| Response to Presbyterian Outlook comments on Group in Orlando: Jan 23, 2012 |
| Written by William "Bill" Skinner | ||||
| Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:15 | ||||
|
PC(USA) did not vote to take sin out of the Bible, really. I have read the changes in the 2011-2013 Book of Order. This idea is not there. There was no vote to limit new or old pastors, head of staff, etc, to only homosexuals. There was no preference expressed for homosexuals. God used a lot of imperfect people to do his work and Jesus never had a litmus test for disciples. Neither asked, "Are you a homosexual?" Instead, the adopted language expresses an effort to get Sessions and Presbyteries to become serious with their responsibilities for examining and ordaining candidates for ordination and to do a thorough job. Candidates who agree they can meet the examination and ordination questions with affirmative responses and who are now or become homosexuals will have to answer later at some point to the whole church and the Trinity. This is especially so, since these last 30 years of arguing about the general issue. Resisting our own chance at improving the way Sessions and Presbyteries do that job is not helpful. Abandoning the PC(USA) now is a rejection of hope of future improvements. Reintroducing overtures to reinstate the language that was taken out of the Book of Order only perpetuates the parts of the argument that we have an opportunity to discontinue. What is needed are some teaching elders who will learn what the General Assembly really did and report it accurately without adding descriptive phrases that are not in the words that were adopted. If writers would prepare a two page summary of the opportunity we have to get Sessions and Presbyteries to improve the ordination process, under the new language, this may be helpful in educating those whose righteous indignation has gotten the best of their thinking. I am praying for hard work by Sessions and Presbyteries. Your Responses (2)
p.w. gregory
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
lambertville, nj Of course the laws or wages of sin have not replealed, as the laws of gravity cannot be changed by administrative fiat. The problem is that this curent PCUSA dust-up is happening at the same time as profound demographic, ethnic, population shifts, cultural changes impact society, and the Lutherans, Methodists, and certainly the Anglicans are going through the same type changes to greater and lesser degrees. But as I like to say, the PCUSAers never fail to miss an opportunity, to miss an opportunity. The leadership's rather ham-handed, clumbsly, tone-deaf, and frankly condesending tone and response to changes in its mists tend to make a stressful time worse. And yes, we all agree that "Sin" tends to be like the Supreme Court sees pornogrpahy, "we know it when we see it". The difference across the gulf is of course just what behaviors and tendencies constitute such. And that is a matter of theology, confession, biblical orienation and not easily managed by tweeks in the polity or the church. |
Cameron Smith
said:
|
Salem, VA I must take strong exception to the view expressed here in this letter. Certainly, the 2004 PUP Task Force may have similarly described their effort as "an effort to get Sessions and Presbyteries to become serious with their responsibilities for examining and ordaining candidates for ordination and to do a thorough job." But the reality is, both sides of the ordination issue know what's going on. The word "homosexual" may not appear in the new ordination language, but, rest assured, the new language is specifically written to enable those who so identify to be ordained. Don't go to conservative web pages to verify that -- just go to the ones on the left side of the church. They are, if nothing else, honest about what has happened -- and very happy about it. One last thing, you say "Reintroducing overtures to reinstate the language that was taken out of the Book of Order only perpetuates the parts of the argument that we have an opportunity to discontinue." So, thirty-some years of consistent "no" votes to the issue was fair game to keep dredging up ad nauseam, but now, the matter is settled with the most recent vote? |
