Loading ...Presbyterians appear poised to allow gay ordination
flockwoodAfter years of debate, the Presbyterian Church (USA) appears likelier than ever to drop its national ban on the ordination of sexually active homosexuals.
The church’s General Assembly voted 373-323 in July to stop requiring church leaders to uphold “chastity in singleness” and fidelity within the bonds of a heterosexual marriage.
But the change to the church’s constitution will only take place if a majority of the church’s 173 regional bodies, known as presbyteries, vote to approve the change.
As of early this week, 47 presbyteries had voted to scrap the chastity/fidelity language, while 35 had voted to keep it, the conservative Presbyterian Lay Committee reported. Ninety-one presbyteries were still awaiting their vote.
If the measure, known as Amendment 10-A, is approved by 87 presbyteries, it will become binding church law.
Supporters of full inclusion for homosexuals have repeatedly tried to remove the Presbyterian Church’s 1997 bar on ordaining sexually active gay people.
Four times they’ve brought votes to the presbyteries. Four times they’ve failed.
But this year, for the first time, supporters of full inclusion for gays have taken the lead.
“The trend is toward its approval,” said Parker T. Williamson, editor emeritus of the theologically conservative Presbyterian Lay Committee’s newspaper — The Layman. “The momentum is clearly toward removing our sexual behavior standard from the constitution.”
Nationwide, nine presbyteries that voted “no” on openly gay ministers in 2008-09 have voted “yes” this time, according to Michael Adee, executive director of the gay-rights group More Light Presbyterians. Only one presbytery that voted “yes” in 2008-09 has voted “no” this time, he added.
Meanwhile, some Presbyterian churches have already begun ordaining homosexuals as deacons and elders.
“We stand at a historic moment,” said Adee, an openly gay elder at First Presbyterian Church in Santa Fe, N.M. “I am absolutely hopeful … I really do believe that God is doing a new thing in our church.”
If Presbyterians allow homosexual conduct by their clergy “it will be tantamount to a public announcement that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has turned its back on biblical faith and ethics, another nail in the coffin of a dying denomination,” said the Presbyterian Lay Committee’s Williamson.
Jack Haberer, editor of the independent Presbyterian Outlook, says there’s “some serious anxiety” about what will happen to church unity if Amendment 10-A passes.
“There’ll be great rejoicing, but there’ll be great anguish among those who just cannot countenance same-sex behavior in church leadership,” Haberer said.
Jerry Andrews, senior pastor at First Presbyterian Church in San Diego and a leading conservative, said passage of Amendment 10-A would usher in “a time of reassessment for some Presbyterians on whether or not this [denomination] remains a home for them.”
The vote could spark an exodus — not just individual churches, but entire presbyteries. “It’s possible,” Andrews said. “It’s rumored and it’s possible.”
February 24th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Another liberal denomination contradicts scripture, and signs its own death warrant
February 24th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
“…turned its back on biblical faith and ethics” — Actually, the Presbyterians are only turning their back on one interpretation of the Bible.
After some study of ancient Greek, it appears that the New Testament does not condemn homosexuality, but rather prostitution. Where you find the word “homosexual” in the Bible is an interpretation/translation error for a very vague term. In older translations, the term was translated not as homosexuals, but as masturbators.
The Old Testament may appear to condemn homosexuality …but it also condemns eating shellfish (so much for eating at Red Lobster tonight). Are we to be saved by following the law?
Those who stubbornly stick to an error in translation are worshiping that translation of the Bible and not what Jesus truly taught.
You see, words have different meanings depending on the time they are used. For example, if I wrote that my friend was a gay preacher what would you think? Probably that he was a homosexual. Now, if I told you that I wrote this statement in the year 1961, what do you think? Probably that he was a jolly fun-loving pastor. This is just 50 years we are talking about …not centuries or millennia like the the Bible.
Personally if the church dies, I don’t think it will be because of homosexuality, but rather because we stopped preaching love and compassion and because we stopped acting in love and compassion. I feel no threat from someone being a leader in the church who is a sinner because all fall short of the glory God would have for us.
February 24th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
I am encouraged that some of the gay former Presbyterians and others who are looking for a place of acceptance to worship their God will now return “home” to their roots. This debate isn’t only about people who do not accept homosexuality…it is about the millions of those who have left the church due to the un-Christ-like behavior of people who judge their God-given life styles. No one would choose to be gay. Gays have persecuted for years for something they had no choice in. And it isn’t about being liberal. We are asked to be Christ-like and behave – LOVE – as He did when he walked this earth as a man. What is wrong with these people who think they are above the Lord’s teachings of acceptance and love? No one has the right to judge someone else…especially if you haven’t walked in their shoes. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that same-sex unions or dating or whatever is against God’s will. The false teachings of the fearful and judgemental are against God’s will.
February 24th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Liberal denominations were dying off long before this, but not because they “contradicted scripture.” Charging interest on loans goes against scripture as well, but you don’t see people fleeing in droves over that. Cults that demand sacrifice do better than those that don’t. Without it, members do not feel apart of something special. If you let just anyone in, membership becomes cheap, and no one values it as much. If you have to struggle and sacrifice to remain a member, you will feel a greater connection. By placing a higher price on membership, conservative congregation members value their membership more. By placing the bar low, liberal congregation members make joining and leaving easy. This is really a matter economic psychology, but I can see why our friend Justin who sees himself at war with liberals of all stripes would rejoice at this news. He sees it as confirming his belief that liberals are irrational, stupid, and self-defeating.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
I wonder if the reason why the PCUSA dropped the “chastity in singleness, fidelity in marriage” requirement was that it did not allow for monogamous homosexual relationships.
When same sex marriages finally become available and homosexuals have the same legal options as heterosexuals, I surely hope that the rule will be reinstated. Call me old fashioned, but promiscuity and infidelity are not admirable qualities for a clergyperson, straight or gay.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
At what point is the charter of your religious beliefs abandoned because you continually change it for the sake of an attendance number!
February 25th, 2011 at 8:48 am
When is the best time to admit that you’re wrong?
February 25th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Where is the point when it becomes about something other than religion and it ceases to be a church or a religious entity. I know civic organizations that have more religious content that some churches.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:55 am
They haven’t stopped being a church. They are only opening their doors to people whom other churches are excluding. It is about marketing in a sense, but that’s how markets work. If you aren’t reaching out to new people and growing, you’re dying.
February 25th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Sadly, this is what religion has become.
May 4th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I am a proud Presbyterian. God is speaking…..we are listening. Its time for others to open their ears, or you will go deaf.
May 14th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
So perplexed, given that the mainline church has really struggled numerically and financially by takiing this path, do you really think we are doing it for the numbers? Or do you just like to say inflammatory things? I’m thinking the latter.
May 15th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
What’s church about these days Madge, helping the poor or helping themselves?
May 16th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Like I said….another extreme comment that actually adds nothing.
I thought the church was about loving Jesus and modeling our lives after Jesus, who was radically inclusive in a pretty scandalous way. When we do that, we will face ridicule from those who feel better when people who aren’t like them are excluded or who find their religion in following rules.
May 16th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Not being disrespectful Madge, but what does it take to get through to you guys the masses don’t want this. They have and continue to reject it and yet you guys can’t seem to grasp that. To continue with this will have an impact that will take decades for the church to recover, if it recovers. Just my opinion, nothing else.
May 16th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Perp, when the church cares only about being popular then the church has lost its purpose.
May 16th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Jose, you guys represent a faction that is destroying the church.
May 16th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
You’re absolutely right Perplexed–most people don’t want to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus. They’d rather follow the rules Grandpa laid down for Good Moral Behavior and continue believing that God thinks just like we are, is afraid of all the things we are afraid of, and likes and dislikes the same things we like and dislike. When you upset that apple cart, and take seriously the fact that Jesus communed with all sorts of socially unacceptable people on Earth and was killed for it, and that the Body of Christ might look really different than Grandpa taught, might include gay people and all races and cultures and even women ministers–oh my. Then they take their toys and go home all too often, but that’s perhaps more an indictment of their maturity level than the decisions of the church.
So if the church is about following the rules, perpetuating itself, and making lists of people who are out, then perhaps it should be destroyed because that can’t be what Christ intended it to be.
May 16th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Perhaps it just needs new teachers.
May 25th, 2011 at 1:14 am
Hmmm. . . .You are really sending a mixed message in your comments, perplexed–or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse for the sake of controversy.
May 26th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
When as a group, you wage what isn’t yours to wage, what is there to see?
May 30th, 2011 at 7:20 am
Madge, people need God. When they go to church they are there for food for the soul. They need it now as much as they have ever needed it, not a political forum!
May 31st, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Exactly. People need the love of God, tangible and costly acts of Christian charity, not a big list of who is in and who is out, not legislation in the secular courts attempting to forbid legal unions. Glad to see you’re coming around Perplexed!
May 31st, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Madge, I had the same reaction. My head was nodding to everything that perp wrote in that last piece. We ought to be real careful about shutting out folks who truly seek to know God. It takes a lot more politics to force people out than to allow them inside.