Monday, December 29, 2008

Could walking humbly with our God really be homophobic?


Michael Adee, of More Light Presbyterians, in his article Going for More Light and O8-B in 2009: Will our Church be friend or foe?, uses the controversy surrounding Pastor Rick Warren’s invitation to give the inaugural invocation to focus on the word homophobic. He, now, is using that hate word, aimed at Warren, to also characterize those in the Presbyterian Church who are standing against sexual sin.

Writing of Warren, the passage of Proposition 8 in California, and those who are working (and praying) to defeat Amendment 08-B in their Presbyteries, he writes “There is no moral fence to sit on in the face of such blatant and harmful homophobia and discrimination in our society and sadly, even in the Church.

But the question must be asked, “is it homophobic to believe that homosex is sin. Or to put it differently do Christians who believe homosex is sin hate LGBT people? Can those two things even be equated? Well, first of all there are people, like Fred Phelps, who do hate. But he is hardly a Christian. He, in fact, has made his family into an abusive sociological cult.

But what about those in the Presbyterian Church (USA), who call themselves traditionalist, or orthodox or evangelical and believe that homosex is sin, are they hate filled? Or, instead, are they attempting to emulate the good Shepherd who goes out looking for the lost sheep with the desire to carry them home on their shoulders if necessary?

Adee asks the questions, “Imagine our Church being known by feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, taking care of orphans and sharing the Good News of God's Love for all persons as reflected in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ? Imagine our Church being known for loving God, neighbor and self; by doing justice, loving kindness and walking humbly with God? Passing 08-B paves the way for that kind of Church."

Strange that Adee should ask us to imagine what is already being done. Yes, we could feed the hungry, care for the sick, take care of orphans more than we have. We could do more in all of those areas but we are doing what he wishes us to imagine.

But if we vote in Amendment 08-B we will not be walking humbly with our God nor will we be sharing the good news of God’s love for all people.

To share the good news of God’s love for all people is to proclaim the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To proclaim that Jesus died and rose again that we might die with him to our sin and be transformed by his great gift of salvation. If we vote in 08-B we will instead proclaim that there are some people who are outside of God’s transforming love. That somehow they cannot be enfolded into the life changing grace of God but must live in their habitual sin. That would be unloving and untrue.

To walk humbly with our God means to be obedient to our Lord. To listen to his word and obey him. To trust that his will and word is greater than all of our worldly, human, desires.

In great love, and with humbleness, we are called, as a people, to “have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.” Jude (22b-23)

Michael Green in his commentary on 2 Peter and Jude, writes about the garments polluted by the flesh. He states, “The Christian worker has the wonderful offer of a change of raiment for the defiled, a robe of righteousness for the man clothed in filthy rags (cf. Is. 61.) and he must proffer it in love and mercy.”

Green continues with his clarification:

“For Jude insists, as strongly as John in the Apocalypse, that the man accepted before God is he who has not soiled his garments (Rev. 3:4); and these garments are looked upon both as the standing which God confers on the penitent sinners who ‘have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb’ (7:14) and also as that character which follows in the lives of those who have truly been justified (19:8).”


To be humble in the presence of God as well as loving to sisters and brothers, is to lead others away from a sinful, broken life and into the safe arms of a Savior who will not leave them in unrepentant sin. Who, praise God, will not leave any of us in unrepentant sin.

77 comments:

Jodie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan said...

I'm not sure from your commentary that you've actually read the New B. Can you, for example, please quote the portion of the New B which states that, "there are some people who are outside of God’s transforming love"? Or can you explain what precisely is wrong with living lives obedient to Jesus Christ, as the new amendment states (and the old one expressly did not)?

I mean, sure, go ahead and argue against it, if you're able, (once you've read it of course). But since anyone can find a copy of it anywhere, I think your rather obvious distortions don't really make your case any stronger.

Alan said...

oh...

Chelsea, MI

Kattie said...

"Strange that Adee should ask us to imagine what is already being done."

Strange that Viola would leave out the last sentence of the paragraph, that points out what else is already being done.

He went on to say: "Instead of fighting over who people fall in love with and create family, we can go about the Mission of the Church 24/7."

We are and have been fighting about who people fall in love with and with whom we create family. That is certainly a distraction from what Viola claims we are already doing.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Alan said...

Viola wrote, "Strange that Adee should ask us to imagine what is already being done."

Indeed, Kattie. Not only that, but he doesn't ask us to imagine what is already being done. He asks us to imagine being *known* for that work, instead of being *known* as a denomination of exclusion, hypocrisy, phony piety, and busybodies and fussbudgets.

But then, actually quoting his actual words instead of just making stuff up wouldn't be as fun, I suppose. ;)

Kattie said...

Viola said:

"If we vote in 08-B we will instead proclaim that there are some people who are outside of God’s transforming love. That somehow they cannot be enfolded into the life changing grace of God but must live in their habitual sin. That would be unloving and untrue."

I wish Jodie's reply to the above statement hadn't been deleted. I too think Viola's statement is absurd.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Kattie said...

"He asks us to imagine being *known* for that work, instead of being *known* as a denomination of exclusion, hypocrisy, phony piety, and busybodies and fussbudgets."

Alan,

Indeed he does. Our job of evangelism suffers. Those who would complain about the growing ranks of the unchurched while engaging in the behaviors you describe above need look no further than themselves for ones to blame.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Anonymous said...

Following up on Alan's point... exactly what part of the following sentence do you disagree with:

"pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions." (from the new G-6.0106b contained in Amendment 08-B)

Truth be told, the old version of G-6.0106b, which you defend so fiercely, makes no mention of Jesus and it conflates Scripture and the Confessions as if they were equal when clearly they are not.

By the way, your use of the word "homosex" shows your homophobia. It's a made up word and to use it in your post is adolescent and shows that you are not serious about finding common ground.

In Christ,
Toby Rogers

Alan said...

LOL

I've always wondered about the "homosex" word that gets used here. I've always assumed that it was just supposed it to be either 1) one notch nicer than just calling someone a "homo" or "fag", or 2) by eliminating the "ual" ending from homosexual, a way to dehumanize. Just the same way that people refer to LGBT people as "the issue" or "an issue" rather than as people. That way one can rail all they want about "homosex" (whatever that word is supposed to mean) without actually calling attention to the fact that we're talking about real people. Or maybe 3) it's just an indication of the speaker or writer's obsession with sex? Or perhaps 4) it's just a dog whistle and I'm not hearing it, because I don't travel in the sorts of circles in which someone would use the term "homosex" with a straight face. (Sorry, would that be "heteroface"?)

I suppose it could be all of the above as well....

Viola Larson said...

Alan, Kattie and Tobyr,

Just at that place where the Church of Jesus Christ and the life of the Christian is being attacked is that place where believers in Jesus Christ must stand strong. Sexual sin, in all of its types whether that is homosexual sex, adultery or fornication, is the place where the Church is now standing against a decadent culture and seeking to offer grace to those caught in such brokenness. Eliminating the current text of G-6.0106 b, means refusing to care about those who insist on living in unrepentant sin.

In one of our Presbytery’s forums a lady who is by no means conservative brought up the thought that the new text leaves no standards at all. Given that we are a Church where being obedient to Jesus Christ and the authority of the Scriptures has different meanings to different theological divides it is a very unclear text.

We are called to love those in unrepentant sinful lifestyles not make it easier for them to sin.

Toby I was using homosex to describe sex that was different than heterosex. What word would you use.?

Also Toby please leave your city and state.
Sacramento, CA

Debbie said...

Viola never claimed that the text of 08-B said "that there are some people who are outside of God’s transforming love. That somehow they cannot be enfolded into the life changing grace of God but must live in their habitual sin," as was falsely insinuated. (Of course she has read 08-B; Viola always does her homework.) Viola means that the effect of passing 08-B will be that the PCUSA will be proclaiming this, and I agree. This is the greatest part of Viola's post, in my opinion, and it is the heart of why evangelicals oppose approving of "homosex" (homosexual sex--that is the definition of this word, which I also find awkward). Since we believe that homosexual sex is sin, we believe that those who engage in it need repentance and forgiveness and God's transforming love (just as everyone needs these things for any sin), but if our church declares that homosexual sin is not wrong, then we declare that people engaging in it are outside of God's transforming power for that sin. That would be tragic for those people. They would lose out on God's grace. We do not want that to happen.

It is not "fun" to write about these things, as someone claimed in an earlier comment. I just had a disheartening discussion about this with my daughter, who takes the same side as Alan and Kattie. I was in tears afterwards because of the dissension it caused in our family. It would be more fun and much easier to just agree with her. So please don't say anymore that people like Viola and I are having fun doing this. We are standing up for what we believe is the truth, which we cannot betray, no matter the cost.

Debbie Berkley
Bellevue, WA

Kattie said...

"Eliminating the current text of G-6.0106 b, means refusing to care about those who insist on living in unrepentant sin."

Viola makes a very odd statement here. I think she believes that to "pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the whiteness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions" *means* "refusing to care about those who insist on living in unrepentant sin." Either she needs to go back, re-read and study the proposed amendment in order to correct her misunderstanding of it, or we should pray mightily that she come to the realization that pledging obedience to Jesus Christ does not mean we refuse to care about anyone. Probably both would be in order.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Alan said...

"Just at that place where the Church of Jesus Christ and the life of the Christian is being attacked is that place where believers in Jesus Christ must stand strong. "

Meh. The Church of Jesus Christ doesn't need me to protect it. I'd say Jesus is doing a pretty good job, Himself. And from whom are you protecting it, Viola? From sinners? Good luck with that! LOL

"Eliminating the current text of G-6.0106 b, means refusing to care about those who insist on living in unrepentant sin. "

Ah, here's the problem. See, Viola, you misunderstand the Amendment itself, and I'm happy to correct you. This overture doesn't "eliminate", it substitutes bad language for truly Reformed language, a point you seem not able to disprove.

I think it's pretty clear that either you, or the lady to whom you refer hasn't read the text if you think that it eliminates all standards. Either that, or perhaps you're hoping that simply repeating something that is untrue enough times will get people to believe it.

I wonder why people have such a hard time defending the current language as they did when it was originally written and passed, as a Presbyterian Coalition stated, it wasn't about a bunch of standards, Viola, it was about one: “to put into the Constitution a binding prohibition against the ordination and installation of those in unrepentant, self-acknowledged, homosexual relationships”

http://www.presbycoalition.org/newsfile16577_1.doc

Now if you can list for me, say, 20 or 30 charges of fornication or adultery brought against "heterosex"-ers or whatever you prefer to call them, then maybe I'd believe the current language is doing it's job upholding "standards" as opposed to just the one with which you happen to agree. Because it seems that's the only "standard" anyone actually seems to care about.

"heterosex."

LOL. Excellent.

Viola Larson said...

No Kattie,
What I mean is that for you that statement in the new text means letting people living in sexual sin, homosexual sex as well as fornication, keep on living like that and calling it okay. Because you are on that side of the divide.

Since that would be what would happen it would mean the Church would not be calling unrepentant sinners to repentence and that would be unloving.

Kattie said...

Debbie,

Just curious; what do you think my "side" is? I only ask because you seem to think Alan and I are on the same "side".

I'm sorry you and your daughter are at odds on this issue and that you find it "disheartening". If I may ask, how old is she, and how much studying has she done on this topic?

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Alan said...

"What I mean is that for you that statement in the new text means letting people living in sexual sin, homosexual sex as well as fornication, keep on living like that and calling it okay. "

Please quote the place where the new standard says any such thing. Quote. It. I think one of the things that (excuse me for saying so) some older people don't get about blogging is that any of us can use Google and fact check such inaccurate statements at any time. So it's sort of a waste of time to make such incorrect statements because we can all just see the amendment for ourselves. But in case some folks haven't read it, as seems apparent ....

"G-6.0106b. Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003) pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate's sincere efforts to adhere to these standards."

chelsea mi

Kattie said...

"Because you are on that side of the divide."

Oh really? Interesting that you have come to that realization in spite of the fact that I haven't. Are you a Prophet?

By the way, I certainly *do not* want people to live their lives in Sexual Sin.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Anonymous said...

...regarding your "Berkeley Method" of moderating comments -- a factor that you probably didn't take into consideration is that people who work for equal rights and those who look different -- have to think about safety given the number of hate crimes in this country. So giving out personal information is often not a good idea for those working for justice. It's sad but that's just the world we live in.

More on your other comments in a minute...

All the best,
Toby Rogers
Los Angeles, CA

Viola Larson said...

Tobyr,
I am sorry if your activism puts you in that spot. I understand because on my web site, www.naminggrace.org I also have written on racism and every so often I do get hate mail. (my e-mail is there)You do have my permission to not put your information up anymore. I will remember.
Sacramento, Ca

Anonymous said...

Ihave not always agreed with Viola, bnut she seems to right ion this issue.

I would like to responds to several of the comments.

1. If "homosex" is a mader up word, then so is "homophobia". the being an attempt to marginalize those who strive to live out of their understanding og Scripture and the confessions.
2. To brand those like VIla, RIck Wsrren and myself as "hateful" is not a loving response to those who seek to live a life a obedient to the will of God.
3. Because two people have declared love for each other does not mean that the church is somehow called to affirm what is has always judged to sin. Bank robbers may love their wives but we would hardly be called to affirem their criminallity or sinfulness.
4. We have never declared, as the church, that we do not love gays or lesbians. We have never denied them access to the fellowship of thew church. We have siad that should not be allowed to stand for ordination. MANY are called but few are chosen.

David Walters
Andalusia, Alabama

Anonymous said...

By all means, let's talk about reducing sexual sin in the church. Sexual misconduct by HETEROSEXUAL pastors is rampant in the church. The PC(U.S.A.)'s own estimates show that as many as 23% of HETEROSEXUAL pastors have sex with someone in their congregation. And what do you do? You spend your time condemning faithful Christian people who are homosexual. That's silly.

I'd be happy to have an equal standard of sexual conduct which applies to both people who are heterosexual and people who are homosexual. But the Book of Order is set up to prevent homosexual people from being married in the church -- and then you condemn them for sex outside of marriage. How convenient!

Look, I know you're being earnest, I know you're trying to be faithful to what you believe. But when I read your post, what strikes me is your idolatry. Strong stuff right? But look: as you know, idolatry is putting anything ahead of God. You have allowed your heterosexist assumptions about how YOU THINK the world should be to get in the way of seeing the good world as God has created it (which includes faithful Christians who are homosexual as well as faithful Christians who are heterosexual).

In order to maintain your position opposing equal rights for people who are LGBT you ignore the following passages (which all support LGBT equality): Matthew 22:36-40, I John 4:16, Luke 10:25-37, John 3:16-17, Micah 6:8, Romans 2:1, The Book of Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, Isaiah 56:4-7, Matthew 19:11-12, Acts 8:26-39, Acts 10:15, Acts 15:1-21, Galatians 3:27-28, 1 Corinthians 12:25-26, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Matthew 8:5-13, Romans 8:1, Romans 15:7, and John 19:26-27 amongst others.

Heterosexism, patriarchy, and tradition can become idols that get in the way of our relationship with God. We would both do well to remember the words of Paul in Romans 2:1 "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you the judge, are doing the very same things."

One final note: thank you for your kind words about safety. It was very kind of you. I know you care, I know you are trying to do the right thing but I beg you to spend time with some of the passages listed above and see if the Holy Spirit doesn't move you to a new understanding.

All the best,
Toby Rogers
Los Angeles, CA

John McNeese said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pastor Bob said...

A few brief observations on observations:

1. The term "homosex" according to Rob Gagnon was first used by scholars in the homosexual community as a way to refer to sexual activity by two persons of the same sex by people who think such behavior is not sinful. This avoids the awkward phrase homosexual sexual behavior. After all homosexual behavior is not always sexual! Whether Dr. Gagnon is accurate or not I do not know from personal experience. Those of us who use the term believe Dr. Gagnon. If he is wrong I would be glad to receive correction. However I do believe he sites scholars who disagree with him on the issue who used the term before he did. Maybe it has gone out of fashion as it has been picked up and used by those who believe homosexual sexual behavior is always sinful?

2. How DOES the church deal with heterosex sin? While as late as the 1980's many presbyteries were still covering up such sin by simply transferring the sinner to another presbytery without informing the receiving presbytery of the problem in the 1990's this behavior by presbyteries began to change. Presbyteries began to bring charges against continuing members who sinned sexually, particularly against those who used their position of authority to have sex with members of staff or members of the congregation. While we still don't do it perfectly, sexual sin by heterosexuals MWS IS taken seriously these days. The suggestions that the denomination should first deal with this issue fails to take into consideration the actions I see in presbyteries to deal with such sin. And yes, I am appalled at the number of cases brought before presbytery PJCs against pastors who sin by having sex with persons of the opposite sex. But to say that the PCUSA should first deal with this problem is a straw man. We ARE facing the problem.

3. Can we all be honest just for once? In the mid 1990s a large minority of the members of the GAPJC said that unless the Book of Order said in some way that self affirming, practicing homosexuals were not eligible for ordination because of their sexual behavior with persons of the same sex that such behavior, by itself should not be a reason for a session or presbytery to deny that person ordination, thinking that the denomination had made such a decision by making an authoritative interpretation of the constitution on the issue.

In 1996 the GA the current text of G-6.0106b was sent to the presbyteries for vote. While the text does not refer explicitly to homosexual sexual behavior it was clear to all of us voting that this was the real intent of the amendment. It was also clear that the GA had framed the second sentence as it currently reads because there was a real possibility that the amendment might not have passed if it spoke only of self affirming practicing homosexuals. And yes, while I have and will continue to refuse to ordain heterosexuals who live in continuing sexual sin (ie. fornication and adultery) the real purpose of the amendment was to deny ordination to homosexual persons involved in sexual relationships.

Continuing to be honest, let us all also admit that the main purpose of amendment 08-B is to remove the sentence that says one of the qualifications for ordination is fidelity in marriage between one man and one woman or chastity in singleness. The article by Michael Adee to which Viola refers makes this clear. If the real purpose of the amendment was only to clean up the theology of the current G-6.0106b the sentence on fidelity and chastity would have been left in.

As evidence for this I offer the votes in 1996-7, 1997-8, 2001-2 and the current votes in presbyteries on 08-B. In presbyteries that had a majority who believed homosexual sexual behavior was, under certain circumstances not sinful the presbytery voted against the current wording of G-6.0106b. The opposite was also true.

Now if folks want to argue about the theology of the first sentence of the current G-6.0106b or the problems in the last sentence let's do so. But let's not pretend that theology is the real purpose of the proposed amendment.

The problem with 08-B is that it does not deal with the issue that the current G-6.0106b sought to address except by omission: can one be in a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex and be ordained? And behind this question: is sexual activity between two persons of the same sex (presumably in an exclusive relationship)sometimes blessed by God? Or can one live a life in obedience to Christ when one is in such a relationship?

I will vote against 08-B because I believe that sexual behavior between two persons of the same sex is inherently sinful. And yes, I expect there to be as much dancing around the question as there was when the current G-6.0106b was proposed.

Robert Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA

John McNeese said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan said...

"We ARE facing the problem."

With respect, Pastor Bob, no, you really aren't.

In the 12 years since Amendment B was passed how many charges against heterosex pastors, having heterosex fornication and/or adultery has Paul Rolf Jensen brought? Has the number of charges brought against heterosex people been proportional to the number of heterosex fornicators and adulterers in the population, when compared to the number of charges against LGBT people? Obviously no. So let's be honest, as you say, and admit that you're really not facing it.

Given that, by age 44, 95% of people in the US have had premarital sex, that huge percentages of married people who enjoy heterosex have had affairs, and given that those percentages are no different for Christians than for the general population, can you honestly say that we ARE facing the problem?

And divorce? Feh. No, you're really not facing the problem.

I've been to a great number of presbytery meetings in which candidates for ordination were questioned. None of them was ever asked about fidelity or chastity. And you say we are facing the problem?

Yes, Pastor Bob, with respect, let's be honest.

See, I've heard this for 12 years, Pastor Bob. It’s nice to say, “Oh, but the standard should be applied fairly!” all the while knowing that will never happen. It makes a nice show of it, I suppose, as long as people don’t realize that people have been saying that for over 12 years. I guess folks are hoping no one would notice.

Replacement B says, "In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate's sincere efforts to adhere to these standards."

Now, you and others here can continue to claim that this is no standard, but that is obviously, clearly and completely incorrect. I actually see the word "standard" in there twice! I appreciate that you're trying to be honest, but any honest reading would not propose the false dichotomy that you, Viola, and others are attempting to characterize.

The options really aren't either 1) We maintain the current standard that has never and will never be applied fairly, or 2) no standards at all. The new Amendment B maintains standards and gives the responsibility for enforcing those standards to the bodies whom have *traditionally* been responsible.

"If the real purpose of the amendment was only to clean up the theology of the current G-6.0106b the sentence on fidelity and chastity would have been left in. "

Why? We're not Catholic, though it does seem that some would like to return us to Romish vows of chastity. But then, this whole argument is predicated on rather Romish notions of ordination anyway.

Now you argue that we can't replace amendment B because if we remove the fidelity and chastity clause the floodgates would open. Yet, the current language doesn't mention spousal abuse, gluttony, murder, or arson. Hmmmm... That's interesting, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

As to the response to my comment about many are called.." stating that God does the calling, I agree..but we do the coosing. We refuse to ordain for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with fidelity or chastity. I can remember sitting through a meeting that lasted over 12 hours trying to deal with candidate refused to ordain women. I have also witnessed a recent seminary grad fall flat when he was exaimend on the Bible.


David Walters
Andalusia, AL

Alan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kattie said...

"I’ve always wondered whether he, or you and others for that matter, arrived at his beliefs about homosexuality before or after doing an exhaustive study of scripture."

John,

Oh Brother! Do I ever resonate with that! I would venture to guess that Alan Kiste and our lost friend Jodie would agree given the number of times their questions and attempts at real substantial debate here were entertained by Viola and some of her cohort by what I can only describe as crickets in the night. It makes me wonder how much they really understand of what they’ve read. As I see it, Gagnon’s conclusions agree with what they want to believe. Gagnon has got a PhD, teaches at PTS, so that’s good enough for them. There’s nothing quite as unreformed as wanting to be led by a Bishop. It’s a sort of Idol worship.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Tobyr,

After going grocery shopping cooking dinner and eating, I have read all of your verses except for Ruth and 1 & 2 Samuel. (And I am almost afraid to ask why you put those in your list. If you intend to make some kind of sexual connection between Ruth and Naomi or David and Jonathan don’t even try, you will hear some screeching from this direction although in low tones.) To be truthful you have made no case at all.

You put some verses in about loving one another, etc. And I have already answered that in my posting. To love does not ever mean that one should condone sin, in fact it is a burden carried by the one who loves. God is a jealous God and God requires us to be jealous in our love of each other in that we want the best for those we love. If I don’t care that you are living in unrepentant sin then I don’t love you.

But mostly I see in the verses you offered and the way you took them out of their context a push for antinomianism. For instance Romans 8:1 “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Paul, rather than using this to say, its okay go ahead and sin, goes on to show how grace brings us out of our sin. He writes of those who are walking in the Spirit rather than walking in the flesh. First Paul points out that those who have the Spirit are walking in the Spirit. But he goes on to say that if Christ is in us, meaning that by the Spirit we are united to Christ, then our body is dead because of sin but our spirit is alive because of the new life he has given us. So we are obligated to live for Christ which means “putting to death the deeds of the body.” (13) Homosexual sexual sin is one of those deeds we must be putting to death as is all other sins.

And in fact in other places in Romans Paul is very clear about this. In chapter five where Paul is explaining about the grace of Christ he writes, “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (20-21) Paul goes on in the next chapter to ask, “Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” He gives a resounding answer “May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it.?”

On such verses as Acts 8: 26-39 and Peter’s vision of the unclean clean food which equates with the holiness laws as they focus on food and such people as eunuchs. There is a relationship to homosexuality but in only one way. It is God who cleans and makes new. He, in Peter’s vision, cleaned the food himself, he says so.

The Eunuch is claimed out of a brokenness which is not his sin but is the symptom of a fallen world. But what sin the Eunuch possessed, and we are all sinners, he was forgiven of. After all in that section of Isaiah the texts states, “But he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well being fell upon him and by his scourging we are healed.”
The person who practices homosexual sexual sex is sinning. He too can be made new because of Christ. All the suffering of Jesus Christ was for all sin, including homosexual sex. The sameness is being made knew. The difference is an act of sin which in too many cases is sin that LGBT people insist they need not repent of.

Sacramento, CA

Viola Larson said...

Kattie,
You have brought up Jodie several times on the comment section here and how I have not allowed him to comment here. Just so you will understand I have allowed a lot here and have not deleted. But I will not allow anyone to persecute someone else here nor will I allow them here if they have done that constantly in other places.

Just recently on another blog this is one of the things Jodie said about Rick Warren, among others,

"For their own good, narcissists should be put in solitary confinement and completely ignored.
Rick who?"

Perhaps you feel that is proper dialogue. I do not. And it is certainly persecution of my brother in the Lord. I think that is all that needs to be said.

Sacramento,
CA

Viola Larson said...

Alan,

It just may be my age but I consider that certain words were only meant for private use, so if you want to comment here please watch your language.

Sacramento, Ca

Debbie said...

Kattie, I'm sorry if I made an incorrect assumption that you and Alan were on the same "side." I had assumed that you were both in favor of GLBT ordination and marriage. My daughter is in favor of these things--at least, I assume she would be in favor of GLBT ordination if she gave any thought to it (she is not active in any church). I know she is in favor of GLBT marriage. She is 29 years old. She has not done much studying on it at all; she is much more emotionally in favor of these things, believing in "love". Of course I believe in love, too, but she and I disagree on what is loving.

John McNeese said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan said...

(a repost of my earlier comment, which Viola deleted.... (though apparently she believes waving the the word "homosex" around is fine for public viewing. Perhaps she finds it amusing to imply I used improper or impolite words, but I did not.)

BTW, Pastor Bob, regarding the word "homosex" I've only seen it used by Gagnon and his followers. Perhaps his analysis is correct. However, LGBT people use many words among themselves such as "homo", "fag", or "queer" in a joking manner. I'm not sure Viola, you, or others should use those words, just because Robert Gagnon thinks it's cute.

I think it is generally considered polite to call a group of people by the name they prefer. So, perhaps we can leave the 1800s behind and start using the acronym LGBT, just as we've stopped using words like "Indian", "Negro", or worse for Native and African Americans.

I find it interesting that folks who spend so much time trying to convince folks just how much they "love" LGBT people continue to use words like "homosexual" or "homosex" that serve only to dehumanize us and/or focus exclusively on our private parts.

Alan said...

"Perhaps you feel that is proper dialogue. I do not. And it is certainly persecution of my brother in the Lord. I think that is all that needs to be said."

You mean like, "I guess he's in it for the pension."

Uh huh.

Debbie said...

Alan, I was unaware that "homosexual" was considered an offensive word. This was the first I had heard of it.

Since evangelicals only believe that the act of sex between two persons of the same gender is what is sinful, and not a same-gender sexual orientation in itself, what is the term that we should use to refer to that sexual act (since we must refer to it in discussing this topic), if a term such as "homosexual sex" is offensive?

Debbie said...

Oops, forgot: Debbie Berkley, Bellevue, WA

Jodie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pastor Bob said...

johnm and Alan

Very curious. First, I don't believe in bringing charges across presbytery lines. Since 1990 I have seen case after case brought before presbytery PJCs concerning heterosexual sin by ministers. (I've seen a few confessions too.) Here in Philadelphia Presbytery those being investigated or those charged are not named but labeled by letters until found guilty or a deal is cut or the minister renounces jurisdiction. (Those found not guilty are not named.) A couple years ago we were up to minister H! Very sad. And yes, I have seen pastors removed from congregations, been told they can't act as a pastor (I forget the correct term from the BoO) unless the presbytery decides to allow them to do so again after counseling. I have also seen people get a slap on the wrist and told to be a good boy. (Sorry if I sound patriarchal but I haven't seen a case against a female MWS yet. Given the human propensity to sin I'm sure I will some day.)

My personal sense, or at least my reading of the literature is that some pastors fall into such sin because they don't have a good sense of themselves or where to set the boundaries. Others are sociopathic. I think the first should get a second chance (one) and the second should be removed from office. And often in presbytery, because of confidentiality, I don't think I have enough information to make a good decision.

I have never seen someone involved in a homosexual sexual relationship brought before the presbytery after being found guilty. My best guess is that this is more because of the overwhelming percentage of heterosexuals as compared to homosexuals than anything else.

As for the case Paul Jensen brought in Baltimore Presbytery the investigating committee refused to bring charges, the PJC found the individual not guilty and the Synod PJC told the presbytery PJC to do their job. This after the individual stated on the floor of presbytery that he was homosexual, had a partner and was having sex with his partner.

I have advised nominating committees not to nominate people who live together in a sexual relationship and taught new officer classes that sex outside of marriage disqualifies them from serving as an elder. And did that cause a conversation! My Session believes the standard is no sex outside of marriage and asks the question, "Is there any standard for ordination that you cannot in good conscience obey?" I already said we discuss G-6.0106b in new officers' class. So, to be quite honest, I resent the implication that I have a double standard.

I ask couples if they are living together when they come to me for premarital counseling, tell them that it is sin and about the sociological studies that suggest living together before marriage matches a trend toward a higher rate of divorce and a higher rate of spousal abuse. I will do the wedding but the couple will know that I see it as moving them out of sin into new life.

As for remarriage after divorce I have a long conversation with the couple about what happened. I have never, as far as I know, done a wedding for someone who committed adultery.

Yes, I know starting with my generation sex outside of marriage became increasingly popular as did living together. That doesn't make it right. The sexual revolution wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. For heterosexuals it put more pressure on women to have sex early in the dating process. Try doing counseling with a high school girl who has figured out that her boy friend is going out with her because she has sex with him and if she says no he will drop her like a hot potato. Or a girl who's boyfriend has no intention of being faithful. After all, they aren't married, are they?

Oh, and just so you know, if someone's orientation is homosexual and that person is not sexually active, even if that person disagrees with me on the meaning of Scripture on the subject, I would vote to ordain that person if s/he met the other criteria.

johnm as to the question of studying the Scripture I read people I agree with and people I disagree with. Isn't that what educated people do? Why would you assume that someone you disagree with has failed to do the proper textual work and read all sides of the issue? We disagree. That doesn't mean I think you are an idiot or uneducated. It means we have considered the same texts in the smaller and the larger contexts, read the works of others and come to different conclusions! Alan I believe we already had this conversation and agreed on how to come to conclusions about the meaning of Scripture but that we disagreed in our interpretation.

As for the question of standards, well that really is the issue, isn't it? Yes 08-B uses the word standards but has deleted the current standards. In Bush vs. the Presbytery of Pittsburgh the GAPJC made it clear that G-6.0106b sets a standard that must be obeyed. It currently is an open question as to whether the AI by the 2008 GA overturned that ruling or not as it has not been tested.

As to the history I detailed you ignored it. I was brutally honest about the behavior and reasons of those who disagree with me during the vote in 1996-7. I'm not saying that if 08-B passes there won't be standards. I'm suggesting that if it does pass the standard that says one cannot be sexually active with a person of the same sex and be ordained will no longer be a standard written (although indirectly as I said) in the BoO. Isn't that one of the purposes, in fact the central purpose of the proposed amendment?

So yes, we disagree. But please don't assume that I haven't done my work or that I don't have standards for heterosexuals.

Oh and Alan I have never heard anyone who argued that spousal abuse, gluttony and murder aren't sinful and shouldn't be bars to ordination. I will admit it is very difficult to define gluttony in America today or maybe I should say it is a fairly universal sin except among the hungry. I haven't heard anyone say it isn't sinful. Your doctor might not use the word sin but she sure will give you orders about what and how much you should eat! If someone up for ordination came to my Session and said that they sought to be ordained but thought that gossip was not sinful I would urge the Session to vote not to ordain that person. Elders, after all, have to be able to keep their big mouths shut. That's a standard. I don't think it needs to be in the BoO because no one has ever argued that gossip is not a sin. The standard of fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness is in the BoO because some argue that it should not be a standard. That is what we disagree about, isn't it?

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA

Pastor Bob said...

Oops

As to the history I detailed you ignored it. I was brutally honest about the behavior and reasons of those who disagree with me during the vote in 1996-7.

I meant those who AGREE with me

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA

Anonymous said...

Hi Viola:

Thank you for your long reply and for going back and reading through some of the Biblical texts I mentioned. I think Ruth and 1 & 2 Samuel have a lot of helpful analogies for our present debate but I guess we'll leave that for another day.

But regarding your last paragraph... let me just rewrite it from my perspective so you where I'm coming from:

The person who practices homophobia is sinning. You too can be made new because of Christ. All the suffering of Jesus Christ was for all sin, including homophobia, bigotry, and discrimination. The problem is that in too many cases people who are homophobic such as yourself insist you need not repent of your discrimination against your neighbor. (And enough already with the "we really love gay people we just won't let other congregations hire them as pastors" nonsense.)

Paul's point in Romans 2:1 is that the most challenging idols to overcome are those that we don't think to question -- which ironically is exactly what you've demonstrated here.

Regarding Pastor Bob's long comment let me just fill in the answers to the questions he asks at the end:

can one be in a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex and be ordained?

YES

is sexual activity between two persons of the same sex (presumably in an exclusive relationship) sometimes blessed by God?

YES

can one live a life in obedience to Christ when one is in such a relationship?

YES

I find it fascinating that Pastor Bob and Viola are going to vote against an Amendment that requires candidates to "pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions." -- because you view such language as too pro-gay. That really says it all doesn't it?

All the best,
Toby Rogers
Los Angeles, CA

Viola Larson said...

Tobyr,
It almost seems that you have not read anything that I have written.

If the Bible, God's word, teaches that homosexual sex is sin and it does, then believing that LGBT people must repent of such sin and allow themselves to be transformed by Jesus Christ is not homophobia.

The suggestion that Christians should encourage people in their sin is an unloving suggestion.

Perhaps I didn't take the time to address Romans 2:1. I don't think you quite have your exegesis on that verse right. I don’t find anywhere where the suggestion is that the most challenging idols are those that we don’t think to question, although that in itself might be a truth. (I will come back to it.)

Paul is simply pointing out that while we may be making a judgment call on some one else we might be sinning in a similar way and in that case we, all sinners, need a Savior because God will certainly judge us. He isn’t saying that some are sinning by judging and others are not. He is saying we all break the law of God and because of this we deserve God’s wrath.

“But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God who will render to each person according to his deeds.” (Romans 2:5-6)

God concludes all under his wrath that we might be given the gift of salvation through his Son Jesus Christ. And Paul finishes the matter at the end of chapter 6.
“For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (6: 20-23)

And this returns me to your statement about idols. “The most challenging idols are those we don’t think to question.” An idol is something we place above God. All of us have sins we tend to do this with. Greed, fame, etc—but it seems to me that those who seek to follow Christ yet put their sexuality, their desires above the word of God are certainly making sex an idol.

Sacramento, Ca

Jodie said...

Viola,

If your are going to talk about me, it is only fair to let me respond. So here we go again:

Kattie, thanks for noticing.

Viola, I didn’t realize I was in dialog with you on that other blog. I shall be more direct in the future. But it would be easier to be in dialog with you directly here rather than indirectly there and deleted here, don’t you think?

How would you advocate that we treat narcissism?

Perhaps I left out the example of Rev Don Moomaw, another Evangelical asked to give an invocation. He was Ronald Reagan's pastor from our very own Bel Air Presbyterian. He blamed his own inability to refrain from "sexually inappropriate behavior" with married women in his own congregation on the effect that adulation had on his self image. The adulation, he said, made him believe that he could do anything he wanted because, they told him, he was wonderful.

In other words, the narcissist is made of Teflon. His fans even serve to carry his sins.

(Don't you love the euphemisms allowed for the sexual sins of the heterosexual kind? So understated. Where I come from he really would have been persecuted, then mutilated, then shot. Having sexual relations with the wives of the men in your church would definitely be dealt with in a way to discourage others from the same practice)

So, even though the Evangelicals in his neighborhood never even brought charges against him, opting instead for the quiet removal from office after years of repeated complaints and warnings, under their new pastor they witch hunt anybody suspected of even praying for gays in public, proving once again that in the eyes of the Evangelicals, the perceived sin of hanging around GLBTs appears to be far more egregiously sinful than any other sin, real or imagined. (Homophobic? Oh, heavens no! “We LOVE homosexuals. It’s their unrepentant lifestyle we hate”. Whatever.)

Human adulation is to the narcissist what alcohol is to the alcoholic. I am not saying we should persecute your friend, I merely suggested that we – lovingly – remove the drug from the addict. But let's hear from you Viola, since you seem to be the expert in what is the loving thing to do to other unrepentant sinners.

What then do >>you<< say is the loving thing to do for other unrepentant narcissists?

Jodie,
Lawrence, KS

PS On idolatry and sex: If you ever buy a mirror, ask yourself why it is >>you<< place so much importance on sex. You are willing to twist any bible passage, and meddle in the affairs of any stranger, for the sake of sex. Why?

Kattie said...

Viola said this to me concerning Jodie’s comment on another blog about Rick Warren:

“Perhaps you feel that is proper dialogue. I do not. And it is certainly persecution of my brother in the Lord. I think that is all that needs to be said.”

Jodie,

I’m glad Viola hasn’t deleted your message this time. I think, based upon your past life experiences, you have a rather unique perspective (as readers of this blog have anyway) concerning persecution. I don’t think Viola really gets it at all (Re your comment: “Where I come from he really would have been persecuted, then mutilated, then shot."). Would you care to share with us some of what you know about real persecution? Maybe also, could you share with us how your experiences have colored how you respond to people like Viola?

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Alan said...

Pastor Bob wrote, "So, to be quite honest, I resent the implication that I have a double standard."

You are a member of an organization that has a double standard and continues to enforce it. What have you done to see that double standard is stopped?

You mention one case Paul Rolf Jensen brought. Perhaps you don't keep up on these matters, but what about the other 20 or so cases? And why hasn't he brought any against heterosex? Why are those cases you mention regarding heterosex kept so hushed up, while cases regarding LGBT ordination or marriage are shouted from the rooftops?

Perhaps you do not have a double standard, but you belong to an organization and support one that does. As do I. The difference is that I'm trying to do something about it, rather than continue to support that double standard, either through action or inaction.

You continue to mention standards. In fact, g-6.0106b is NOT the only standard for ordination, believe it or not. The BoO is full of them, and the replacement B simply makes that clear. I honestly think you are intentionally trying to misread the new language.

What has the current language done, by the way? Has it prevented LGBT ordination? No. Some LGBT ministers, elders, and deacons were ordained before it, and some are still ordained. Has it brought any peace or settlement to the issue? No, obviously not. Is it going to? No, of course not. Is it at least implemented fairly? No, as I have pointed out, it has not.

So, let's take this enormous number of supposed cases of infidelity or fornication involving heterosex. Are you honestly trying to argue that before B was enacted 12 years ago, there was no way to prosecute those cases, and that if the language were made clearer with this replacement language, it would then be harder to do so again? Let's be honest, Pastor Bob. I resent the implication that you think I'm an idiot. Obviously such cases were handled before B was enacted 12 years ago, and you can demonstrate nothing in this new language that would change that.

In fact, you can't even find anything in the new language that would prevent you from not ordaining an LGBT person. Because you could if this language were passed.

So really, what has the current language done? Anything at all? Well, it's caused a lot of strife, been used unfairly by bigots and homophobes, isn't even necessary (as several hundred years of Presbyterianism demonstrated before it was enacted), and doesn't actually prevent what it was specifically designed to prevent. But whatever we do, we're not supposed to improve it. Yes, I know, you'll continue the false dichotomy of either B, or no standards at all, but since we both know that isn't true, how about we skip that? Yes, let's not improve this completely unfair miserable failure of an amendment. By all means.

That will fix everything.

Chelsea MI

Alan said...

Pastor Bob wrote, "The standard of fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness is in the BoO because some argue that it should not be a standard. That is what we disagree about, isn't it? "

Actually I don't know anyone who argues it shouldn't be a standard. Perhaps they're out there, but the majority of people I know are FOR fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness. I have no problem with that standard.

By that standard, you would have no problem ordaining me, I take it? And my husband? Fidelity in marriage, Pastor Bob, that's the standard, right?

And you say you don't have a double standard?

See Pastor Bob, your oversimplification and clever, subtle rhetorical demonization, notwithstanding, THAT is what we disagree about.

Viola Larson said...

Alan,
you have missed the highest standard of all for a Christian and it does concern fidelity, that is fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ and his word. You are unfaithful to Jesus Christ because you are persisting in unrepentant sin. And not only that you are flaunting it in the face of brothers and sisters, insisting that they bless your sin, which we cannot do and be faithful Christians.

Alan said...

Actually that's untrue, Viola. I've never insisted anything of the sort, no more than it is required that I bless your homophobia while you're an elder, as you insist. I don't condone your unrepentant sin, but neither do I think it's my decision, since I am not a member of the body which ordained you.

Interestingly Viola, the phrase you use "fidelity to Jesus Christ" is in the new Amendment, and not in the old one.

I welcome your support of this replacement amendment.

Viola Larson said...

Alan,
you have just proved a very big point for many. You are insisting on the new text with the fidelity to Jesus Christ words in it but your interpretation of what that means is totally unfaithful to Jesus Christ, his word, and the church. I am thinking I may use you as an example, in our debate in Presbytery, of why that new text is insufficient for our Book of Order. If we don't keep G-6.0106 b as it is, it will be interpreted as you have done.

Alan said...

ROFL

Actually Viola, I'm a bad example, as I was ordained under the old (current) language. Nice try though.

So, if you're at all interested in speaking the truth on the floor of Presbytery, I'm afraid I'm a far better example of why the old language doesn't work the way you want to pretend that it does.

Feel free to use me to make that point, I'd be proud of it.

Viola Larson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Viola Larson said...

No Alan,
Your ordination is an example of the unfaithfulness of some Churches and officials in the PCUSA. Your definition of what it means to be faithful to Jesus Christ is an example I could use on the floor of Presbytery.

Sacramento, CA

John McNeese said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan said...

Well, Viola, apparently you're not interested in the truth. That's fine, but of course, it would seem to me that should also be a standard we should use regarding ordination. Since you seem unrepentant in that sin, even more so.

So you're going to argue against the new language by talking about how the old language doesn't work. Good luck on that! LOL

But as Wilde said, the only think worse than being talked about is not being talked about. So if you'd like to embarrass yourself by gossiping about silly blog comments on the floor of Presbytery, please be my guest. I'm sure you'll do more to make my point than I ever could. ;) There's nothing people like to see more than busybodies gossiping about someone they've never met, behind their back, in public.

I'm sure you'll have their full attention with, "So there's this guy that comments on my blog..." LOL

In any event, "Your definition of what it means to be faithful to Jesus Christ is an example I could use on the floor of Presbytery." Thanks for the compliment. It is the nicest thing you've said to me, and I'm honored. Thank you.

Jodie said...

Kattie,

I grew up a missionary kid in a Roman Catholic country under a right wing McCarthy style military dictatorship.

Protestant marriage was not recognized by law. In order to make a marriage legal, unless it was performed by a Roman Catholic priest, you had to get married at the justice of the peace.

As a teen I lived in a region known for its machismo. In that culture, messing with a man's wife often had deadly consequences, with the Law looking the other way. If in Louisiana you can shoot a man who is on your property without permission, there you can shoot a man for poaching on your wife (or daughter) without permission.
The definition of a homosexual did not include those men that only performed the male half of a sex act. Nor did it include any female activity at all, since without the male part no valid sexual act takes place - in that cultural understanding of sexual practice. Effeminate men (and boys) on the other hand, were beat up regardless of their sexual activity. Often raped.

Truth be told, it wasn't until I was an adult in Kansas and I became friends with a gay Christian and witnessed his spiritual life and the persecution he suffered at the hands of conservative Evangelicals that I began to realize the profound evil masquerading as religious piety when it comes to the way they treat the homosexual community.

It was one thing to persecute gays in the name of machismo. Quite another to do it in the name of God. It changed my entire outlook and it was a significant step in my spiritual journey. As was learning to respect the human rights of all people a significant step in my becoming an American.

Today I cannot even believe that there was a time I assumed to be true the things I assumed to be true. Such is culture. Quite honestly I have come to question the whole legitimacy of conservative American Evangelicalism as a valid means to be a disciple of Jesus in part because of its behavior towards gays and in part due to its blind eye to its own role in human rights abuses in general (Guantanamo, anyone?). By believing they can do no wrong they reflect the failures of their fallen leaders.

I have shared most of this stuff before here and on other blogs before. There is much more, but I think I'd have to start my own blog to really get into it. There is also much beauty, love, and adventure in that missionary kid's up bringing and it would be terribly wrong to focus only on the bad stuff. Plus, here it will all get deleted anyway. But sometimes all evil needs in order to succeed is for good people to remain silent, and there is much evil here for which silence is not acceptable.

Presbyman said...

Bob Campbell really does NOT deserve the nasty comments he has received in this forum from Alan Kiste. Bob tries, more than almost anyone I know (including me), to honor those he disagrees with and to take their arguments seriously. I've even asked him once why he even bothers given some of the guff he receives, but that is the way he is ... a more patient individual than I am.

Alan sometimes makes worthwhile points that evangelicals would do well to address, but his treatment of Bob Campbell is a bad example.

John Erthein
Erie, PA

Pastor Bob said...

Alan

I know that there were methods to discipline pastors for sexual misconduct before the passage of G-6.0106b. Changing it will not change that. I also know that some churches and presbyteries disobeyed the Definitive Guidance of 1978, the AI of 1993 and G-6.0106b and ordained self affirming practicing homosexuals.

Please note I have not argued that there are not other standards in the BoO. I stated that there were in my last post. Most of those standards are not controversial and thus we do not argue about them. Of course changing G-6.0106b will not change those other standards.

I never expected G-6.0106b to bring about peace in the denomination. Neither do I think it is necessary to the discipline of those who commit sexual misconduct. My responses on the subject and about my practice as a pastor were in response to charges that I have a double standard.

Please note I said that I don't believe in bringing charges across presbytery lines. I don't agree with the way Paul Jensen went about things. And yes I know he brought plenty of charges. How many cases did he win? I can't remember any.

As I stated in my first post I hoped we could all be honest and admit that G-6.0106b and 08-B are about the ordination of self affirming practicing homosexuals. I said that G-6.0106b was first brought as an amendment because of fear that the GAPJC would say that if there wasn't a section in the BoO that said in some way that self affirming practicing homosexuals could not be ordained that the GAPJC would overrule the 1993 AI and say that nothing prevents a presbytery or session from ordaining a self affirming practicing homosexual. In fact there was fear (appropriate or not) that the GAPJC would say that a presbytery or session could not refuse to ordain a self affirming practicing homosexual on the basis of their sexual activity alone. I even pointed out that the amendment was worded as it is because of fear that it would not pass if it explicitly said that self affirming practicing homosexuals could not be ordained. My suggestion was that there was game playing back then and I want to stop doing it.

What 08-B does is allow sessions and presbyteries to ordain self affirming practicing homosexuals. I agree that it does not require a presbytery or session to do so. I do wonder if the GAPJC might rule in a case brought before it that there is no longer a standard in the BoO that prevents a self affirming practicing homosexual from being ordained and therefore a presbytery or session cannot refuse to ordain someone on those grounds alone. I know the amendment doesn't say that but since the Bush case pointed to G-6.0106b as a standard I wonder what the GAPJC might do if the standard is not explicitly in the constitution.

Having just reread 08-B I will say that I have no objection to the amendment as read. My objection is to the removal of the standard that would prevent the ordination of self affirming practicing homosexuals across the denomination.

I don't think this amendment, if passed, will bring any more peace to the PCUSA than G-6.0106b did.

Alan, we have agreed to respect one another and say that we use the same method to interpret Scripture. We come to different conclusions on the meaning of Scripture about homosexual sexual behavior and agreed to disagree.

I suggest that our disagreement about amendment 08-B is based on our disagreement over the proper interpretation of Scripture on that issue. I cannot vote for this amendment because it will remove the sentence, "Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the
covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness" from the BoO.

My plan when Philadelphia Presbytery debates this amendment is to have a respectful, loving debate about whether the amendment should be included in the constitution or not. Can you and I not strip away all the other accretions to the debate here and admit that the primary cause for debate about this amendment is the removal of the sentence I quoted? And can we not also admit that Christians of good conscience can not only disagree about the meaning of Scripture but also about what should be in the constitution?

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill PA

Alan said...

Actually John,

I stated clearly my respect for Pastor Bob, and I continue to stand by that statement. My respect is sincere as he (along with you, frankly) is one of the very few people who comment here who appears to be reasonable, caring, honest, and well-mannered. The fact that I disagree with him, and do so honestly and strongly does not mean that I disrespect him. I do think that his implication that either we agree with the current B, or we do not support standards of fidelity or chastity is hitting way, way below the belt. Perhaps he didn't realize that was the obvious implication of his statement, but I think that, in itself, speaks volumes.

Nor have I anywhere insulted him in the ways that I have been insulted here by others. So, your indignation would mean more, I think, if it included the sorts of insults directed at others here as well.

But I will take your admonition seriously and continue to try hard to be respectful and polite to others, whether or not I receive the same consideration in return.

Alan said...

Pastor Bob wrote, "My objection is to the removal of the standard that would prevent the ordination of self affirming practicing homosexuals across the denomination. "

Prevent? And just how has it done that? I was ordained under that language. I have been commissioned by our Presbytery as an Elder Commissioner to one GA, and sent as an overture advocate to another. I served on our PJC for 6 years. Prevent? Prevent what? Seems not to have worked, eh?

Pastor Bob, certainly you would agree that pledging "themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures" would include what you believe the Bible has to say on the subject of "homosex". Seems to me that the only position that wins for you is if you believe the Bible has such a standard. That is, if the Bible does not contain such a standard, in your opinion, then I'd say expecting the BoO to do something that the Bible cannot means we're probably all in the wrong business.

"Alan, we have agreed to respect one another and say that we use the same method to interpret Scripture. We come to different conclusions on the meaning of Scripture about homosexual sexual behavior and agreed to disagree. "

I would like to "agree to disagree", however, that's not what the current language does. The current language says that we can agree to disagree as long as no LGBT people get ordained, and any number of heterosexual fornicators and adulterers can be ordained across the denomination. That's the practical result of the current language, which you must admit doesn't actually work. If LGBT people are called by God to ordained office and a nominating committee recognizes that call, then "agree to disagree" currently means "tough luck." That is, we can agree to disagree as long as both our agreement and our disagreement is on your terms only.

"And can we not also admit that Christians of good conscience can not only disagree about the meaning of Scripture but also about what should be in the constitution? "

Unfortunately those two ideas are, in this case, mutually exclusive. You and I can agree to disagree about the meaning of Scripture, but with the current language, we cannot agree to disagree about what should be in the Constitution because, if you get your way, LGBT people don't get a say. The new language, however, would honor and respect that people of good will can agree to disagree.

Presbyman said...

Alan,

I've appreciated many of your comments because they have forced me to think about what it is that I believe and why I believe it. I guess I was confused by your referring to Bob as engaging in "demonization." That's a very strong word. And I don't see how it can be fairly applied to what Bob is writing.

I think you know from experience in blogging that certain words or expressions can be more negatively perceived than intended by the writer. Maybe that is what happened here.

Anyway, it's not my job to police anyone's comments. It's also not my intention to tell you to be polite if others are not being polite to you (I'm not polite enough to justify that anyway).

So that's where I was coming from.

John Erthein
Erie, PA

Pastor Bob said...

Alan

Thank you for your response to John. And you are correct, I should use the whole phrase, fidelity between a man and a woman and chastity in singleness.

I find your last post, well interesting. You clearly admit that sessions and presbyteries, (including yours) have disobeyed the constitution and then seem to argue (correct me if I'm wrong) that therefore G-6.0106b does not do the task it is intended to do. I fail to see how disobeying a law is an argument that a law should be abandoned.

Here in my area there seems to be a tradition that 4 cars can go through the intersection after the light has turned red. Should the law be changed to allow all people to run a red light because some do?

By agree to disagree I did not mean that we put the question aside. I spoke poorly. I meant that I want us to debate whether 08-B should be passed or not with respect, talking about what each of us consider core issues. Can we agree that the standards require that those who commit adultery and fornication do not meet the standards for ordination? We seem to agree that what often happens on this issue should not happen. Then maybe we don't have to talk about that and can focus on what I consider the main issue: the deletion of "Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness."

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill PA

Alan said...

John,

As I said, my comment was in the context of Pastor Bob's comment that some people do not feel chastity and fidelity should be a standard. Given that so often, the LGBT community is characterized as just a bunch of promiscuous hedonists, I felt that his comment was not only incorrect, but subtly bought into that demonization, whether he realized it or not. So, yes, demonization is a strong word, but appropriate for what I meant.

You all (heterosex-ers) don't get to corner the market on fidelity and chastity. In fact, given the statistics regarding premarital sex, adultery, and the mockery heterosex-ers have made of marriage via a 50% divorce rate, 48-hour-long Las Vegas weddings, and mail order brides, I'd say heterosex-ers should be a little more concerned with the fidelity and chastity of their heterosex colleagues, and not imply that it is only we LGBT folks and our allies who don't care about such standards.

I think, if he did not mean to imply that I, for one, am not interested in keeping chastity and fidelity as a standard (which it is, whether it says so in G-6.0106b or not), then it is important and necessary to inform him how his comment sounds and can be taken in the context of the usual rhetoric that gets thrown around in these conversations (as we see repeatedly here), and I don't apologize for bringing that implication out into the open.

Kattie said...

Jodie,

Thank you for sharing a piece of your spiritual journey.

"Effeminate men (and boys) on the other hand, were beat up regardless of their sexual activity. Often raped."

Would you categorize those who perpetrated these rapes as Homosexuals? Would you describe these rapes as “Homosex”?

“There is also much beauty, love, and adventure in that missionary kid's up bringing and it would be terribly wrong to focus only on the bad stuff. Plus, here it will all get deleted anyway.”

I would like to hear of some of the beauty, love, and adventure, particularly as it pertains to your spiritual journey. Surely that kind of sharing won’t be deleted.

Kattie
Huntsville, Al

Alan said...

"I fail to see how disobeying a law is an argument that a law should be abandoned. "

That isn't my argument. My argument is that it is not now, nor has it ever been, fairly applied to all people (nor do I believe it was ever meant to be), regardless regardless of sexual orientation. My argument is that it does not do what is intended, that it is unnecessary, and that it does not allow people to "agree to disagree." It is also unReformed.

While you want to focus only on the LGBT angle, I find it hard to believe that you think that its current language exhibits actually authentic, orthodox Reformed theology, respect for Scripture, or proper understanding of the use of our Confessions.

And while you only want to focus on the LGBT angle, I submit that it is inappropriate to do so if the amendment itself is unfairly enforced, since that is a strong argument for changing it to something better.

In other words, you seem not to actually want to allow discussion on several points against your position. I'm not sure that's necessarily moving the goal posts, but it isn't being very realistic about the full implications of the faulty current language.

But to follow your argument (which, again, is not mine) If 4 people run a red light, you're arguing that the current law and enforcement shouldn't be changed. Even worse, you're arguing that, even though the only people that get ticketed for running that red light are the people who happen to have rainbow bumper-stickers on their cars, that both the law and the enforcement are OK and shouldn't be changed. One cannot separate the rule and enforcement because it isn't possible to fairly enforce a rule that, by its stated design, is meant to be unfair in the first place.

Again, you continue to cling to the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy, either keep the current language or nothing. That is not what 08-B does.

Jodie said...

Can I just say that for 70% of the church, G-6.0106b makes no sense at all? It's not just gays that can't be ordained by its standard. NOBODY meets its standard.

So to enforce it only against sexually active unmarried GLBTs makes bigots of God's people, and a mockery of the BoO and our faith, and that is why it has to go.

If folks don't like the proposed replacement, then fine, let's delete it without a replacement. 08-B is too hard to obey anyway. Seriously, it is. Most elders don't even read the bible with any kind of regularity, let alone let it really guide them. They just read a few bible passages they learned as kids, over and over again. And the confessions? Who are we kidding. You have to be a true Presbyterian geek even to open the covers of the Boook of Confessions.

So really folks, who is kidding who here? If Bob is right, then maybe the replacement should be straight and to the point: "No Gays can join".

Just say it. (Rick Warren's web site had something similar).

Then let the denomination decide by vote.

Alan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Viola Larson said...

Alan,
don't comment again.

Alan said...

Just out of curiosity, Viola, which of your unwritten blog comment rules did I break by suggesting that Amendment B should be applied to other standards, like gluttony?

Chelsea MI

Pastor Bob said...

Viola

Does that mean I shouldn't respond to Alan again?

Bob Campbell
still in Sharon Hill, PA

Viola Larson said...

Bob you can respond and Alan can respond back to you but not with what I deleted.

Alan said...

I'm happy to follow your commenting rules, Viola, if only I knew what they were, (ie. do not mention the sin of gluttony.) Given some of the comments you allow, particularly the very harsh ones from your friends (eg. "he's only in it for the pension") it does get rather confusing, when you appear to make the rules up as you go along and appear to enforce them only on those with whom you disagree. Perhaps that's not the case, but it is easily the perception.

I've never deleted a single comment from my blog, nor do most of the blogs I read, so perhaps you could publish a list of your rules somewhere, so people know what sorts of comments are allowed, and what are not. I'm sure folks would find it helpful.

Following the only blog commenting rule I'm aware of ... Chelsea, MI

Viola Larson said...

Just think of me as Calvin and Hobbes Alan.

Pastor Bob said...

Let's look at some GAPJC cases. And I'm sorry that I'm not going to remember the name or date of most of the cases.

There was a case that arose if Florida about whether it is appropriate to ask a candidate about his/her sexual behavior. The decision of the GAPJC was that the question can only be asked if there is evidence that the question should be asked. Such evidence does not include rumor. It includes a witness who has seen or participated with the individual in the behavior or a statement by the individual that s/he participates in the behavior.

So, if I as a candidate for ministry go into my CoPM and say, "I'm married but I also have a concubine, I think the Bible supports this behavior, (with references to Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon, (to say nothing of that Levite in Judges), and I don't plan to change my behavior the CoPM and later the presbytery has the responsibility to take this statement into consideration.

Or if I'm married and having an affair and my wife had a PI follow me and take pictures or the woman with whom I'm having an affair announces our affair in the community this information must be taken into consideration by the CoPM.

I think there may be some give in the question of shared address. One certainly cannot assume that two men or two women are sexually involved because they share an apartment. Neither, given current living arrangements can one assume that a man and a woman who share a two bedroom apartment have a sexual relationship. It is my opinion that a question about sexual involvement is unacceptable by a committee or the presbytery based simply or living arrangements. Making out on Main Street suggests that a question might be appropriate.

Declaration of sexual orientation does not allow a presbytery to ask questions about sexual activity. After all if I say to my COM, "I am heterosexual" that doesn't mean I am sexually involved with anyone. Neither does I am heterosexual and have a girl friend. Following this logic simply saying "I am homosexual" does not give a presbytery the right to ask about a candidate's sexual life. And here I'm going to step out onto a limb: neither does saying I am gay and have a boy friend. A CoPM might want to encourage both the heterosexual and the homosexual candidate to be pure in their behavior but saying that one is in a romantic relationship does not mean that one is sexually involved.

Second case, it happened in West Jersey Presbytery. I don't remember if it went into the judicial system or not. A homosexual inquirer seeking candidacy (I think) stated (and I do not remember if the someone in the presbytery asked the question or the individual simply said it; probably the former given the situation), that he would not promise that he would not have a homosexual sexual partner at some time in the future. If the case went to trial or if the presbytery simply approved the candidate the decision was that since the candidate was not presently involved in a sexual relationship that he was not in violation of G-6.0106b.

All of this is not to say that all presbyteries follow the rules. It is my experience that knowledge of the BoO and denominational case law is abominable among all too many MWS.

Having said that a session or a presbytery cannot say it will not obey a section of the BoO. This was established in a case in Northern New England Presbytery. On the other hand one of the decisions in the Bush case was that a presbytery cannot state ahead of time that it will not ordain someone if that person says s/he will not obey some standard in the BoO. The court held that such statements were unnecessary and were potentially confusing. Candidates are expected to live by the standards. On the other hand a presbytery may ask a candidate if there are any ordination standards that the candidate cannot in good conscience obey.

What I'm suggesting is that if sessions and presbyteries obey the BoO and the case law there is a very limited window for asking a candidate about his/her sexual behavior.

The only way a presbytery or session could ask a person about their sexual behavior without evidence would be by asking every candidate the same question during the examination.

So if presbyteries are only giving tickets to those who run red lights and have rainbow bumper stickers the law of the church says they can't.

Oh and by the way I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, "real men wear kilts." And yes, I wear kilts. But somehow I don't think this will get me in trouble in a Presbyterian denomination. But my children refuse to be seen with me when I wear a kilt.

Bob Campbell
do I still need to say where I live?

Alan said...

"So if presbyteries are only giving tickets to those who run red lights and have rainbow bumper stickers the law of the church says they can't."

Ah well then, that should fix everything, eh? ;) It's worked so well for the past 12 years, I see.

I recognize your respect for what is supposed to be the case, Pastor Bob. But since what is supposed to be the case is contrary to reality, I don't see any honorable reason to protect the status quo of bigotry and injustice, just because I wish it weren't the case.

If we both recognize that the current standard is not working, and is not being enforced fairly, then the only option seems to be to do something different. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity. I'm not interested in participating in such insanity, thus I advocate for the new language.

What are you doing?

Pastor Bob said...

Alan

I'm taking the day off from blogging

;)

Bob Campbell