Presbyterian Question

[Pastorbps]

Delegates to the Presbyterian church's convention in Minneapolis voted Thursday for a more liberal policy on gay clergy but decided not to redefine marriage in their church constitution to include same-sex couples. Approval of both measures could have made the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one of the most gay-friendly major Christian churches in the U.S.

Both of Thursday's votes were close. Fifty-one percent of delegates voted to shelve the proposal to redefine marriage as being between "two people" instead of between "a man and a woman," just hours after 53 percent of them voted to allow non-celibate gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy.

So if you're gay and not celibate but in a committed relationship but not married, you can serve as clergy. Am I missing something.

[Pastor Gary]

The obvious inconsistency in that position is pretty astounding. You know, I would almost respect them more if they just went ahead and approved same-sex marriage than to concoct a view that says, "We don't approve of gay marriage, but if you are gay and want to be a Presbyterian minister, we'll not only let you, but we will let you be in a sexual partnership."

If it were not so sad, it would make a good SNL sketch.

[Phil Hoover]

And sadly, every single Christian denomination in this nation will have to take a stand on this issue--and those similar to it.

Of course the Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists will not be facing this anytime soon....

But you can bet your bottom dollar that every organization that names JESUS as LORD will be facing this issue in the near future. The time is now coming for the PEOPLE OF GOD to "stand up" or "shut up."

Many will face severe financial persecution once this comes to the Supreme Court and the SCOTUS declares "same sex marriage" to be viable in this nation.

Count on it.

[beckrl]

I believe I read somewhere that the Presbyterian Church has been having this topic in their assembly since 1995 or 96. What that tells me is that over time people become accustomed to the world's view and fall away from the truth. The first step was to accept homosexuals as members, then the next step....then the next....

It's sad because churches that once was strong in faith has now become no more that an social club with worldly views.

How will we make a stand for the truth?

[dolfan]

And sadly, every single Christian denomination in this nation will have to take a stand on this issue--and those similar to it.

Of course the Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists will not be facing this anytime soon....

But you can bet your bottom dollar that every organization that names JESUS as LORD will be facing this issue in the near future. The time is now coming for the PEOPLE OF GOD to "stand up" or "shut up."

Many will face severe financial persecution once this comes to the Supreme Court and the SCOTUS declares "same sex marriage" to be viable in this nation.

Count on it.

I think it is going to happen, but I'm still not sold that it is imminent from the Supreme Court. I do fervently believe that the best solution for the church is to claim marriage as its own, to state that it alone and without regard to any civil laws, has the authority to define marriage as a religious matter. I do think that the time to do that IS imminent or that the ground to do so will be lost.

After Lawrence v. Texas, where the Court said that private consensual sexual conduct between two adults is a liberty interest protected by what is called "substantive due process" rights under the 14th Amendment, and in doing so explicitly made Texas anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, the Church has a perfect opportunity to define marriage as a private consensual covenant of sacrament between two adults protected by the prescriptions for biblical marriage and the proscriptions against adultery and homosexuality. But, the church has done nothing but continue to fight the tide of gay marriage with arguments that it is immoral.

Ted Olsen, the Bush administration solicitor general and conservative darling post-9-11, represents the anti-Prop-184 pro gay-marriage litigants in the federal case in California's federal court. In that case, dozens of witnesses were produced by the pro-gay marriage/anti-Prop-184 plaintiffs looking to set aside Prop 184 as unconstitutional. The anti-gay-marriage side? One witness who basically testified to nothing. It was a farce.

More later.....

[dolfan]

My point is that the current strategy is not working. The civil authorities have already gutted marriage of its sanctity. It is nothing more than a contractual relationship which can be dissolved in much the same way as a business partnership or corporation. Now, California's federal courts are on the possible verge (and I don't know that it is a done deal, but I think personally -- and could be very wrong -- that the court will side with the anti-Prop 184 folks) of saying that it violates the US Constitution's protections under Lawrence v. Texas for a state to pass a law that prohibits gay marriage. Of course, federal appellate courts will have the last word over trial courts. We just don't know what they'll do.

Here's what the church, IMO, ought to do. Get out in front of it. Declare to members that the local church is the final authority on marriage and that the state's definition of marriage is void and inapplicable to the church. Make it a matter -- now -- of ecclesiastical jurisdiction essential to the faith, and head off the government's kidnapping of the marital relationship and handing it over to homosexuals.

By doing so, the church puts the government in the position of having to do what it has never done --- make a decision on an ecclesiastical, purely religious question. The church, even if the government makes that decision in a way that opposes or contradicts the definition of marriage in the church, is not bound to obey that law. But, if the church merely continues to gnash at the issue with declarations of the immorality of homosexual activity and "marriage" and how badly it will hurt society, it should be well aware that the government simply does not care since its definition of what is good and right is totally untethered from the religious and biblical standards of good and so on.

What people in the church ought to do is insist that their local churches make such a statement. If local churches must, because of denominational restrictions, defer to their general body for such declarations but that kind of declaration is not quickly forthcoming, local churches should act anyway, IMO.

I have a sincere and honest concern that the government will soon manage to accomplish the takeover of marriage and that with it there will be a recognition by the government of gay marriage and a consequent requirement that no state may refuse to recognize it. "Soon", though, is relative. I think it is probably less than 10 years away, maybe much, much less. Again, please know that this is just one person's view. I've been convinced about this for some time, though. I don't think the sky falling is a reason to react, but we ought to know and see that the world and its authorities are fallen and there is a reason to stake out a place where we say, "No, you're not doing that with us."