, and very painful for others who have fought so hard against it.

With the ordination of women came dire threats about the demise of the church; earlier, with abolition, came a civil war. But in the end, love prevails, the gospel remains and God is glorified. Things always change. And there will likely be other struggles ahead of us, but as of now, as we did with the earlier ordination questions regarding women and the social question of abolition, the church will find its way, and as with women ordained and the social questions of civil rights mostly answered, the ordination of LGBT persons will bring a new and healthier day to the church of Jesus Christ.

Wow! So very sad the state of supposed believers in this denomination. Being obedient to the PCUSA Book of Order and the Scripture is now akin to those that were obedient to Hitler. Really? If it is about love, then why can't they love someone of the opposite sex as a lifelong partner. Or are they incapable of truly loving? No, they are not "dying to self" and wanting to continue their own lustful desires and now say they are good, in spite of what the scripture says. See, I can't get away from what the scripture says, but of course, that gets thrown away as being a "myth" from those that want these changes made to the church. Since you threw away obedience, you have told me that being obedient to God is not virtuous either. That's a very small god you worship, Jill Anne. More like the image of Jill Anne, than the God that made the universe. Jill Anne, I found your response to be rather condescending, much like those in the More Light movement. It's as if you are wiser than all of of those that were before you including Christ Himself. Lastly, the dotted line was signed when they wanted to remain in the denomination. If you don't like the rules, why is it that we must change them to meet their needs as opposed to them just obiding by them?
Lastly, maybe I know a little bit more about this subject matter than you do.

I get twitchy when obedience whistles up rockweilers to resolve a dispute. And Jesus said, "sell all that you have and give it to the poor." And the rich young ruler went away unhappy and Jesus was unhappy too. We get terribly selective about what we want to obey or ignore. Interestingly, though, the virtues that were codified o so long ago by Aquinas and Sons (not daughters, then, alas), don't list "obedience" as a virtue at all! Fancy that. Now, as I recall, there were the theological virtues - faith, hope, and charity (caritas, actually, agape, so Paul) and the greatest of those was love/caritas/agape. Now those virtues come directly from God and enter into the soul. There's nothing we can do on that score. God pours them into us. We can't learn 'em in school or in board rooms or in sex manuals or through fossil records. That's God stuff, period. And then there are the cardinal (hinge) virtues - prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance - and those are something we can generate and sustain through practice. In fact, virtues are habits to practice over and over again. And "obedience" isn't one of 'em. Thank God. I say, "thank God," because an obedient person does not think very often or well upon the consequences on what he or she does to others as a result of that "obedience." There are times to obey and times to disobey. I'm sorry, Chas Jay, but obedience and slaughter may be pals. It was the Barmen Declaration that called Christians back to their boss, "Christ," and not to Hitler. Not to obey Hitler was Christlike, to obey was murderous. A parting shot: A motto of the Enlightenment, from where we get our marching orders as a free people was, "Test all authorities." We've forgotten that one. Time to remember that authorities need be legitimate before we sign on the dotted line. Time to refer to the real boss, even Christ, whose order was "love."

John 14:15, Jesus says "If you love me, obey my commandments." Colossians 3:22 says "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;"
Seeing that Christ commanded us to be obedient, it is of utmost importance that we do obey in order to show our love for Him. Disregarding obedience is not Christlike.

Oh please stop. I recommend a book, "On Religion," by John Caputo, a Catholic philospher who teaches at Syracuse. Please do read this book. For those of you who like Augustine, particularly his Confessions, the read is easy and refreshing, sort of like a dip in a cool, clear lake. No doctrines or formulae, no question of obedience or disobedience, finger pointing, excluding or including. The thesis is terribly simple: We are hard wired to love. But what or who? And if we love God, what is it that we love when we say we love God (and do as we please). Can we cut to the chase and go home to the basics. Forget the rest: Gays, please stop pleading and whining and looking up hormones in dictionaries. Straights, stop screaming hysterically as if you knew what a human being was, is and is to be. Stop it. What do we love when we say (if we say it at all) that we love God? If there's only one answer, we loused it up, again. Lots of answers all possible. Can we ask that question. John Knox, Scott, Jennings, Rankin - all of us -let's have a chat: what do we love when we say we love God?

Stop it already.

Disobedience and Deceipt. Disobedience by Scott, Covenant and John Knox. To be a faithful follower of Christ, are we no longer required to be obedient? That is the message I have gotten from Scott, Covenant and John Knox. Christ never forced any to follow Him. Instead, He allows us to make the choice. If you decide to follow Christ you are to die to self and be obedient to Him. What we see in this is not an act of obedience, but one in which they are wanting the PCUSA obey them. In this act of disobedience, they are forcing their will on the church which just recently voted against this again. The PCUSA does not force them to remain in the church so why are they trying to force the church to change in their image? Perhaps they have molded a god into their image as opposed to worshipping a God that made us in His image.

My heart breaks when I read what John Knox Presbytery is involved in an approves of. Do we no longer agree with what God's Holy Word says??? Why not open our Bibles and read: Leviticus 18: 22-30, Romans 1: 24-27, & 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. What does it say? Does it say it is ok to have same partner relationships? As far as I can read, it does not. And I am sure that God-fearing, Bible-beleiving Christians will not stay in a Church where the pastor is gay. We have all sinned. That is why Jesus had to come and pay for our wicked sins on the Cross. If I sin a certain sin, is it ok? NO, I am in the wrong and I have to pray to God to forgive me thru Jesus Christ and to ask for His help to sin no more!!! This is so sad for approval of this kind of sin in our Church leaders today...

Good for John Knox Presbytery ... to further the cause of liberty and equality. For some, of course, it'll be one more reason to leave the church, but for others, it'll be a reason to return. Tens of thousands have left our ranks over the years because of our closed doors. Slowly, but surely, they are opening again. God be praised.

God's speed for the Presbytery of John Knox and Scott Anderson as you move ahead. Prayers and support are with you. Jan Scott

Nowhere in the Bible do we read that being a woman is an abomination. This cannot be said about homosexuality. Comparing the ordination of woman and homosexuals/lesbians is like comparing apples and oranges. It cannot be done - at least not logically.

It is interesting to me that the very people who remained in our denomination at the time of reunion in 1983 accepted the ordination of women. They are now some of the same people who condemn GLBT people. They say the issue of ordaining women is completely different than the issue of ordaining GLBT people....yet they use the same arguments, critiques, and condemnation as those who argued, critiqued and condemned the ordination of women. I can't keep up. Who will be condemned next using the same arguments, critiques, and condemnation?

I am saddened by this decision, and also by the responses I see. The reasons for my sadness are these: 1) We no longer value our polity. The BOO is quickly becoming a set of suggested guidelines instead of a part of our constitution. We are becoming congregational, which leads to losing our connectional nature. 2) We no longer take Scripture seriously. Instead, the ways of the world are more important to us than God's Word. 3) No matter how some folks try to paint this decision, we are still a denomination that is fractured. We are in adversarial positions, where there are winners and losers. 4) The culmination of the above three have been contributing factors to the decline of our denomination over the past 20 years. These factors will contribute to our future decline. I would guess in about 20 to 30 years there will no longer be a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). We will be a footnote in history. But there will be a Roman Catholic Church, a United Methodist Church, a Southern Baptist Church, a Church of God in Christ, to name a few. 5) I am finally sad because we have lost the mission God gave to us. We are no longer witnesses for Christ. We no longer yearn to see lives transformed by the power of Christ. We merely want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I was very angry when I read that the John Knox Presbytery voted 81-25 to ordain Scott Anderson. Mr. Anderson, an openly gay-identified ministerial candidate, invoked an “Affirmation of Conscience” declaring a scruple to G-6.0106(b), which requires all PC(USA) officers to be faithful in marriage between a man and a woman or chaste in singleness.
Since the John Knox Presbytery voted to affirm the ordination of Mr. Anderson, thereby disregarding the clear teaching of Scripture on homosexuality and our Book of Order as it relates to ordination standards, I am demanding that the executive presbyter, Ken Meunier, and the stated clerk, Alyson Janke, of the John Knox Presbytery write letters of apology to those persons who were told they could not minister in our denomination because they had scruples against ordaining women. I know two godly servants of Jesus Christ who were told by their respective (presbyteries) in the early 1980s that they could not minister within the UPCUSA because they believed Biblically that women should not be ordained. They scrupled their presbytery and were denied ordination. I also remember when the Presbytery of Denver redid the locks of South Presbyterian Church because the senior pastor, staff, and elders had Biblical scruples against the ordination of women. Because of this unloving and inappropriate behavior by the presbytery the members had to find another place to worship.
At one time in our denomination local presbyteries took action to deal with those individuals and churches that had Biblical scruples concerning the ordination of women.  In regard to the homosexual ordination issue, individuals, local churches, PLGC, and MLP have been for years “thumbing their collective noses” at the Book of Order. They dared COMs to take action. It is clear that presbyteries have been frightened by those who advocate the ordination of homosexually-identified persons. And so, Scott Anderson, an openly gay-identified man, is now allowed to move toward ordination within the PC(USA) because of his scruple while other gifted persons, who also scrupled our denomination, were told to leave. It is apparent that some scruples have more potency than others. 
I know the names of the men who were “drop kicked” out of the UPCUSA as well as the Denver pastor who was locked out of his church. I can find their addresses. I will give them to the executive presbyter and stated clerk of the John Knox Presbytery so they can write letters of apology to the persons our denomination would not allow to serve because of their particular scruple.    

Jeff Winter
Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

In reading all the responses to the actions of the Presbytery, I felt a profound saddness. I rejoice for the courage and faith of Anderson and his partner for staying with the PCUSA. As a pastor and a Counselor I have the honor to work with all kinds of people and I see the harm and pain that our current standards inflict on folks. I work with teenagers, many of whom are struggling with their sexual orientation, and I know that they will not be received in most of our Churches. It seems we are better Pharisees than we are Christ bearers to the world. Maybe this decision is a sign of hope that our Church is truly becoming a place of love, welcome, fellowship and service to a loving God.

Now that Scripture, Book of Order, Book of Confessions, and other inconvenient musings are now optional, where does this leave us? Since we are free to do as we please, are then free to choose to not recognize ordinations done by John Knox Presbytery? I would hope not, but this would seem to be a logical conclusion.

One of the saddest, shameful days in the history of the PC(USA). But alas, more are to come I'm afraid.

I find this development sad, frustrating, not at all surprising … and necessary as God begins to make a separation of those who are true to Him from others who persist in error and lead others to it. The early church had to deal with this (Christ described His community with the image of tares within the field of wheat – Paul had to deal with false teachers within the early church – John had to deal with those “who went out from us …”). And so must we in our generation.

Judgment is beginning with the household of God (1 Pet 4.17)… and that’s OK if it spurs us on to this end: “Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God” (2 Cor. 7.1). Our part is to adjust ourselves to God and to join Him in His work, rather than to strain theology to the breaking point and strategize power and parliamentary manipulation over a weakened denomination.

Reading the responses was fascinating, two clearly divergent opposing opinions sometimes vehemently and judgmentally expressed. I hear the fabric of our denomination ripping…

Congrats to John Know and Anderson, I think it is a truely wonderful day when we can accept all of God's creatures!

Good for Scott Anderson and John Knox Presbytery. Isn't it time that the denomination engaged in a serious study of Christian anthropologies and their concommitent world views. This isn't the 4th century, the 13th or even the 20th. This is the 21st century. What does it mean to be made in the Imago Dei in our time not in Augustine's or in Aquinas' or even in Barth's. I am so proud that Scott and John Knox chose to be more concerned with the quality of relationships than with types of relationships that commandeer a blind and automatic good keeping housekeeping seal of approval. Some folks are threatening to walk out as a result of this decision. That's too bad, really too bad, but then go. How much longer do we need to be chained to points of view that promulgate natural theology and morality rather than a theology of the natural and love. For once, thanks to Scott and John Knox, I'm proud to be Presbyterian. Go for it people.

This is not the "clear will of this presbytery," it is the clear will of the few congregational members who ever get informed of what will be on the agenda. Closing the meeting to the public was a very typical response. I think our presbytery motto is, "if you don't like what we are doing, we just won't tell you about it."

First, thank you Scott Anderson for your faithfulness to God who made you as you are and to Christ who called you to the office of ordained ministry. I deeply admire your persistent fidelity to the PCUSA in the face of an arduous and intrusive process that is not required of other candidates for ordination.

Second, thank you John Knox Presbytery for your deliberate and thoughtful approach to Scott Anderson. It is so terribly sad that you felt compelled to close the proceedings. Concealing does not fit with our Presbyterian tradition of letting the light of the Holy Spirit shine upon our human activity and helping us all learn from that. It does give a measure of the spiritual state of the PCUSA. It is significant to me that I am one with my conservative brother, Whitman Brisky, in grieving the closed doors for the ordination examination.

Finally, I expect my brother Whitman does not share my utter dismay at the major focus of this article being on the judicial proceedings expected to challenge John Knox Presbytery's action rather than on the joy of an ordination of such a faithful servant in the PCUSA. The judicial actions taken by the minorities in Twin Cities concerning Paul Capetz and in San Francisco concerning Lisa Larges are allowed but the are not beneficial to the church. They utterly sap our pocketbooks, costing at least tens of thousands of dollars. But more importantly they sap our spiritual strength when there are so many people and circumstances in the church and the world that require all our energy , intelligence, imagination and love. I beg you: let he scruple process work in the 21st century.

Or better yet, let's pass an overture to revise the Book of Order to reflect what we know: faithful gay , lesbian, bisexual and transgender Presbyterians are called by God to ordained office in the church. It is time for the church to allow the presbyteries to do their job or assessing and ordaining them. May it be so this time.

What a sad day in the history of the Presbyterian Church! The authority of God's Word has finally been trumped by human experience. May God have mercy on the members of the PUP Commission whose work enabled this to happen, on the members of John Knox Presbytery who have clearly defied what is written in God's Word, and on Scott Anderson whose selfish motives will further divide the denomination. May the Spirit of God guide the appeals process as it goes forward.

I have come to the conclusion that Part II of our Constitution (The Book of Order)means absolutely nothing and carries no ecclesiastical, judicial, or disciplinary weight whatsoever. In the military you abide by the standards until the standards change, you're free to voice your objection, to work to change the regulations, but until that change happens you abide by the regulations or face the disciplinary consequences that come with disregarding the rules. What's more, the military has changed dramatically over the course of the past 50 years, very often leading the way in civil and equal rights, but the military did so while following its Book of Order (the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other regulations). In the PC (USA), regardless of what side of this issue or any other we stand, we seem to abide by those standards that we agree with and ignore those to which we object. What happened to the Holy Spirit working and speaking through the voice of the church and its constitution? What happened to affirming the movement of the Holy Spirit throughout the corpus of the church? Today - it seems the military understands and embraces this truth better than our denomination. In the PC(USA) if one individual - or one particular governing body or 'council' - believes it has rightly interpreted the movement of the Spirit they just ignore our constitution and do as they please. This being the case bother with ordination or any other standards? It's not the debate over ordination standard that saddens me - debate, discussion, and discernment are appropriate and good - its losing a form of church government that, in its heart, affirmed reform but did so following the mandate of the Apostle Paul - that all things should be done decently and in order. We have move far beyond and far away from this Spirit inspired Biblical standard.

First we have the tyranny of the majority in the vote to preserve discrimination in the hypocritical "B" amendment, now we have a tyranny of the minority in endless litigation against the clear will of this presbytery. Has anyone ever heard of "mutual forebearance"?

It is sad to see any Presbyterian organization that would even consider changing the rules of ordination to become "acceptable" to allow entry of a "person" who admits openly, a long term relationship with a same sex partner. Romans 1:26-27, Isn't there something clear about denying and disobeying God, that relates to homosexual behavior? And does 1 Cor. 6:9 make it very clear that this is not acceptable behavior and will not be tolerated, ever. How can it be justified that one could even be considered for the ministry based on the previous scriptures? Where is the leeway, what is not clear, and how can you get to a place where it is acceptable? This is knowing many wise, honest people guided by scripture and God's leading, set the standards for the church and admission to the ministry. Denial of what is truth, written in scripture and has stood the test of time, makes no sense just because someone wants to push the limits of the legal system, to see if it will push back or at best fall away in a confused state of affairs.

For brothers in Christ like Sam in Oxford, Mississippi who regret the decision of John Knox Presbytery and condemn folks like Scott Anderson all that is asked of you in Scripture is to do what Jesus had courage and compassion to do.

Sit with, pray with, listen too, eat with those who are condemned, forgotten, or rejected. Take your faith and go the distance. Open your life to the very one you call a sinner....open your eyes, your ears, and your heart. That is what Jesus did. Do this too. If the "sinner" changes the way you want them to change....then so be it. But also expect that when you do what Jesus did...you will be changed as well.

John Knox Presbytery has responded to a timely opportunity with a courageous response. I join with the many who have expressed their concern to be prayerfully involved with preserving the continuing peace, unity and purity of that presbytery. The members on both sides of this issue are to be commended for exemplifying a dignified image of Christian discussion to a cynical secular world.

It is perhaps time to remind ourselves of the current double standard in our treatment of deviations from scriptural mandates among sexual sins. Although Jesus speaks with undeniable precision against the practice of divorce and remarriage, most presbyteries continue to ordain divorced and remarried persons to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament without a single question being raised during examination - even when the situation is well-known. This has been a reality for many years. Some of the most vociferous critics of ordination of homosexual people have not uttered a word of objection when divorced and remarried folks are ordained.

As for living in absolute consistency with scriptures, do we (with reference to I Cor. 11:4 and 11:10) condemn as apostates the millions of men who have worn their hats during outdoor church services or those millions of women who every Sunday similarly declare an implied scruple by not wearing their hats during worship services?

As Isaiah declared, "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes ahve seen the King, the Lord of hosts." The oft-stated summation of life in the time of the Judges was that every man did what was right in his own eyes. Rather than a movement as a denomination toward greater faithfulness, we seem to be wrapped around the axle in disagreement about a few specific issues; we don't seem to be particularly motivated to be "in the world, but not of the world;" and seem not to care much for sacrifice, so that our collective witness is weakened. As a denomination we have been in apparent crisis for better than a decade--but perhaps the roots were laid at the time of the reformation itself. I believe ordination in this case, regardless of what individual Presbyterians, congregations, or Presbyteries do--will move us further in the direction of doing what is right in our own eyes.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY...GOD HAS ALWAYS CONDEMNED IT AND NEVER AFFIRMED IT...CALVIN RECOGNIZED IT... NOW JOHN KNOX PRESBYTERY IN PRIDE (PROVERBS 16:18) HAS ENABLED IT.

I am glad, finally, we have a clear case of someone "scrupling" against a mandate of the book of order. Let us now have a clear decision on the constitutional merits of "scrupling" a precise and unambiguous statement in the Book of Order. The stage is set. May God help the Commissioners to the 219th Assembly, as well those who sit on the Permanent Judicial Commission, that guidance be sought on the basis of Scriptural Truth ALONE.

I share others' comments commending both sides of this question for the civil way they have behaved, spoken and made their case. It's refreshing to see this extremely controversial matter, over which so much ink and angst has been spilled, handled in a way that dignifies the thoughtful way Presbyterians try to handle things. Would it always be so.

Having said that, I remain opposed to Mr. Anderson's ordination. If we don't stand for fidelity to what the Bible and the Book of Order teach regarding the fidelity and chastity of those ordained to serve, we should no longer call ourselves the "People of the Book." It's not enough, in my view, to make the case based on Mr. Anderson's living in a committed, long-term relationship with another man. What we have to decide, ultimately, is whether secular society's growing acceptance of gay people's chosen lifestyle is consistent with a Presbyterian call to ministry. If it is not, then the length of Mr. Anderson's relationship really doesn't matter.

Why not remove all standard of conduct for ordained ministers. Just because other ministers have failed to live accordingly does not mean we should adjust standards to be politically correct. I agree that this will split the Presbyterian Church. Maybe that is the goal of gay activists. If I were gay or even "shacked up" in a heterosexual relationship I would not consider pursuing ordination. I don't understand why someone would want to be part of an organization, religious, fraternal, whatever, that has rules, bylays, standards, etc, that go against their beliefs, lifestyle or own personal standard.

Scott Anderson is one of the most faithful, loving and devout Presbyterians and Christians I have ever met. Scott's call to ministry, gifts for ministry and decades of faithful ministry are clear to those who know him and take the time to know him. John Knox Presbytery's approval to ordain Scott reminds all of us what we have always known as Presbyterians, that the local govering body is the one most capable in matters of discernment. In addition to being a devout Christian, Scott is also gay and has love in his life. Faith & Love. Are these things not what matter most in our lives? Surely "God is doing a new thing in our midst" and for this, I give thanks to God.

But the PUP report changed nothing at least....

Yeah, right.

About John Knox Presbytey's vote to ordain Scott Anderson, I can only say first, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow." That is a presbytery I would like to be part of- one that recognizes the full personhood of gays and lesbians, and God's abiding love of all those in committed, covenanted relationships. I am also glad that they could affirm Scott's right to declare a scruple based on his conscience. Finally, I appreciated the presbytery's sense of acting decently and in order, and the gracious way in which the dissenters acted toward Scott. I pray God that the GAPJC will support this action.

For me, this case is the reason there is anguish within the faith on the matter of homosexual ministers. This man's life clebrates & exemplifies the charity towards all that our Lord lived by. Considering his life as presented in this article, if we cannot approve of Mr. Anderson, then we have, as a Church, made our decision. Whether for good or ill remains to be seen, but a decision nonetheless.

I REGRET MR ANDERSON HAS TAKEN THIS ACTION. IT WILL LEAD TO MANY PEOPLE LEAVING THE CHURCH IF PC USA APPROVES THE ARRANGEMENT.
BOTH THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENT SPEAK ON HOMOSEXUL BEHAVIOR
OUR DENOMINATION HAS HELD ITS PRESENT STANCE FOR YEARS
I HATE TO THINK OF YOUNG CHILDREN BEING EXPOSED TO A PASTOR WHERE HIS (WIFE) IS A MAN
PRAY THAT WE DO NOT CHANGE ORDINATION STANDARDS

This is a hopeful development, both because the John Knox Presbytery has taken a strong stand in favor of ordaining a faithful person who has been called by God to serve the church and because, from reading this article, it appears that everyone concerned is exercising civility as the case moves forward. My prayers are with Scott Anderson and the John Knox Presbytery and with all those faithful Christians who want to live our their calls to serve God through ordained office within the church. I also hold the church universal in my prayers as God's grace seeks to find its way into our deliberations.

Thank you to John Knox Presbytery. Why must we continue to let the social circumstances of the Old Testament tear our church apart. Just as in the Armed Forces. Should we allow homosexuals to serve? They have been serving for hundreds of years! We can not continue a "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy in the clergy.

We do not question any candidate about any other issue that the Confessions have said were inappropriate.

Thanks for 20 years of faithful commtment. I wish all of our "straight" pastors did as well. In my 50 years of ministry I've seen many who didn't!