The continuing push for the right for sexual sin within the PCUSA cuts into the heart of the biblical truth that Christians cherish. The cross is demolished. Souls are left wounded and we have taken away the means of healing.
A gay Elder came to the microphone, at our Presbytery meeting, pleading to have our fidelity chastity standard removed because an older women, 65, living with her boyfriend for financial reasons was denied ordination. At the time, I thought surely, it will suddenly dawn on the commissioners that this is about more than gay rights. This is about allowing all kinds of sexual sin in the church, about accommodating the cultural milieu we live in. But eighty people did not care.
Jesus Christ suffered that we might be forgiven, transformed, changed, made new. To allow such sin to be ‘okay’ for the church is to deny that Jesus suffered for us. Paul in 1 Corinthians after naming many sins that are rampant in our own world, our Western world, coveting, idolatry, thievery, and yes homosexuality and fornication says to his listeners:
“Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (6:11)
These dear people were first washed of their sins by the blood of Christ; they were set apart and made children of God. They received the righteousness of Christ which is the only sufficient righteousness.
But the righteousness of Christ does not exempt believers from living their lives for God in holiness, striving against sin. We are united to the Lord, one with him. How can we go on living in habitual and unrepentant sin? Paul brings the resurrection into this passage. Christ has been raised and so shall we. The body is important because of the power of Jesus Christ and the resurrection.
The biblical view of the body is unique, both in biblical times and today.
Several groups of ancient pseudo gnostics saw the body as evil or unimportant. Because of that they were antinomians. That is they believed they could sin without concern for their actions. Some Buddhists and Hindus, who see the body as an illusion, practice a left handed kind of tantra which uses sex to achieve what they consider the ultimate goal of their faith, dissolution of all sense experience.
Some post-moderns, who are gay, and supposedly Christian, attempt to explain their sexual acts as a means to unite or connect with God. Scott Haldeman in an essay too graphic to speak of God’s revelation tries anyway. Speaking of his passive sexual position as revelatory, he writes, “I am referring to something akin to an icon through which one sees, as through a portal, something of the attributes of God.”[1]
But God’s word which is badly muddied and slandered by such thoughts is vastly different. Because of the resurrection and because through the Holy Spirit we are united to the Lord what a Christian does with their body is important. Paul writes:
“But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.” (17-20)
Four Reformed and Biblical truths are trounced by the push for perverse sexuality in the church.
1. Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection that sinners might be forgiven and transformed is ignored. Sin is called good and righteousness bigotry.
2. The resurrection of the body and the Holy Spirit’s presence within the believer is also ignored.
3. The wonderful reformed teaching that we are united to Christ, that we are one with him is set aside.
4. And clearly the truth that Jesus is God’s final revelation is in some cases made a mockery.
[1] Scott Haldeman, “Receptivity and revelation,” Body and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality as Justice Love, Editors Marvin M. Ellison and Sylvia Thorson-smith, ed. (The Pilgrim Press 2003)
34 comments:
Well put, Viola. Thank you for this.
David Fischler
Woodbridge, VA
Thanks Viola for your clarity and your candid remarks.
Hey Viola, You probably know Patti and I received a "call" to a small Covenant church where we are currently doing ministry. I continue to be involved at our former PCUSA church; Divorce Care, & Spiritual Formation team. We resigned from PCUSA and our former church to facilitate "licensing" under the ECC, but also feeling the need to do so after battling for so long with the denomination. I applaud those (like you) who continue to wage the battle for Christ within that institution. Patti and I are focused on individuals in this "season", and finding God's blessings in discipleship and inner healing in the one-on-one relationships He has brought us to. Keep speaking the Truth in Love and with the Grace that He provides. Pat
There are always going to be people who push for the extremes - they don't represent the PCUSA necessarily. I am no longer going to the Presbyterian church, but it's not because I have an issue with gay marriage or gay clergy - it is because I am an opinionated person who doesn't want to get in the middle of it all. I'm more of a voice of reason - of trying to see both sides of the issue and coming to a compromise.
I know compromise is a dirty word to some people. They somehow equate it to cheating or lying or lessening themselves and what they want. But I see it as a necessity in order to live in peace. Even Jesus set many examples of compromising. In fact the word originally meant to promise agreement mutually.
You can also promise to agree to disagree mutually. That would still be an agreement. But in the meantime, people have to get on with the business of loving one another and meeting the needs of people in pain and in need of food, shelter and emotional support and companionship.
That's at least what I believe in when I say that I believe in Christ. I believe in what Christ embodied - a spirit of compassion for those who have unmet needs and who are in pain and usually feel misunderstood and excluded from the community. Isn't that the whole reason for wanting to include gay marriage and allow for gay clergy, so that gay people can feel a part of God's church?
I could take either side on this, really I could. But why not compromise? Why not let each church make their own decision on whether to hire a gay pastor and why not let gays marry in the churches and if the pastor doesn't believe in it, they can bring their own pastor into the church to utilize it for the ceremony?
Not that it matters, but it seems to me the scriptures that are written in the bible against homosexual relations is speaking about unnatural relations. But clearly there is scientific evidence that for some people homosexuality is not unnatural for them because they are born that way.
The other thing I think the scriptures say is that it is wrong for an adult male or female to sleep with either a boy or a girl. And I also thing it warns against people using sex to dominate other people and commit acts of violence against them to show they are superior or to humiliate them.
You have to admit that there is a lot of overwhelming scientific evidence and that there is a possibility that those scriptures could be interpreted exactly the way that I've described.
Like I said before, there will always be extremes, but I don't think allowing gay marriage and gay pastors is being extreme.
Thank you, Viola, for your article. You always write the truth - even when it is difficult. I wrote you a while back and thanked you. Since that time I have resigned my pastorate in Benson, N. C. I told the "truth" to my Elders about homosexuality being a sin. I put together references, articles, etc., so that they would be in touch with what is going on in the denomination. One of the Elders has a lesbian sister, and needless to say it hit the fan. Most of my members did not want me to leave, but this Elder gathered around him a couple of other persons who visited members, trying to turn them against me. In the end, I felt that my being there was splitting the congregation. I therefore resigned. I don't know where I will go or what I will do. I have talked with Jeff Winter on the phone and via e-mail, and he has been supportive and gave me the name of another female minister who is of the same mindset. I am a little scared because there are so many pastors seeking calls, but I believe that God has everything under control. I did what I was suppose to do. As pastor I kept my Elders informed. I told them the truth and backed it up with what the Bible says as well as other resources. I cannot make them believe the truth. Only God can work within their hearts. It has been very painful, but I am slowly recovering. I do pray, with all of my heart, that G-6 is not removed. I am a cradle Presbyterian, and it seems as if the church of my childhood is slowly disappearing before my eyes.
It is because of persons like you, who write and express the truth, that this hasn't happened before now. Thank you. Your Sister in Christ, Patricia Slomanski
Benson, N. C.
HiPatricia,
Thank you for sharing your very hard story. I, and I am sure many others, will be praying for you.
A previous post referred to conclusive scientific evidence that some are born gay. I would love to read that evidence. Seriously.
Up to this point, I'm not aware of any such evidence. To my knowledge, at best you can say there may be a predisposition of some type toward homosexuality (the position of Francis Collins, the Genome project director, among others), but no one (not even the studies done by gay researchers) has come up with any causal relationship that has stood up to scrutiny.
A predisposition is not the same thing as "being born that way." As human beings, we have all kinds of predispositions, but we do not have to be captive to them.
So if the landscape has changed and conclusive proof for the genetic nature of homosexuality is out there, please let me know. But if it hasn't changed, then please stop making claims that aren't substantiated by the evidence and proclaiming that science has somehow countermanded the traditional, confessional standards of the Christian faith regarding human sexuality and church leadership.
Clay Brown
Clay
I would suppose you are writing to Tera when you state that there is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay. I concur with you, there isn't.
Hi Viola, what an amazing coincidence. For the very first time in all the years of attempts to repeal "Fidelity and Chastity," I heard a similar argument at the meeting of the Presbytery of Southern New England on February 12 to the one you heard at the meeting of the Presbytery of Sacramento this past weekend. The PSNE minister member lamented that his daughter had been effectively precluded from ordination as an elder or deacon by F&C because she had lived with rather than be married to her (male) partner. Although she now is married and so eligible by the F&C standard, he said he was anticipating with eagerness the adoption of Amendment 10-A so that members who choose to not marry will no longer be denied the possibility of "serving the church and sharing their gifts" in the ordained offices of the church. And we thought all these years it was about progressives pushing to end what they consider discrimination against persons in so-called committed and monogamous same gender relationships. But with the adoption of 10-A the door apparently will be opened to unmarried heterosexual couples who are living together. So much for the covenant of marriage. So much for the Word of God. Surprise, surprise, surprise...
Yes Paul,
Carmen Fowler of the Layman a couple of weeks ago pointed out that the MLP had in their Christmas letter advocated for those living in fornication. http://www.layman.org/News.aspx?article=28086
It is a new trend, but sounds like they are just getting braver or catering more to public opinion.
A truth and a concern:
1. Without a strong push by the Holy Spirit 10-A is probably going to pass.
2. If I understand the Book of Order correctly if the congregation votes for someone in a heterosexual sexual relationship outside of marriage or for a GLBT in a sexual relationship and the Session approves that person after examination I am required to ordain the person or be brought up on disciplinary charges and maybe be fired.
Fortunately my congregation would not do this.
It should make for an interesting time ahead.
Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA
Hi Clay,
When I say "overwhelming scientific evidence" what I mean is that there is growing evidence that substantiates that sexual orientation is not a choice - that people are born with a predisposition toward being gay or with the genetic tendencies (basically, their brains look differently, have different structures and things going on in them compared to heterosexuals).
What this says is that it is more natural for them to be homosexual and that they are more than likely to find themselves attracted to the same sex. Once there are other influencing factors that interfere within it, such as an experience with the same sex, these people are highly unlikely to ever be able to change their sexual orientation or sexual tendencies to desire a homosexual relationship over a heterosexual relationship.
Translation = they will fall in love with the same sex and if forced to live a heterosexual life, can never be happy or fulfilled or feel complete or satisfied.
It would be like someone who was born to sing who finds out they have this beautiful voice to sing opera being told they cannot sing because it is a sin, so they people would have to try really hard to create an environment where they don't come into contact with music or people who are singing and if they would that they'd have to practice discipline and not let themselves enjoy the way they've been made.
It isn't a sin for people who are created homosexual to be with the same sex. It is a sin for someone who is born heterosexual to be with someone of the same sex.
Yes, it's my take on scriptures. Some other churches, people, theologians agree that it could be interpreted this way.
What I'm saying, is why don't we let people make their own choices - just like we let them make the choice to do all other things.
I do see why people are upset about allowing people to live together, but again, isn't it really left up to the church to decide what is best and whether these people are actually married in the eyes of God versus married in the eyes of the government? I think this is more about allowing gay people who are not allowed to legally marry to be allowed to have committed partnerships. It isn't about throwing out marriage itself. Besides marriage in the bible was basically about "lying" with someone. That is what made you married back then. And men could easily dissolve those marriages if necessary.
Tera Billes Sacramento, CA
Oh and Viola and Clay, the most recent compilation of all this overwhelming evidence I am speaking of is at this Wikepedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Here is another one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation
I just want to say that I don't think there is anything to be afraid about when it comes to allowing people who are in non-legal committed relationships to be ordained or to serve as pastors. It should not be the sole consideration that would keep someone from being ordained. I stated the reasons briefly in a previous post. What I think it comes down to is that there are legal and non-legal marriages in the eyes of God. The legal part doesn't change anything. A person is still married in the eyes of God even if the marriage isn't legally binding in a court of law. If they are living together, then they are basically married ( not legally, however).
Tera: What you say comes straight out of a 1960s mindset, but has no basis in Scripture. Sexual conduct is meant for a relationship in which the two people are committed for a lifetime, and the refusal to marry is an expression of the desire for an out when things get rough. Those who live together are far more likely to split up than those who are married, and those who live together and then get married are much more likely to divorce than those who didn't. Cohabitation fosters an attitude of temporariness in any relationship, which is why God forbade it.
David Fischler
Woodbridge, VA
Tera,
You are simply proving some of my points by your advocacy for both gay marriage and as we use to call it, living in sin-that is fornication.
I'm not advocating anything. This isn't my fight. I am not gay. But I believe that God gave us free will and that we should not hinder other people from making their own choices. We can set examples and model for them, but it is their decision in the end. That's how it is supposed to be.
Instead the church is setting up rules and regulations to govern people's behavior's by and to judge who is worthy and who is not.
God has already sent Jesus who is the one who makes us worthy. It's not what we do that makes us worthy. It is our motives for what we do that God desires are pure.
So, what I'm saying is that God is not concerned with the legal document. He's concerned with the heart. He's concerned about the commitment. What I'm saying is that someone can be legally married and not truly committed. And someone can be living together with someone and completely and eternally committed to them.
Many of you on here won't understand what I'm saying because you see things in a different way than I do. I am seeing the spirit of the law and you are seeing the letter of the law.
You think that my point of view is the majority in this religious world? It isn't. It may be one day. And yes, there are problems if we interpret the spirit of the law to mean we can do whatever we feel like it or desire without considering the consequences and how it affects other humans and whether it is in line with what the Spirit is telling us to do and that we know is right to do. If we go against what we know is right to do, then yes, we're in the wrong. But if we do what we believe is right,and we take responsibility for our actions and we are accepting the consequences, how can that be wrong?
I don't expect anyone to agree with me who comes from your perspectives. You have your reasons that you think is right. I could easily see things the way you do because I once thought the way you do. When I realized that I wanted to hold onto all of these traditional views of scripture because it made me feel better and because I had made decisions in my life out of fear of not obeying those rules, something changed in me.
I am no longer afraid to live in freedom. My church is anyone who loves God. Period. That's my church. And it has only one rule. To love.
Tera Billes Sacramento, CA
And of course I'd love for everyone to get married and for everyone to be heterosexual. Who wouldn't? That sure would make it easier. I also wish we all spoke one language. I wish we all had the same customs. I wish the world wasn't so messy. But it is. And I don't think it's messy because of the sins you are claiming to be so horrible and that you are willing to spend so much time fighting about.
I think it's messy because God created a world that has multiplicity. And the role of the Spirit is to help us to see that multiplicity in a fluid stream of oneness and only the light of God can help us do that.
The only sin that we should fear is the sin of condemnation. Because that is the sin that Jesus died to relinquish us from. And for us to condemn others is like saying that we are God. And no one has that right. I won't accept your views on this as being right, because I have been shown otherwise. However, I do not condemn you for your views. And I accept that you have the right to have them and that is what you truly think is right at this time.
I also know you believe that I am somehow not understanding scriptures and going against them. I don't accept that as my truth. If I thought that were true, why would I even be having this discussion with you?
I'm not trying to shake anything up here. I'm trying to help you to see the other side's point of view. I'm trying to balance this out. Yes, your side is partially true. And the other side is as well .The question is - what is in the best interest of the church?
I don't think excluding gay marriage and gay pastors and making our life in Christ be about the small, petty, legalistic things like whether someone is married or not (which people can just lie about by the way or falsify documents)is in the best interest of the church.
Do I feel for you that you believe you are right and that it's painful to be in your position where it seems that everyone else is abandoning the things that you have loved and fought for in the church? Of course I do. Of course, it saddens me that this even had to happen. Why don't people just accept the traditional norms and leave things the way they are? Well, I think it's because life is about change. And some changes are good. People fear change. They don't understand why other people can't just accept what is standard to them. But God didn't create life to work like that. And the church is not God. The church does not remain the same today and tomorrow and eternally. The church changes as it needs to to meet the needs of God's people and so we can continue to share the gospel message. And anything that hinders that has to go. If it's traditions, then so be it. God doesn't need our traditions and our laws to bring people to the truth. He needs one law - and that is the law of love.
To reformed pastor:
Permanence is an illusion. Everything is temporary except the Eternal One we call God.
Tera,
Do you remember me asking you not to start piling on comment after comment as you do on facebook. Well, you are starting to do so. Please stop.
Sorry, I just get these after thoughts that I want to add. These conversations are so complex and there's always some other information that needs to be added.
I find that having conversations about very deep topics on Facebook does require to go back and clarify.
I don't really see why it matters if I make multiple comments. But you do what you think is right and I'll do my best to limit the comments. I apologize if I irritated you by leaving more than one.
"Permanence is an illusion. Everything is temporary except the Eternal One we call God."
Tera: Are you being deliberately disingenuous, or simply refusing to understand what I'm saying?
If you truly believe that God does not care how we behave, that He has no moral standards to which He calls His people, or that He does not make that call, I would suggest that you have created your own Bible, snipping out the vast swath of material that your don't like, and remade God in your own image. I hate to sound harsh, but what you are advocating bears no resemblance to what Scripture teaches.
David Fischler
Woodbridge, VA
No, I'm not trying to be disingenuous and I apologize if I came across in that way to you.
I am not saying that God doesn't care how we behave. We must be misunderstanding one another.
Anyway, these types of discussions seldom get resolved. I'm not looking to resolve them. I'm looking to add another voice to the mix that shows a different perspective than the one always being presented here. I don't have any stake in this. I'm just someone who can type rather quickly and has a different way of looking at this and I thought I'd add my input and see what other people have to say.
I am quite disappointed that people do not see any of the points I am making nor do they address them. But, it feels like there is some kind of agenda going on here. I don't have any agenda or any need to be right about any of this. It's just where I am in my thoughts on it right now. I'm not as informed as Viola is, so maybe I don't have all the information and would see it differently if I did.
But my comments are simply addressed to what I read on the blog, which assume a prior knowledge, I suppose. So...
A Tera: wikipedia is not the best place to find information. Anyone can put up a post and anyone can change it. I suggest scientific studies in place of wikipedia.
Most recent studies suggest that sexual orientation might have some basis in the genes but there is no proof. There may be contributing factors from the environment in the womb or from early childhood, like hormonal (in the womb) or very early childhood training. The simple truth is we just don't know.
As to brain studies there were done back in the 1990s on the brains of people who had died of AIDS.
A simple "we don't know yet but the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians do know experience sexual orientation as a choice" is really the best answer we have right now. When there is no conclusive proof it is best to say we don't know.
As for ethical choices the Christian tradition has a history of interpreting the Bible for ethical choices. Christianity is based on a divine command model of ethics. If Christianity said that ethics is up to the individual there are some rather extreme results that would say that if it's ok with the individual then that is their ethic. Murder is an example. Just because someone thinks that murder is ok, doesn't make it ok. Christianity and situational ethics don't combine well.
Bob,
Did you look at the references from the Wiki pages Tera mentioned? I think your response may be more of a knee jerk reaction rather than a true critique of the validity of her citation. Look more closely and you might want to retract a couple of the statements you made.
Kattie
Huntsville, Al
Oops
A simple "we don't know yet but the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians do know experience sexual orientation as a choice" is really the best answer we have right now. When there is no conclusive proof it is best to say we don't know.
I meant to say that sexual experience is NOT a choice
Thanks for clearing that one up Bob, but I was also referring to your statement concerning brain studies. There's some pretty recent stuff there, and the Wiki reference cited is only a few years old. The moderators of Wikipedia actually do a pretty good job of policing the site and requesting citations whenever they find unsubstantiated claims. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them, they can be easily checked.
Kattie,
Please have your discussion with Bob some where else.
Kattie
I read both studies. Notice that none of the studies can say conclusively that there is one cause like the cause is solely genetic. As to environment and changes in the brain studies either one can influence the other. This line of study is in its infancy in all kinds of behavior/environment and brain structure. We do know that either can affect the other.
I had not read the more recent twin studies. Studies of fraternal twins could not produce definitive conclusions about genetics. Studies about identical twins would have to be 100% to show that genetics is the sole cause.
My best guess - and this is a shot in the dark as no one has done this type of study is that the various possible causes of behavior and sense of orientation probably have more than one cause.
I do find studies about the affect of hormonal effects in the womb to be fascinating. What I have read however has mostly been about anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder.
Sorry for continuing here Viola but I did want to state that I have now read the to Wikepedia studies.
Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA
Bob,
It is probably a good thing you did: )If you took the time and trouble to read all of the material you should be thanked.
Kattie,
I would like Bob to have the final word on this.
Post a Comment