-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 117 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
Special Report
Presbyterians Reject Same Sex Marriage
But the vote was close, one of many reminders of just how liberal their church has become.
Surprising conservatives and liberals, the 1.9 million member Presbyterian Church (USA), at its governing General Assembly in early July, rejected same-sex marriage.
In 2010, the denomination had abandoned its official prohibition against clergy sexually active outside traditional marriage. At least one hundred congregations since then, and tens of thousands of members, have quit the church. So many assumed that recognizing same sex marriage was the next logical step. But apparently not, at least not this time.
At their assembly in Pittsburgh, the Presbyterians rejected an “authoritative interpretation” allowing clergy to redefine marriage to include same sex couples. They also rejected allowing clergy in states where same-sex marriage in legal to conduct those ceremonies.
The debates among the over 600 Presbyterian “commissioners” of both clergy and laity were intense. “If he [a gay parishioner] and others choose to promise to love and faithfully cherish their same-sex marriage ‘til death do they part,’ I cannot see how this goes against the spirit of Christ as I hear that spirit in the Holy Scriptures,” argued a member of the Indian Nations Presbytery.
A member of the Upper Ohio Valley Presbyterian similarly wondered: “If a pair is willing to come before the Lord, what should it matter what the world declares each of us – male or female?” From a member of the Grand Canyon Presbytery came this complaint: “All of us here serve among LGBTQ people… yet we continue to withhold pastoral care in the form of the church’s blessing on their marriages, because teaching elders are not permitted to marry them, even though to state says it’s legal.”
A member of the Abingdon Presbytery recalled the New Testament vision by St. Peter allowing Christians to eat “unclean” food and suggested: “Perhaps we are moving toward a collective vision that all lifelong, loving relationships are indeed clean.” Someone from New York City Presbytery warned of damaging “relationships with the global LGBTQ community.” A Western New Yorker asked: “What does it say about us as a denomination, that instead of leading, we’re playing catch-up to states like New York?” And a commissioner from the Chicago Presbytery groused: “As Christians we claim the goal of loving and including all, then seek to exclude the LGBT community.”
But most commissioners were apparently unconvinced. Declining specifically to reaffirm traditional marriage, they still refused to recognize same sex marriage, leaving the current traditional standard in place. A handful of ethnic delegates and overseas participants maybe helped persuade wavering moderates not to accede to any marriage redefinition.
A Korean American pastor in California explained that the church’s role should be “changing the norm of the society, not being changed by the norm of society.” And he lamented that the church’s wavering on sexual ethics had already caused “confusion and deep concerns” among Korean Presbyterians. A Kenyan American pastor at a prestigious Dallas church recalled that missionaries had taught his ancestors the “right Word of God,” while asking whether Presbyterians today would “stand with the Christians and what they have known for centuries.”
An ecumenical advisory delegate from Guatemala warned that Presbyterians had already debated whether to break relations with the U.S. church over this issue, pleading: “If you really care about your partners around the world, please listen to us.”
An official with the Presbyterian Mission Agency recalled that the Mexican Presbyterian Church had already broken relations with the U.S. church. He told of a survey indicating probable damaged relations with an additional 35 overseas Presbyterian denominations if the U.S. church redefined marriage. Another 17 or 18 overseas churches might break relations altogether, and still another half dozen would be obligated publicly to criticize the U.S. church.
Of course, many U.S. commissioners asserted biblical arguments against same sex marriage and cited already steep divisions and damage to the denomination due to the abandonment of the ordination standard. Reputedly another 800 congregations potentially are pondering whether to leave the denomination, and endorsing same sex marriage certainly would have encouraged them. In the end, the Presbyterian General Assembly voted 52 to 48 percent against an authorized new interpretation of marriage. By over 70 percent, it rejected allowing clergy to conduct same sex marriages in states where legal.
Prior to the votes, the newly elected Vice Moderator of the church was engulfed in controversy because of complaints that she had already conducted an unauthorized same-sex union in Washington, D.C., prompting her dramatic resignation.
There were debates on issues other than sex. Perhaps the second most heatedly debated topic was over whether to divest church assets from firms that purportedly profit from Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank. Divestment was rejected by a 2 vote margin, with “positive investment” in the Palestinian economy instead affirmed.
The usual cavalcade of liberal political stances were approved, including support for the Occupy Movement and recognizing environmental protection as an “essential” part of Christian faith. Presbyterians, evidently worried about spankings, even voted against corporal punishment for children.
One evangelical caucus, Presbyterians for Renewal, after the General Assembly regretted the “determination of the Left to press their ideological agenda” despite “collateral damage” to churches and the denomination’s global witness. “The PC(USA) ‘train’ has left the ‘station’ of orthodoxy and is headed into an undefined future where, seemingly, anything is possible,” they warned. Presbyterians “skittish” about leaving their church must understand that remaining is “not for the faint of heart.”
Another traditionalist caucus, Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry, issued a “Pittsburgh Declaration” hailing the rejection of same sex marriage and asking friends to join them in vowing to teach and strengthen traditional marriage.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) (including its predecessor bodies) has lost half its membership since its peak in the 1960s. Its most recent reporting year showed a loss of over 60,000, and that was even before most congregations had starting leaving after the 2010 abandonment of the ordination standard. The membership spiral will continue. But for the moment, Presbyterians are cautiously unwilling to follow Episcopalians straight off the cliff by fully endorsing same-sex marriage. And an orthodox remnant seems determined to persevere despite adversity, which is very Presbyterian.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (81) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/16/presbyterians-reject-same-sex
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 7.16.12 @ 6:40AM
I attended a Presbyterian Bible college in the mid 1960s and the Church was pretty liberal even back then. I'm sorry to hear that it continues to disintegrate, at least in America; perhaps it, like many others except for the Episcopal/Anglican church, will be saved by the remnant in Asia and Africa where they know what it is to need Christ's guidance and strong arm in the midst of chaos and sorrow.
Bill84728| 7.16.12 @ 10:55AM
It's not continuing to disintegrate; the recent vote was to maintain the Presbyterian definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and to reject a new definition of marriage as "the union of two people." That event was salutary because of Christ's words in Matthew, referred to below. It may be that this is just a temporary speed bump in the PCUSA's progressivism, but the recent vote was a vote not to continue disintegrating.
Quartermaster| 7.17.12 @ 7:44AM
Accepting such a vote as an indicator of not continuing teh disintegration is a piece of wishful thinking. PCUSA has been disintegrating without it, and if you think this is the end of the isue you are sadly mistaken.
The progs own the Seminaries and they continue to indoctrinate their students in heresy. No Church can endure the subornation of it's future.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 7:38AM
Whatever the Presbyterian Church or any other church decides about "gay marriage" is 100% irrelevant.
God has already decided, and he's against it.
One day he'll ask these church "leaders" to explain themselves; what will they say?
Occam's Tool| 7.16.12 @ 11:17AM
Increasingly pro-gay marriage and pro-Palestinian, while beaing uncreasingly ant-American, and they are wondering why people are leaving them in droves?
Like I said, I love evangelicals like my father in law, and despise Liberal Christians, who are NO friends of the Jews. My nickname while in Kentucky (home of the PC(USA)) for that church was "The Presbyterianazi Church."
Occam's Tool| 7.16.12 @ 11:25AM
Sorry, "increasingly anti-American."
Dr. Right puts it much better than I. As Jews do not proselytize, we delight in the discovery and the wellbeing of the "Righteous Among the Nations," such as Dr. R and KyMouse. Lovely people, both of them. (Note that on a QWERTY keyboard, "uio" are together, and I am a psychiatrist as opposed to a surgeon for a darned good reason. Forgive my typos, and thanks.)
KyMouse| 7.16.12 @ 12:45PM
Thank you for your kind thoughts and words, Occam's T. I was deeply moved by the Avenue of the Righteous Among the Nations at Yad Vashem. I must say, however, that any righteousness I have or ever will have was given to me by Jesus, paid for by His death on the cross -- as noted in 2 Corinthians 5:21 -- "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
Bless you. And I think you'd make a fine surgeon,
Occam's Tool| 7.17.12 @ 11:08AM
KyMouse: I make a fine shrink. But my hands are about as useful as flippers and I don't visualize 3-D very well. When I was tested as a kid, I was 99th percentile in everything except folding boxes in my head.
Therefore, I am perfect in my profession of abstractions and theoretical goo, keeping people from jumping off buildings (yes, I've done that), shooting themselves in my presence (that, too), or jumping off a bridge (yupsters). My profession pays me well and interests me. It exhausts and intellectually stimulates me. Fortunately, I have a fabulous wife, who inspires me every day, and two fabulous children. I am also blessed in my friends. A very lucky, lucky man.
But you, madam, are a truly lovely human being. G-d Bless.
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 12:36PM
Evangelicals are no friends of the Jews either. Their third templar mysticism is all that drives them to support Israel. Full stop.
To suggest otherwise is fanciful and wrong.
In most fundy dogma, they are Christ killers and Messianic deniers. Critical points when elaborating on your father in laws' views. Perhaps he should reexamine the kool-aid he's been drinkin'.
KyMouse| 7.16.12 @ 12:47PM
Canuckistani, you cannot read the hearts and minds of anyone else, including evangelical Christians. Full stop.
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 1:07PM
Individuals, yes. Some of the best people I have met throughout the world have claimed Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.
Also some Jews and even some of those atheists have demonstrated to me they walk the walk better than the talkers who quote chapter and verse like it's simple breathing.
But, organized fundy dogma re Israel is and always will be about Third Templar mysticism. A strong Israel is just a means to an end...full election when the sky lights up.
How we permit this narrow dangerous view to imbue our foreign policy is shameful. Churches like the PCUSA and even the snivelling Methodists have come to this conclusion years too late. Perhaps if they stood up and were counted as true followers of the message of Christ, the US would be in a different place right now with respect to the Jewish state.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 1:42PM
What's "third templar mysticism"?
You know NOTHING about what you're speaking.
NOTHING.
When you pretend to speak for Conservative Christians ("fundys"), you are a walking cliche'.
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 2:45PM
Third Templar mysticism is the central tenet of fundy dogma - rapture - the elected - the chosen ones - left behind - etc etc. You forget your Sunday School already?
No, Conservative Christians, like orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics have no specific truck with Israel. It almost borders on indifference.
Peter and the gang left, remember?
It is the liberal inferrences of incomplete bible texts that have betrayed fundamentalists into believing the garbage that the harbinger of Christ's return is the construction of the third temple. This deluded view compels them to equate the current state of Israel as the first step under this pretext. They are wrong. AIPAC and other zionists have co-opted this naive groupthink into a way to subdue the correct criticisms of the Jewish states' aims and tactics.
We have been hypnotized into believing that unqualified support for Israel is Christian. Well guess what? It's not. The Christian thing to do is to pray for peace, evangelize the Word and forgive sinners. AIPAC's and the fundy's agenda includes none of these.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 11:13PM
You're dead-wrong.
Not all Conservative Christians (and you're obviously unaware that one can be a Conservative Christian WITHOUT being a Roman Catholic) are millenialists.
Some of the, myself included, reject this idea wholeheartedly.
Please stop speaking in total ignorance about things you don't understand.
spike59| 7.17.12 @ 6:13AM
In most fundy dogma, they are Christ killers
=============================
in most Libtard dogma, there exists a 'fundy dogma'...and, as with most Libtard dogma, it's 100% WRONG
evangelical Christians believe that WE (all of us) are responsible, by way of our turning our back on God's truths, for Christ's death on the cross
Occam's Tool| 7.17.12 @ 11:14AM
Canukistani:
I have gone to school with evangelicals. I have eaten with them, played with them,slept with evangelical women, married one.
When the third temple comes, we can discuss theology. In the meantime, my religious wife raises our children and defends me and mends me. And my father-in-law is a wonderful guy, and my late mother-in-law was a Saintly woman with whom I had ZERO arguments in the 9 and 1/2 years I was married to my wife before she died. (She also worked for me at one time as my medical records person, and loved me very much)
Your knowledge of human beings is as screwed up as your knowledge of theology, son. You would want my people destroyed and they wish my people to live, and I should support you instead of them? You truly are an idiot.
Quartermaster| 7.17.12 @ 7:46AM
They will see Christ at the white throne told of in Revelation chapter 20:11-15. Most of them will say what they did in his name, but he will cast them into teh lake of fire along with the people they mislead and deceived.
Purp| 7.16.12 @ 8:40AM
The Episcopalians do not reject marriage equality. In fact, they are blessing gay marriages and civil unions with the Grace of God. Man is a puny, intolerant creature alongside God.
Peter| 7.16.12 @ 8:52AM
Joke, God's does bestow his grace on sin, despite what you liberals think.....God's wrath is well on its way and I cannot wait for it to get here.
Stephanie| 7.16.12 @ 9:16AM
The Anglicans do not endorse or bless gay marriages. The regular Episcopal church does though. I will leave my Presbyterian church when my current pastor leaves and/or retires. He is the only reason I joined and stay. Don't know where I will go but will cross that bridge when the time comes.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 9:27AM
As I already said, the Episcopalians/Presbyterians/Moonies, etc, can "bless" anything they want.
It does NOT matter.
They don't speak for God, and His opinion is quite clear on the matter.
To that end, there is NO SUCH THING as "gay marriage." (Just as there is, in reality, no such thing as "gay sex;' fiddling with each others' identical genitals is NOT sex).
A man cannot marry another man; nor can a woman marry another woman.
God is not impressed by our legal, earthly rationalizations.
If you think He will "tolerate" your rationalization, please cite the scriptural passage in support of this opinion.
Note I said "scriptural passage," not the opinion of Eugene Robinson, or John Shelby Spong.
Al Adab| 7.16.12 @ 9:34AM
"Should we go on sinning that Grace may abound? God Forbid" The Christian must forgive, but the sinner, rather than asking others to ignore the sin, must "Go and sin no more." Too often advocates overlook that inconvenient command.
Bill84728| 7.16.12 @ 10:52AM
Churches have NEVER spoken for God, and don't pretend to. Churches exist to provide a medium for people who share religious views in which they can congregage and worship collectively.
God's word exists without churches. Christ encouraged the development of a church to remember Him, but if a Christian Church had not come into existence, His words would still be right.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 11:41AM
Like!
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 12:38PM
And he mentioned zero about the 2nd amendment or freeing the slaves or developing programs for the general welfare of the citizenry.
What up wit dat?
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 1:44PM
Actually, he said quite a bit about all 3 things you mentioned.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it incorrect.
In fact, in your case, the opposite is more likely to be true.
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 2:48PM
More deluded inferrences of sentence fragments from the Bible?
Like a ransom letter pieced together with newspaper clippings, fundy's can determine a pretext for anything. N'est pas?
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 11:15PM
Which part is deluded?
Answer, or admit your complete ignorance.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 11:16PM
You're obviously ignorant of the study of Christian Apologetics.
Seriously...you're not qualified to comment on much on this board, but you're seriously in over your head on this one.
Quartermaster| 7.17.12 @ 7:48AM
He's ignorant period. To know that all you have to is read his rantings, hard though that may be. Reading the rantings resulting from insanity is rather difficult.
Bill84728| 7.16.12 @ 1:53PM
He rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and rendered unto God that which is God's.
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 2:50PM
Yes, He made that statement when challenged by the Pharisees - men self-appointed to infer what they wanted from tradition and text.
It's the same self-righteousness exhibited by contributors here.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 11:18PM
So you're saying what?
That Jesus was being practical? That he was rationalizing?
You are in over your head.
Quartermaster| 7.17.12 @ 7:50AM
They had replaced Scripture with their traditions. Get it right Canuckistani.
Bill84728| 7.17.12 @ 12:16PM
I learned that Jesus was critical of the Pharisees not because they had deviated from Torah, but because they were excessively self-congratulatory about their obedience to Jewish law and were therefore being, excuse me, pharisaical. No doubt I have it all wrong.
KyMouse| 7.16.12 @ 9:55AM
It's fashionable to claim that Jesus never addressed same-sex issues, but in Matthew 19:4-6, He reaffirmed the only divinely sanctioned sexual relationship:
"Have you not read [in Genesis 5:2] that He who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
Some people claim that real love between same-sex couples was unknown to the writers of the New Testament, and therefore what they were warning against was ritualistic homosexuality in the worship of idols. However, Plato's Symposium, to name only one ancient text that discusses personal same-sex love, was widely known and discussed in the ancient world.
Claims that only the words of Jesus count (leaving out Matthew 19:4-6), and that what He *didn't* say carries more weight than what He did say (but He didn't say anything about sex with animals, so is that okay?), and that Paul didn't know what he was talking about, deny that the New Testament writings say what God (the Holy Spirit) required them to say.
Therefore, advocacy for same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage is, at its core, an attack on the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 10:02AM
Bravo.
(Insert the sound of hands clapping)
Bill84728| 7.16.12 @ 10:49AM
The only reason that Jesus's words have been forgotten by so many is that the institution has already been diluted by such frivolities as making up one's own vows and the like.
Once, churches used to emphasize the Matthew verse in the wedding ceremony. I haven't been to a wedding in many years, but I noticed it was not mentioned decades ago, and I assume it's remained unmentioned ever since.
Occam's Tool| 7.16.12 @ 11:20AM
KyMouse: I am certain that the Rabbinical fathers, having more intimate knowledge of the dark side of Roman imperialism than anyone should want, would have been greatly knowledgeable about Roman and Greek debauchery.
As uasual, madam, you are a shining light. I join in Dr. R's joy in your existence.
Al Adab| 7.16.12 @ 12:05PM
O/T:
Concur. KyMouse is indeed a shining light.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.16.12 @ 11:57AM
Yes, I agree. These "gay" interpretations of the Bible make about as much sense as a John Roberts interpretation.
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 12:42PM
He also made no mention of women's property rights or the freeing of slaves. Conscious omissions or just a reaffirmation of the civic norms at the time?
Stoning and forced betrothals were also common Hebrew traditions.
If you want year 30 civic society, then step up and endorse the Taliban doctrine....cuz that's what you had in Palestine circa 30-33.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 1:46PM
Wrong again.
The Bible, and Jesus, said quite a bit about those things.
Look it up; you may actually learn something.
(FYI...not that I question God's judgment in the Old Testament...but blaming Christians for "Hebrew traditions" - of which stoning was not included - is stupid. Why? 'Cuz Christians aren't Jews, genius...)
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 2:59PM
True, they are not, and we should not be picking sides in the zionist endeavor, either.
The Christians in Nazareth Jerusalem and Bethlehem have chosen to be allied with Palestine, or haven't you noticed?
Perhaps we should consider that when going all-in for AIPAC each election cycle. Our Christian brothers in Palestine and the Levant need our support. Zionists do not. They have nukes - in the name of Yahweh.
When you start writing about the spreading of the Word in Israel, then you can take the high ground.
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 11:20PM
Way to evade the issue.
Last I looked, Israel was a free, democratic society where people can worship as they please.
Israel has nukes to protect themselves from Muslim lunatics fron countries like the cess-pool you come from.
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 3:10PM
Purp, don't even try.
Folks on here still think gay is a choice, and God would not permit such mutations to occur.
Maybe He was just being mischievous?
Doctor Right| 7.16.12 @ 11:21PM
There is NO "gay gene."
Gay is nurture, not nature.
If you have proof to the contrary, offer it.
Quartermaster| 7.17.12 @ 7:53AM
Gay is a mental illness, and has been widely recognized as such for many years. The APA deleated it as such under political pressure in the early 70s, but that was the period when PC began to cause Psychology to whore itself out for political purposes and ceased to have any claim on being a science.
spike59| 7.17.12 @ 6:15AM
Then the Episcopals reject Christ, who proclaimed marriage as a union between a man and a woman...hey, they can believe whatever they want, 'bless' whatever they want, but they have no claim to be 'Christian' if they reject what Christ taught
Bill Carson| 7.16.12 @ 9:10AM
There is something very odd about any organization that votes 52-48 to prohibit celebrations and recognition of homosexual marriage. So 52 people say it's very wrong (a sin!!) and 48 say it's the most wonderful thing since sliced bread.
The fact is that man can declare murder to wonderful (see Protestant support for abortions) and he can declare that homosexual sin should be celebrate but that cannot and does not force God to go along with these votes.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.16.12 @ 10:22AM
Once a denomination has gone liberal, it won't be long before it "grows" and supports the whole gay rights agenda. This is only a temporary thing for the PCUSA. It won't be long before it apostatizes all along the line.
Ryan| 7.16.12 @ 11:59AM
It started more like 40 or so years ago in the PCUSA, when they refused to uphold Biblical primacy.
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 12:48PM
They came to their senses like the Vatican did centuries ago.
It's amusing how prods like the Knoxites, Henryites and Black and tans seem to come to the realization that Rome was actually pretty close to the truth all these centuries.
Next, fundies will come to their senses when enough of their population realizes that strict adherence to incomplete and orally-transposed texts not written by contemporaries of Jesus can and should be scrutinized.
BackToBasics| 7.16.12 @ 5:55PM
The Lord Jesus said many things along the lines of, " The Sabbath was made for man ond not man for the Sabbath." Matt2:27
The Lord will always have a fiathful remnant. But for the part of the church that does not fall away, it bulk of it will wake up when it realizes that a genuine and HOLY love for God and for each other and not an emphasis on MOSTLY exacting docrine(s) is the most important aspect of the Christian faith.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
"This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. " Matt 22:38, 39
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13:34,35
C Smith | 7.16.12 @ 10:43AM
A previous "Presbyterian" Synod:
To the city of Dordrecht (Dort) the children of “Lord Calvin” came. Once summoned from the world, the frenzied horde amassed and built an altar and inscribed upon it the “Doctrines of Grace.” And after many days “they leaped upon the altar which was made” and searched for a sacrifice to christen it, to christen it in blood. They found the Advocate of Holland, an Advocate of the innocent….
It was a bright morning in May [in the beautiful village capital… commonly called the Hague]. The white swans were sailing tranquilly to and fro over the silver basin, and the mavis, blackbird, and nightingale, which haunted the groves surrounding the castle and the town, were singing as if the daybreak were ushering in a summer festival….
http://scriptural-sovereignty......-dort.html
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.16.12 @ 11:54AM
Shouldn't drink this early in the morning C Smith.
Bill84728| 7.16.12 @ 10:45AM
My family has been Presbyterian since about 1700, when they converted from Separatism. We have been supportive of the Presbyterian Church in every generation since then.
The Presbyterian church I now go to (I haven't become a member for heretofore inexplicable reasons) left the PCUSA a couple of months ago, to join another organization that espouses the idea of developing an unknown amount of dogma at the central level. To me, this latter approach violates the very essence of Protestantism, in which one's relationship with God is individual and personal.
It's gratifying to see that the group most readily identified with mainstream Presbyterianism has voted as it did. I think they did the right thing. It's too bad that the particular church I used to attend has jumped the gun.
C Smith | 7.16.12 @ 10:53AM
... During his Grand Jury testimony, regarding the Lewinsky affair, President Bill Clinton, attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable, reasoned: "… It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” However, as children of light, we must be gravely aware of the consequence of twisting Scripture as the “… unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).
Calvin in his later years appeared to suffer that malady so common to Calvinists: doubts concerning salvation. And for good reason: Calvinism teaches a salvation not based on belief or confession or repentance or faith or calling on the Lord, but rather “the luck of the draw.” So how is one to know if he was one of the elect? Calvinist R. T. Kendall writes: “nearly all of the Puritan ‘divines’ went through great doubt and despair on their deathbeds as they realized their lives did not give perfect evidence that they were elect.” Works are a Calvinist’s only assurance of personal salvation. However, even that can be misleading....
http://scriptural-sovereignty......m-101.html
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.16.12 @ 11:53AM
This is a caricature of Calvinism. Might as well claim that St. Paul had doubts about his salvation since he taught justification apart from works. BTW, where did you get the idea that Calvin had doubts about his salvation? I know Cromwell expressed doubts and had to be reassured, but Calvin? Please cite reference....
Ryan| 7.17.12 @ 1:25PM
It's an amazing misconception of Calvinism, actually, and even goes beyond the critics.
There's also far too much placed on Calvin's political mistakes and attaching it to his core theology.
Flane500| 7.16.12 @ 12:56PM
Sorry, I have to wave the BS flag on your statements.
The PCUSA (consisting of its old parts, the United PC and the PCUSA), in any case, ceased being Calvinist in any meaningful sense of the word nearly 100 years ago
Calvinists do not believe in luck.
Bill84728| 7.16.12 @ 1:54PM
Even from the beginning, Presbyterians were Calvinists only through the mediation of John Knox.
Nick| 7.16.12 @ 5:17PM
While reading C Smith's comment, and the replies to it, I was reminded of Saint Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, when he introduced the reason for their "contentions":
"Now this I say, that every one of you says: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" - 1 Cor. 1:12-13
This was right after he extolled the Corinthians to remain One Church:
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment." - 1 Cor. 1:10
Couldn't Paul have written the same thing, using different names, if he had been around, circa A.D. 1540?
Now this I say, that every one of you says: I indeed am of [Luther]; and I am of [Calvin]; and I of [Zwingli]; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was [Luther] then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of [Calvin]?
Ryan| 7.17.12 @ 1:26PM
I concur. The Body of Christ is a lot larger than many people (particularly anti-Catholics) make it out to be.
Nick| 7.17.12 @ 6:00PM
Yes, Ryan, we must all keep praying that all of the followers of Christ end up as Saint Paul wrote to the Ephesians:
"I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called: With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all." - Ephesians 4:1-6
God Bless!
C Smith | 7.16.12 @ 11:07AM
The lifting of Israeli Divestment is commendable, but the damage has long ago been done:
“In 2001, the WCC [World Council of Churches] Executive Committee recommended an international boycott of goods produced in illegal (sic) settlements on occupied territory, and the WCC-related APRODEV agencies in Europe are now working to have Israeli settlement products fully and properly identified before shipment to the European Community. … The Central Committee takes note of the current action by the Presbyterian Church (USA) which has initiated a process of phased, selective divestment from multinational corporations. … This action is commendable in both method and manner” (World Council of Churches - Central Committee News Release, Geneva, 21 February 2005, emphasis added)....
http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.....david.html
Frances| 7.16.12 @ 11:52AM
The PCUSA has been playing with fire for some time now and are unwilling to change course regardless of the heartache they are causing. Eventually, the progressives will dominate the discourse and will prevail with their agenda because traditional churches, who are sick of this nonsense, will continue to leave the PCUSA. The debate about same sex marriage is just the tip of the iceberg as the PCUSA is really moving in the direction of watering down the deity of Christ and the significance of the Cross. In other words, it is not about Him but rather it is about me. The biggest problems confronting the "church" are within and always have been. The more the "church" seeks to identify with the whims of a secular society that promotes self above all else, the less relevancy it will have. What a horrible void it will be create and will be filled by who knows what.
canuckistani| 7.16.12 @ 12:53PM
It started when the women stopped pushing them out at a pace above minimal regeneration.
Attrition is an interesting symptom of decay and ultimate decomposition of a once prideful group.
The black and tans would be embarrassed by the lack of verility of their progeny.
Flane500| 7.16.12 @ 12:50PM
The Presbyterian Church USA has declined from 3.4M members a decade or two ago to less than half that now. It hardly resembles a Christian church at all any more. The homosexual issue is just one of many issues where the PCUSA is at odds with Christian faith. At some point the Korean PC and others like it will figure out that they have associated with the devil. Nearly all conservative and orthodox members and congregations have left to join with the Assoc. Reformed P.C., The Orthodox P.C., The Evangelical P.C., the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), or one of the very small Bible and Reformed P.C. denominations, or left Presbyterianism altogether. In any one of these churches one can find the faith of the Reformation.
Bill84728| 7.16.12 @ 1:59PM
One of those alternative organizations is the Evangelical Covenant Organization (ECO); I am informed that they favor their own hierarchy defining Presbyterian dogma. While they are opposed to ordaining gay clergy and to sanctifiying same-sex marriage, their position vis-a-vis a centralized dogma is questionable. Obviously, some centralization of dogma is inescapable for a church, but in Protestantism, it is for the individual to read scripture and use it to establish one's relation with God. I have never gotten a satisfactory explanation of where the ECO falls on the spectrum of centralized dogma, and therefore I suspect them and will not cooperate with them as they move to dominate my Presbyterian church.
Bill84728| 7.16.12 @ 2:03PM
The right name is Evangelical Covenant Order, not Organization.
Nick| 7.16.12 @ 8:04PM
The problems afflicting the Presbyterian church (and the Episcopalians, Methodists, and other mainline Protestant denominations,) which Mr. Tooley lists in his essay, exposes the major flaw with belonging to democratic Christianity, in my opinion.
These same problems have also infected the Catholic Church, due to the dissenters who still claim to be Catholic, and won't leave. But, thanks to the Magisterium, the Church's teachings on these subjects have not changed in 2,000 years.
Christ is the King of His Kingdom. Christ is the Bridegroom of His Bride, the Body of Christ. There is only ONE Kingdom of God, and, only ONE Bride of Christ.
Christ said that His Church would be visible:
"You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid." - Matt. 5:14
Christ said that Satan would not destroy His Church:
"[...] and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it." - Matt. 16:18
Christ said that not all of the leaders of His Church would be saints:
"Jesus answered them: 'Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil.'" - John 6:70; cf. Matt. 7:21–23
Nick| 7.16.12 @ 8:09PM
Continued....
Christ's Church is known because it is "[...] one, holy, catholic, and apostolic [...]." Saint Paul agreed, when he told the gentiles of Ephesus that they belonged in Christ's Church:
"Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners: but you are fellow citizens [i.e., universal, kataholos in Greek] with the saints and the domestics of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles [i.e., apostolic] and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, being framed together, grows up into an holy temple in the Lord [i.e., one]. In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God [i.e., holy] in the Spirit." - Eph. 2:19–20
Paul, throughout his ministry, calls for unity in Christ's Church:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Gal. 3:28
"That [Christ] might present it to Himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." - Eph. 5:27
"For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints." - 1 Cor. 14:33
Nick| 7.16.12 @ 8:11PM
Continued, again....
"But now in Christ Jesus, you, who some time were afar off, are made near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities in his flesh: Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees: that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace, and might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, killing the enmities in himself. And coming, he preached peace to you that were afar off: and peace to them that were near. For by him we have access both in one Spirit to the Father." - Eph. 2:13-18
Paul also said that the Church is the "pillar" and "foundation" of the Truth:
"But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." - 1 Tim. 3:15
Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by Saints Peter and Paul, explained how to spot the true Church that Christ established, circa A.D. 107:
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter VIII
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.17.12 @ 12:24AM
Isn't it a bit pretentious to claim that the institutional Roman denomination is the same as the organic church that the New Testament is talking about?
Nick| 7.17.12 @ 2:34AM
No, Mr. Crisler, not at all.
Not when all the evidence, when amassed, points to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, circa A.D. 30.
For 1,000 years there was one, visible, universal, Christian Church, until the Eastern Orthodox schism. This church was the Catholic Church.
She was attacked, from without, by numerous princes and potentates, creating many martyrs. She was attacked, from within, by numerous heresies. She survived them all.
Nick| 7.17.12 @ 2:42AM
Continued....
Also, I don't see an "organic church" when I read the New Testament. I see a Church that is hierarchical. Beginning when Christ made Simon bar Jonah the Kephas, i.e., the Rock (Matt. 16:18), and gave only to Saint Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (v. 19), making him the al bayit, i.e., the prime minister (cf. Is. 22:22).
Christ also told Peter, alone, at the Last Supper, that He prayed for his faith not to fail and to strengthen the other Apostles.
Finally, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, Christ tells only Peter to shepherd His sheep, i.e., the Church (John 21:15-17). Three times!
The Apostles (lead by Peter,) after Christ's Ascension, start by replacing Judas Iscariot's Apostolic office with Matthias (Acts 1:20). The Apostles go on to appoint deacons (Acts 6:6).
Even Saint Paul, who was chosen by Christ Himself, had to be ordained by the Bishop of Damascus, Ananias (Acts 9:17-20). Paul and Barnabas ordained elders (i.e., priests) during their journey through Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Acts 14:22).
There are many other verses that show ordination/laying on of hands, but, I'm afraid I'm running out of words. I can provide them, if you would like?
God Bless!
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.17.12 @ 2:03PM
Personally, I think the Roman denomination was simply a continuation of Roman imperialism. Call it sacred imperialism.
Nick| 7.17.12 @ 5:49PM
Yes, that is one way to look at it, Mr. Crisler. Not the most favorable way, but, one way. (Ha-ha!)
Another way to look at it (which just so happens to be the way that I look at it, shocking, I know) is that the Catholic Church took the best that Rome had to offer (like the Roman legal tradition) and Christianized them.
(This is the same legal tradition, by the way, on which our own system of law is based, coming, as it did, from the English common law tradition.)
Again, the Roman persecution of the Church is well documented from the first century A.D. until Constantine. Even after Constantine there were more persecutions of the Church, I believe.
If you delve into the writings of the first Christians, who were taught by the Apostles, or, by those taught by them (Sts. Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, et al,) you will be amazed at what was being taught in the late first, and early second, century. Also, the Dideche is a good summation of the teachings of the 12 Apostles.
If you are interested, you can find their letters (and the Dideche) here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Oh, and thanks for introducing me to the term Roman denomination. I've never heard of the Catholic Church referred to in that way before!
God Bless!
Mark| 7.17.12 @ 11:35AM
I think the interesting aspect here is that tenets of faith are determined by majority vote. And the impetus behind the conflict is vocal political factions insisting on new norms -- and insisting that religious denominations follow. Francis Cardinal George has spoken about how marriage was established as the union between one man and one woman long before the time of Christ. Yet when people of faith continue with long held traditions, political and governmental powers insist on interfering. The Cardinal rightly asks why a government that believes in separation of Church and State deigns to dictate what faith traditions are no longer appropriate -- and then disparages those who don't embrace what the State labels as "enlightened" views. The new brown-shirting theme of "free speech for me, and not for thee" now has a companion: "religious freedom for me, and not for thee."
I suppose the majority vote process technically means that Presbyterians are exercising freedom to change policy. But political forces are clearly trying to dictate religious belief. Attempts will be made to turn the protestant denominations by slim majorities, and then isolate the Catholics whose core beliefs are not so easily malleable.