Color me surprised, the Presbyterians have decided that: On Tuesday, the Twin Citites Area presbytery, which covers Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, became the 87th presbytery – and the deciding vote – to approve an amendment that will remove the constitutional requirement that all ministers, elders and deacons live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”
The change, which opens up the possibility that people in same-sex relationships can be considered for ordination, is expected to take effect starting on July 10. It is the latest move by a Protestant denomination toward the inclusion of gay and lesbian clergy.
Sheesh, about time. I was raised almost literally in the Presbyterian church by missionary parents and my father was an ordained minister for close to 30 years. My mother came around on the gay issue probably 20+ years ago. Not sure what my father thinks now of this move (I haven’t had a chance to ask), but he had his own road of Damascus moment maybe 10 years ago when during a wild fire evacuation they stayed with a gay couple. I’m a complete apostate but there were some good people in the church who were color, gender and orientation blind, and I am happy to see that they are now a majority.
Has anyone heard what Franklin Graham’s reaction was? Too bad he can’t just align himself with an African diocese, like some of the Episcopalian ministers.[sup]1[/sup]
1 - Female circumcision and genital mutilation are a-okay, as long as they’re allowed to hate the gays with impunity.
Huh. When I read that, I see it as opening the door to people who have affairs, not gay people. Opening up to gay people also require changing most of these beliefs.
From a social equality standpoint, this is a great thing and it makes total sense. One more step forward for our gay brothers and sisters!
From a religious standpoint, I’m not sure I understand this: for centuries, religious folk have had a firmly held belief that homosexuality is a sin – something that is fundamentally wrong in the eyes of God. To suddenly decide that homosexuality is okay necessarily suggests one of two possibilities: (a) that they’re intentionally going against the word of God because homosexuality is wrong or (b) that homosexuality really is okay, but they had been misinterpreting the word of God for all those centuries.
In either case, the inconsistency suggests that the religious leaders really don’t have a goddamn clue what the word of God is anymore (if they ever did) and at this point they’re just crowd pleasers. Social equality is great, but continuity of beliefs is important too, for a house divided against itself cannot stand.
I wouldn’t say this means that “homosexuality is okay,” in the eyes of the PCUSA. Intentional or, not, the amendment essentially codifies what presbyteries and congregations have been doing all along; exercising their own discretion as to who is to be ordained to the ministry.
I would say rather that this amendment de-emphasizes homosexuality as a bar to ordination. One of the things that always bothered me about the previous wording is that it carved out homosexuality as somehow so bad as to be worthy of specific mention regarding qualifications to serve. Why single out homosexuality and not greed, or envy, or other “sins” which receive a lot more biblical attention?
It’s about damn time. I’ve not been a practicing Presbyterian for a long time, but of the mainstream Protestant denominations it always struck me as one of the more liberal; it really bothered me when the GA adopted the previous amendment. This is likely to cause some real conflict within the larger denomination, but hopefully it can be resolved without too much rancor.
I feel bad for agreeing with this - either you believe it, in which case you’re stuck with it, or you’ve been getting it wrong all this time, in which case you’ve got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.
The latter, if true, is particularly important as homosexuality has gotten a much worse rap than a lot of other sins. With injunctions against adultery, theft, “false witness” and murder having pride of place in the List of Ten Big Rules You Must Obey, the amount of time and bile spent on persecuting gays whilst ignoring lying, cheating, thieving politicians and clergy has been wholly disproportionate.
Still - anything that leads to less misery in the world is okay by me.
Homosexuality is a sin? I admit, I haven’t cracked open a bible in 30+ years but I don’t remember it being one of the 10 commandments or anything. Isn’t it more that the bible teachings since time immemorial have often been spun to serve a political message?
As an active member of a Covenant Network Presbyterian Church - I am thrilled about this finally passing.
The Presbyterian Church has long been more of an interpretation-while remembering-that-the-words-were-recorded-by-people type of Church. We split for the Civil War (not getting back together until the 80s). We expect some congregations to leave, and others to switch Presbyteries.
In the PCUSA - just because you CAN be ordained, does not mean that your particular Presbytery will ordain you. In addition, that does not guarantee you a job, as each church chooses its Minister - nobody is assigned. I expect many gay and lesbian ordinations in certain areas, but not necessarily a flood of gay and lesbian Ministers unless new churches open.
Note that this is only the PCUSA, i.e., the liberal presbyterians. Presumably the more conservative PCA (Pres. Church of America) has not changed its views.
“Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”
If you’re a woman, don’t covet his wife or his maidservant. If you’re a man, don’t covet his manservant, and certainly don’t covet his ass.
Yes, I know what “covet” means. I’m not being at all serious. The more serious answer is that it isn’t just political, it’s cultural. The sacred text is weighted to reflect the views of the society, culture, subculture, or cult it serves, which is why the same Bible works so differently in so many places. That also means that although the underlying text doesn’t change, the emphasis and interpretation certainly can, and homosexuality can go from being the worst of sins to the most negligible of sins without necessarily being hypocritical: it’s just how people and religion work.
You might be surprised to find that there are a lot of nuances between groups of “religious folk.” The Bible is written by humans and interpreted by humans. There are tons and tons of different sects that all have their own interpretations of things.
Yes, some religious folk might say “Homosexuality is a SIN and you will go to HELL and you should try to get HEALED” while others may just not say ANYTHING about homosexuality at all.
In all my years of growing up in Lutheran Sunday school, I never heard one mention of homosexuality, good or bad. I’ve still never heard it in my adult dealings with the church. No, I take that back…I did hear my pastor scoff at the ELCA ordaining a lesbian but my reaction to that was “better find a more liberal church!” So, as a Christian, I know that gay-friendly congregations exist.
My point is that this is one sect…in fact, one sect of a sect… that has not so much made a 180 but made a 10 degree turn into being ok with gay preachers. This is not centuries of Christianity declaring “oops, we were wrong about dem gays.”
Old: Leviticus 18:22 - “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "
Those sound a lot like commands.
New: Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. / In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. "
Having it mentioned in both is sufficient for many people.
My view:[spoiler]Personally, I’m starting to believe the hypothesis that it was referring to certain idolatrous acts. Click on the link to read the context of each.
The first one is directly preceded by a condemnation of worshiping Molech. Why is that in the middle of what seem to be sexual prohibitions? Could that have been the understood subject?
The second one is in a chapter that starts with Molech. Again, is that the subject?
Plus, only a handful of Churches claim special revelation, and those are unlikely to make changes. Those that are making changes are just saying they interpreted Scripture incorrectly.
I’m a catholic church organist. I occasionally play at my teacher’s church, which is Presbyterien. They always seemed pretty liberal-minded and laid back about these sorts of things, which surprised me since I thought they were the theological heirs to the puritans.
“You’re wholly permitted to be a homosexual, so long as you don’t enjoy yourself.” Something like that.
