| Mexican Presbyterian Church votes to end 139-year-old relationship with PC(USA) |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon, Outlook national reporter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Friday, 19 August 2011 23:00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The National Presbyterian Church of Mexico (known as INPM) has voted to end its 139-year partnership in mission with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in response to the PC(USA)’s decision earlier this year to allow the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians. That decision to sever the relationship came on a 116 to 22 vote of the Mexican church assembly on Aug. 19. It likely will jeopardize the continuation of the work that 11 PC(USA) mission co-workers have been doing in Mexico – including significant work along the U.S.-Mexican border – as well as the future of short-term congregational mission trips to Mexico and more than two-dozen partnerships that PC(USA) presbyteries and synods have established in Mexico. The Mexican church, with close to two million members, held a special assembly Aug. 17-19 specifically to discuss the ordination of women – voting overwhelmingly, by a margin of 158 to 14, to sustain its policy of not ordaining women. The assembly also voted 103 to 55 not to allow any sort of grace period for presbyteries that had, on their own, already begun ordaining women. That vote means that any presbytery which has already ordained women must immediately revoke those ordinations. Before the assembly began, however, there were rumblings of dissatisfaction with the PC(USA) and its decision earlier this year to approve Amendment 10-A, which removed from the denomination’s Book of Order a requirement that those being ordained practice fidelity if they are married or chastity if they are single. Presbyteries and sessions now will examine candidates for ordination or installation, with the standard being that a candidate’s “manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world.” The new language also states that “governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.” On Aug. 16, several representatives of the PC(USA) – including Gradye Parsons, the denomination’s stated clerk, and Hunter Farrell, director of World Mission – went to Mexico to meet with 11 leaders of the Mexican church and to discuss the Mexicans’ unhappiness and theological disagreement with the decision on 10-A. “The discussion was frank and honest,” Farrell wrote in an e-mail following that meeting. “The disappointment of the Mexican church was expressed.” The PC(USA) representatives asked their Mexican partners to agree to a time of discernment, in part to see how they could continue to work together in mission despite differing views over issues such as ordaining gays and lesbians, or women’s ordination. “Despite the significant theological differences that 10-A puts between our churches, the mission context of increasing violence on our borders, the precarious situation of the poor in both nations, and our own church's need for the INPM's help in sharing the Gospel with Spanish-speakers in the U.S. cries out for prayerful strategizing and increased mission collaboration,” Farrell wrote after that meeting. “The truth is we need each other now more than ever.” The PC(USA) representatives were hopeful that the Mexican Presbyterians might give the relationship more time – but that was not to be. The Mexican delegates also voted not to re-establish any relationship with the PC(USA) until 10-A is rescinded. “I deeply regret their decision to end a relationship that has brought blessings to both churches,” Parsons said in a statement following the vote. “Presbyterians do mission in partnership here and around the world, so we take the voice of the Mexican church very seriously,” Farrell said in a statement. “We are grieved by their decision, but we want to emphasize that we are grateful for their witness and our history together, and will listen carefully as we engage in dialogue about where God is leading us in mission.” Your Responses (31)
Mark Hodges
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Piney Flats, TN The PCUSA has swallowed the poison pill. I truly am saddened to see it go this way. I left last year after the subject was brought up again. We have lots of work to do in this lost world and arguing amongst ourselves is not serving God. |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan ,TX Reply to Mr. Scott: I totally agree this should not hinge on two or three words alone. I think the whole narrative of Scripture is important to look to. Jesus Christ may not have anything to say about the subject of homosexuality but he certainly has a lot to say about how we treat each other and his example of bias toward grace over bias toward law (which admittedly does not negate law) is unmistakeable. Both my micro and macro readings of Scripture lead me to the same place. I've appreciated our conversation which has proven there is absolutely nothing irreconcilable about our differences. Until we can resume the dialogue, |
Andy Scott
said:
|
Bentleyville, PA I think that we may be talking past one another, Mr. Walker. My point was simply that responsible exegesis depends on more than a couple of contentious words. (I assume you're referring to arsenokoites and malakoites, only the second of which - I would suggest - is really at all unclear.) Just as important for this debate is the overall argument Paul makes about sin in Romans 1 and elsewhere, and the larger relationship between the Bible's treatment of the subject and its place in the surrounding culture. I realize that we're going to disagree on this. Alas. I simply meant to point out, contrary to many of the comments here, that the traditionalists (for lack of a better word) aren't ignorant monolingual fundamentalists banging away on their KJVs. |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan, TX I'm sorry, Mr. Scott, I can't let a plea to argue outside of Scripture go. Homosexuality is not as clear of an issue in scripture as people believe when they trust English translation. While I don't think a full blown exegetical study is best done here on the Outlook blog, I do think the Bible is preciously the most competent place to have this discussion and I believe homosexual ordination holds up just as well as the ordination of women which I fully support as well. I admit, denominational liberals have been Biblically lazy without reason to be. I'll continue to stand with, not against, the Bible. There was certainly another Greek word which was in large usage (homosexuality was not foreign to the Greek world) at the time that meant what those against homosexuality as part of God's created and blessed order claim these texts point to yet it was not chosen. You just can't ignore that. There is much dispute on what the chosen word means and early texts reveal the diversity of translation that is summed up only in the last 100 years or so to mean 'homosexual'. A good exegesis yields a lot more questions in Biblical discussion and some folks don't want us to dig deep enough to see that truth. |
Marlin Rice
said:
|
Rosewood Ohio Beware PC(USA) this is the same thing that is destroying the Episcopal Church. Inclusive=Destruction |
Marlin Rice
said:
|
... Beware PC(USA) this is the same thing that is destroying the Episcopal Church. |
Andy Scott
said:
|
Bentleyville, PA The reason you won't find the word "homosexual" in your KJV Bible is that it was coined roughly 250 years after the translation was made. You also won't find the word "racism." Is Mr. Walker prepared to argue that the Bible says nothing about it? On the contrary, to argue that "the Bible says nothing about homosexual behavior" requires that we set aside the best current scholarship regarding the Greek and Hebrew texts, the context of such acts in the ancient world, the Bible's theme of male-female complementarity, the Jewish reaction to Greco-Roman homosexuality, the obvious meaning of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6, and the thrust of his argument in Romans 1. In short, the argument is unsustainable. More honest are those - including some of the commenters here, who simply argue that the Bible's teaching on the subject is "wrong" and "outdated." |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan, TX Well that is a good argument if/when we leave our Greek and Hebrew exegesis at the door. Homosexual relationships were not referred to in the Bible 4000, 3000, 2000, or 1000 years ago. This is where English only exegesis does us a disservice. A simple way to see I'm right is to check your King James New Testament on this one. You won't find homosexual in there for a reason. |
Perry Lee
said:
|
Lexington, KY @ Alan Pendergrast: "Yes, yes. Being gay is a sin..." No, no. Being gay is NOT a sin; homosexual activity is the sin. There are many chaste homosexuals in all denominations living their lives according to the dictates of the church. We are all sinners; sexually active gays are not being singled out. Alcoholics, adulterers, liars, kleptomaniacs... All people have a cross to bear. The difference is that homosexualists are the only group that is clamoring for the church to acknowledge their sinful lifestyle as acceptable in God's eyes; as if passing an amendment here on earth will compel God to change his views of the last 4000 years. And forget the shellfish. Paul tells us that we have a new covenant, and the old covenant has passed awy. He said it's alright to eat shellfish, and it is NOT alright for a man to lie with a man. It's in the new Testament. You could look it up. |
Allan Pendergrast
said:
|
Somerville, MA Yes, yes. Being gay is a sin. Just like eating shellfish or bacon, working on the Sabbath, and wearing clothing made of a mix of wool and linen, right? We've gotten over so many of these outdated "morals"; why does homosexuality continue to be so problematic? Can't we all just get along? |
Ian Copland
said:
|
Wallsend, Newcastle, NSW, Australia Well done good and faithful Mexican church! I was appauled at the unbiblical and godless attitudes I found at SFTS when I studied there for my DMin in the 1990,s -I am an Anglican Minister working for the Presbyterian Church of NSW as a Minister (Home Missionary) -the same issue has been a catalyst to divide world wide Anglicanism. Stick to your biblical principles and do not compromise the Christian gospel! |
Andy Scott
said:
|
Bentleyville, PA In a fallen world, not everything that is, is good. Indeed, God made everyone. And yet his creations still sin, which is why the redeeming work of Christ is necessary. How can folks not get THAT? |
Mark McElwee
said:
|
DeWitt, MI How disappointing. The "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude SUCKS. Rather than trying to work together, let's divide and see how that works out. Let's have a bunch of little struggling denominations. Yeah, that's the ticket! News flash, people- GOD MADE EVERYONE. Seriously, how can folks not GET that? |
David Gray
said:
|
Brainerd, MN The Mexicans are to be congratulated on taking a stand against the apostate PCUSA. There are more faithful Presbyterians in the PCA and the like with whom they may interact without the kind of hellish compromise that the PCUSA requires. |
James Harden
said:
|
Mobile, Alabama I recently participated in a short term mission trip to Ticul, Mexico. The love and fellowship experienced between Presbyterian brothers and sisters was proof positive of the presence of God among us. Rank and file Presbyterians, in the U.S. and Mexico, cannot and should not let the decisions of our church leaders deter us from continuing the work we do together as fellow CHRISTIANS! Our love for the Lord, and for each other cannot be defeated and belittled by the political meanderings of a few misguided leaders. Please do not interpret this as animosity toward our leadership, but as a prayer for them...and for us. |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan, TX Tim, in our denomination, it is just 15 years old. That's how long we have singled out that group above others. We are simply back to 1996. I hate to say it but a lot of the arguments on all sides that make this into a windfall for LGBT persons seem like demagoguery in the image of a naked emperor. Meanwhile, mission is still left undone. That's the real sin of omission here. Kyle |
Tim Vaughan
said:
|
Oceano, CA Wow, Tom. Freeze framed in the 60s? I'm just a contractor, but isn't forbidding active homosexuals a role in church authority like, you know, about 2000 years older than that? |
Rev. Benjamin P. Glaser
said:
|
Ellisville, Mississippi It is interesting how paternalistic and racist the comments coming from those left-of-center are in regards to the position taken by the Mexican church. The mantra of "they are still babies in the faith and will soon be enlightened" is extremely disingenuous to the ability of the Mexican church to understand and comprehend the Scriptures. The arrogance of believing that only with the special knowledge of liberalism can one really know God's plan for human sexuality is telling. |
Cindy McKee
said:
|
New Castle, PA Refering to the amendment 10A, we need to call sin what it is SIN. It is NOT the Mexican Presbyterian Church that will jeopardize the mission work in Mexico; it is the PCUSA who has choosen darkness by passing this amendment. We are to be the light of the world not endorsing SIN. Please review the Westminister Catechism, read again in Revelations about the seven churches and Romans 1. My heart is broken for the Presbyterian Church. Please, please, REPENT. |
Tom Eggebeen
said:
|
Los Angeles, CA Not surprising! Many of our "colonial" churches are theologically freeze-framed late 19th, early 20th Century. That's okay; there will be a time of renewal and healing for them - at least 20, if not 30, years away. These things take time! I'm just grateful that we finally made to where we are today. In time, they, too, will come along! |
Noel Anderson
said:
|
Upland, CA Mr. Walker is mistaken in the notion that via 10-a we have reverted back to a pre-1996 "understanding." We've lost our innocence--the gay genie is out of his bottle--so let's not pretend that we're returning to something like fair and balanced past. We have crossed a Rubicon. We are willingly and knowingly creating--for the first time in all Church history--a special dispensation of non-repentance for glbt sins. Until there is serious redress and reversal of this new policy, the peace, unity, and purity of the PCUSA are imperiled. |
Kyle Walker
said:
|
Bryan, TX Let's clarify a few things. Yes, we should be deeply concerned about this relationship but I think some things should be brought into proper perspective rather than continuing to run on emotionalism and hyperbole. First, there is no such thing as "10A" any longer. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, we do not have a list of amendments we refer to in numbered fashion. I realize we love use these designations in our pedestrian talk about these things but it allows for characterizing of things without context. Second, G-2.0104b of our Book of Order, formerly known by its indexed place in a list of amendments voted on by presbyteries as "10A", does not refer to permitting the ordination of anyone over others except by their submission to Jesus Christ and the governing body's discernment of their call as it relates to the ordination questions, Scripture, and the Confessions. Regrettably to my heart but accurate to the language of G-2.0104b, it is entirely possible for the PCUSA Governing Bodies to never ordain another woman or LGBT person if you only look at this statement (not something I support of course but my point is made). So, the Mexican Church, whom I love and have related to off and on for years now, should consider the merits of dealing with each presbytery on its actual discernment rather than possibilities or the overreaching propaganda of one side or the other in the American church. To my understanding, G-2.0104b simply positions the PCUSA back to where we were prior to 1996 in terms of our Constitution. We had approximately 124 years of continuous relationship with the Mexican Church prior to the implementation of G-6.0106b of the prior Book of Order. Every one of those years is proof it doesn't have to be this way. There are also those who claim the PCUSA is schismatic in backing up to a pre-1996 understanding in our constitution. Again, I might not agree with them on framing but I will say the argument has more integrity when it speaks to specific actions by governing bodies instead of by future prognostication and sweeping generalization of mandates that do not exist. As for me, at the end of the day, there is right and wrong. I do trust good men and women can differ about right and wrong and both be operating with integrity in relation to our authorities of the church. G-2.0104b allows for those differences but also emphasizes the integrity. Finally, this language of "irreconcilable differences" is legal language of no fault divorce. It tips the hand of at least the authors of the Fellowship letter. Maybe our conversation should be just as much about the integrity of relationships and our theology as it relates to divorce as it is to anything else. Reconciliation is not an option. Matthew 5:23-24 makes that clear. I'll admit, gracious departure sounds good to a wearied dialogue partner but we've reduced the gospel and given up on Christ's power to transform if we entertain "irreconcilable differences" and absolve our conscience of having to live in community by the secular language of divorce. |
Shuck and Jive
said:
|
Elizabethton, TN Amen to Will McGarvey. Prejudice and discrimination is ugly. The Mexican church can cut off its nose to spite its face if it wishes. As for the rest of us, we will serve the Lord. |
Rev. Don Wade
said:
|
Dacula, Ga I say, "Yes!" to Rev. Reisenweaver. The PCUSA is the schismatic. We chose to depart from the overwhelming majority of the Church around the world, not to mention the Scriptures and our own Confessions when we adopted 10A. I'm afraid this is only the beginning of the devastating effect on out mission partnerships around the world. |
Dr. Jeff Winter
said:
|
Martha's Vineyard I have no clue what Rev Reisenweaver is saying when he states that the Mexican Presbyterian Church needs to repent of misogyny. The National Presbyterian Church doesn't allow for the ordination of women. How does that translate into "hating women" as the good Reverend points out? Sometimes I feel like I am living on another planet trying to minister in the PCUSA |
Dr. Jeff Winter
said:
|
Martha's Vineyard, MA Having spent quite a bit of time with my Presbyterian brothers and sisters in the Yucatan, I am fully supportive of their descision. They do not tolerate what the Scripture calls sin. Maybe we can learn something from our brethren south of the border about how we ought to view homosexuality. |
Leopoldo Cervantes-Ortiz
said:
|
Mexico City Greetings from Mexico City. It's a very great disappointment to big circles here, at the National Presbyterian Church the descision of the General Asembly, because it doesn't reflect the situation inside the Church. Many churches and presbyteries will not accept this decision. There will be another forms of organization to renew the contact with the PCUSA, our mother church. This is a time for reflection and for a reach of new ways to live the dialogue with another Reformed churches. |
Rev. Walter L. Taylor
said:
|
Oak Island, Presbyterian The PC(USA) is so "inclusive," aren't we? We are getting more "inclusive" by the day, which is why Christians around the world are pointing out that we have left the holy catholic church. I hope those of you who have brought this upon us are proud of all your accomplishments. I blame you for this, and for all the others to come. |
Rev. William Reisenweaver
said:
|
S Charleston, OH Is it possible that schism is what the PC(USA) has created with 10a and is NOT the response of those who object? |
Write a Response
You can add your comment here
