The Presbytery of the Twin Cities has passed a Marriage Amendment Resolution with a statement that muddles
the Presbyterian Book of Confessions making it unsafe for the orthodox in the
denomination. The resolution, which was passed 99 yes, 39 no and 4 abstentions, is
aimed at Minnesota’s marriage amendment. The amendment which has been placed on
the November 6 2012 general ballot “would change the state constitution so
that, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage in Minnesota.” The Presbytery’s
resolution resolves that:
"Resolved that the Presbytery of the
Twin Cities Area at its September Stated Meeting oppose the proposed Minnesota
state constitutional amendment on marriage, scheduled for the 2012 general
election ballot, that would prevent one group of committed couples and their
families from pursuing ordinary legislative or legal means to gain the support
and protections afforded to all others; and be it further Resolved that the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area at its September Stated Meeting encourage its congregations and its members to stand opposed to divisive politics and to advocate for the dignity and worth of all citizens within our state; and be it further
Resolved that the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area take action to make the Presbytery’s position on this matter known throughout the Presbytery, and to the public at large.
However, as noted above, one of the reasons is taken from the Presbyterian Book of Confessions, the Confession of 1967."
In the Resolution this is what is stated:
"Whereas, according to our Book of Confessions (9:44), “In [God’s] reconciling love, [God] overcomes the barriers between brothers [and sisters] and breaks down every form of discrimination... The church is called to bring all men [and women] to receive and uphold one another as persons in all relationships of life: in employment, housing, education, leisure, marriage, family, church, and the exercise of political rights.... Congregations, individuals, or groups of Christians who exclude, dominate, or patronize their fellowmen, however subtly, resist the Spirit of God and bring contempt on the faith which they profess,”
But the authors of the Resolution have changed the meaning of 9:44 by leaving out several words. This is what the Confession actually says.
God has created the peoples of the earth to
be one universal family. In his reconciling love, he overcomes the barriers
between brothers and breaks down every form of discrimination based on racial or ethnic difference,
real or imaginary. The church is called to bring all men to receive and uphold
one another as persons in all relationships of life: in employment, housing,
education, leisure, marriage, family, church, and the exercise of political
rights. Therefore, the church labors for the abolition of all racial discrimination and ministers to those injured by it.
Congregations, individuals, or groups of Christians who exclude, dominate, or
patronize their fellowmen, however subtly, resist the Spirit of God and bring
contempt on the faith they profess. (Bold mine)
It
can plainly be seen that this part of the Confession of 67 is about racial
discrimination, not about sexuality. By changing
the meaning of this part of the Confession the Presbytery of Twin Cities has
caused those who oppose same gender sex on the basis of God’s Holy Word to be
pictured as those who resist the Spirit and are bringing contempt on their
faith. By voting yes on this resolution members of the Presbytery have endangered
the unity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). How can there be any fellowship
or communion among us given this horrendous action.May God have mercy on us.
17 comments:
Viola, many are making it up as they go. When we no longer base our faith and life on the Word of God and the clear admonition of the Confessions, everything is up for grabs. Thanks for making many aware of what is happening in the Twin Cities. This particular presbtery has been working against the Scripture and Confessions for many years.
Viola,
The key point here is that same sex marriage is only a matter of civil rights. There is nothing in Scripture or the Confessions that would promote limiting the civil rights of one group of people vs those of another so long as doing so does not itself limit someone's civil rights.
And that point is in line with the Confession of 67.
Beyond that, secular law that limits civil rights on the basis of religious beliefs or values is unconstitutional and would be a challenge to the basic fabric of the American experiment.
A church that supports equal civil rights for all and also the US constitution with its hands off treatment of religion should be no threat to Orthodox Christianity.
Viola,
What interests me is that the gay affirmation folks were all in favor of an exact translation of the Heidelberg Catechism in the interests of scholarly exactitude. "It's all about original intent," they said.
Now we see some of those same people, at least in the Twin Cities Presbytery, unilaterally changing the Confession of 1967.
Scholarly exactitude and original intent suddenly seem less important.
It's all about the result, you see.
John Erthein
DeFuniak Springs, FL
Jeff,
History’s terrifying events happen when people who want everything their way, not God's way, start making things up. Now many secular people who see the resolution and even refer to it will think that is what it says.
Jodie,
It is civil rights to you and some others but it is sin to God, his word and the Church.
And your line, "A church that supports equal civil rights for all and also the US constitution with its hands off treatment of religion should be no threat to Orthodox Christianity," is wrong.
When a nation becomes immoral in the extreme it no longer offers a hands off treatment of religion whether it is a democracy or not. Those who are attempting to live by moral standards stand in the way. The same is true of an apostate church or in this case an apostate presbytery.
Viola, you see it as a sin and immoral, but others do not.
If you are so qualified to make this declaration, why did your opinions on this not carry the day in the Presbytery votes among the ministers and elders who voted?
If you appeal to the majority of the world church to back you up on this mistaken opinion of yours, why do you not submit yourself to it on the issue of your own female ordination?
If you are appealing to a study of Biblical scripture and understanding thereof, why do you a) not agree with the majority of the learned persons in your own denomination on this topic. b) continue to use very insulting and hurtful language when referring to those with whom you disagree? c) do you really believe using such language aids you in your potential conversations with such persons who, in your opinion, are sinful?
Again, you seem to want it both ways.
Gene ATLANTA
Speaking of C- 67 they forgot this:
Confession of 1967----Reconciliation in Society:
d. The relationship between man and woman exemplifies in a basic way God’s ordering of the interpersonal life for which he created mankind. Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man’s alienation from God, his neighbor, and himself. Man’s perennial confusion about the meaning of sex has been aggravated in our day by the availability of new means for birth control and the treatment of infection, by the pressures of urbanization, by the exploitation of sexual symbols in mass communication, and by world overpopulation. The church, as the household of God, is called to lead men out of this alienation into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. Reconciled to God, each person has joy in and respect for his own humanity and that of other persons; a man and woman are enabled to marry, to commit themselves to a mutually shared life, and to respond to each other in sensitive and lifelong concern; parents receive the grace to care for children in love and to nurture their individuality. The church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our time.” B.C. 9.47
And speaking of the confessions they fogot this (in addition to C-67)
Second Helvetic Confession:
MARRIAGE. For marriage (which is the medicine of incontinency, and continency itself) was instituted by the Lord God himself, who blessed it most bountifully, and willed man and woman to cleave one to the other inseparably, and to live together in complete love and concord (Matt. 19:4 ff). Whereupon we know that the apostle said: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb. 13:4). B.C. 5.246
Westminster Confession, as amended in 20th century by United Presbyterian Church USA circa 1958:
Of Marriage and Divorce
1. Christian marriage is an institution ordained of God, blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, established
and sanctified for the happiness and welfare of mankind, into which spiritual and physical
union one man and one woman enter, cherishing a mutual esteem and love, bearing with each
other’s infirmities and weaknesses, comforting each other in trouble, providing in honesty and
industry for each other and for their household, praying for each other, and living together the
length of their days as heirs of the grace of life.” B.C. 6.131
Westminster Confession, as amended in 20th century by Presbyterian Church US circa 1981:
Of Marriage and Divorce
1. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, designed of God to last so long as they both shall live.
2. Marriage is designed for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the safeguarding, undergirding,
and development of their moral and spiritual character;
3.for the propagation of children and the rearing of them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. B.C.6. 133, 6.134
Thank you Casey,
I thought of adding d. the better point actually, but at one in the morning I quit. Thank you for adding it and the rest. They did indeed forget the importance of the whole Confession and the whole Book of Confessions.
John,
Thank you for that thought. I think they will change anything that pushes the agenda along.
Casey and Viola,
You seem to wish the Presbyterian Church was the State religion of the US as it is in Scotland. That can backfire very badly, which is why in America we have gone away from allowing the State to use religion as the basis for writing laws.
Just imagine if 51% of Americans became Muslims and decided that the State should follow Sharia Law.
Viola, there is absolutely NO evidence that trying to live by moral standards is some how "in the way" of secular law. That is just fear mongering. You may live by the moral standards you wish!
The fact is, it is BECAUSE the State keeps its hands off of religion that you have the freedom to say and believe the things that you do. The fact is, your point of view is a highly protected minority view. There is no law against it. You are completely and totally protected by the Law to have your point of view by the same laws that protect the rights of same sex individuals to marry.
But if you hurt one, you hurt the other.
It is not a question about sin. It is a question of protecting civil rights. Ultimately YOUR rights.
Jodie.
You are not really addressing anything I wrote about. The Presbytery of Twin Cities voted in a resolution that was very flawed, and in doing so they maligned those who do not agree that same gender sex is moral. Because we are a connectional church that involves all of us.
By trying to turn one of our Confessions into something it is not-they broke any real unity in the Church.
the confession of 67 spoke to issues of injustice. As our understanding of what is just and unjust improves and increases, so will our use of the confessions to aid in this. Our understanding of what is right and wrong is maturing, as it has on other issues. Are we to stay stuck in amber like the Orthodox (big O), a dead church with a dead theology that offers no aid to dealing with issues in the world we actually live in?
Gene ATLANTA
Gene,
The Orthodox Church is not a dead church-why did you say that?
The Confession of 67 does speak to issues of injustice- and it does speak to same gender sex by upholding marriage between a woman and a man. Did you read the comments that Casey Jones posted?
Viola,
You said the problem with The Presbytery of Twin Cities taking a civil rights stance - they are not taking a stance on sin - is that they misquoted the Confession of 67. But they did not. They quoted the part of the Confession that is directly relevant to civil rights. The focus of civil rights at the time was the civil rights of ethnic minorities, but the greater picture is the fact that the Gospel and the Scriptures do not abridge the civil rights of anybody so long as the exercise of those civil rights do not infringe on the civil rights of anyone else.
Their stance is correct.
Furthermore, the reference to d. is against licentious sexual behavior outside of marriage. It does not define marriage as being only between a man and a woman, it tangentially assumes it. However, if the institution of marriage is extended to include same sex partners, "d." still applies even to same sex marriages. It's about the exclusivity of sexual relations in marriage, against the sexual licentiousness of open marriages and the indulgence of recreational sex by single partners common during the sexual revolution of the 60's.
(Sexual relations outside of marriage is the norm now - even among Evangelicals)
My point is that you have made the motion brought by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities into something it is not, and maligned their defense of the civil rights of everyone.
You shouldn't do that.
Jodie in the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ, his transforming grace, his life and death and resurrection, almost everything you have written here is nonsense. None of it addresses the work of the gospel in our hearts and lives.
The Presbytery intentionally left out the defining meaning of 9:44—there is nothing you can say that changes that. That section was written to counter the racism of the time. It is not about sexuality that is addressed in another section and “man and woman” is what defines the persons involved in that definition.
You write “the greater picture is the fact that the Gospel and the Scriptures do not abridge the civil rights of anybody so long as the exercise of those civil rights do not infringe on the civil rights of anyone else.” Although the LGBT community has tried to shape their desires within the Church as “rights,” the real issues for all faithful Christians is the authority of God’s word and faithfulness to the Lord of the Church. Others may not understand it but it is an issue that has to do with sin and salvation. It is about repentance and the forgiveness and transformation that is found in Jesus Christ. When one attempts to make a political document out of a Confession of faith, one fails to understand the very reason for the Confession which is confessing Christ.
You write, “if the institution of marriage is extended to include same sex partners,” as though this would have any bearing on the true Church of Jesus Christ which is called to not conform to the world. “Therefore I urge you brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good, and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12: 1-2)
I did not make the resolution into something it is not. It is a sham that others will undoubtedly attempt to quote from when they want to make the orthodox seem like those outside of the will of God and the moving of the Spirit.
You are starting to do that thing you do-of constantly coming back and going on until you have the last word. Please do not do that. I will simply delete you.
Jodie, you say that same sex marriage is a matter of civil rights. I don't understand this. Rights for whom? I firmly believe that God doesn't create homosexuals; that no person is innately born gay or lesbian. Show me in Scripture where God creates homosexuals. Show me in science that God creates homosexuals. I have been looking for the gay gene a long long time. Yes, there are people who have SSA. But just because someone has affections for people of the same gender doesn't make them homosexual. Giving civil rights to homosexually-identified persons makes absolutely no sense to me.
Post a Comment