Once again (the 5th time in 14 years) the issue of ordination of those in same – sex partnerships will be debated in our Presbyteries as a new amendment to our Book of Order is now proposed. It reads that officers (ministers,elders, and deacons) submit “joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ” in all aspects of life, but removes the requirement that they live a life of “fidelity within marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” that is in the Book of Order now.

The Assembly sent out for study by the denomination a majority and minority report on same – sex marriages and took no action on calls to allow Presbyterian ministers to perform same – sex marriages in states where they are legal.

I pray that these upcoming debates will not bring a split in the denomination I love — but more than that I pray that we can come to a consensus of a Biblical view that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Please join me in praying for our denomination as we enter another time of debate and discussion on this issue, and praying for God’s will to be done.

You can read more about the proposed change in a previous post here.

Here is the breakdown of the Presbyteries voting and an analysis from the denominations news site.

I must say that I favor the way the vote went — but I also pray that, regardless of how we feel on this and all the issues that surround it, we can put this issue aside and continue to work together to being the love of God to a hurting and sinful world.

I’d welcome your comments on this.

This amendment seeks to replace one of the statements in our constitution regarding those seeking ordination in the church. The current statement requires that they live lives under scripture and the confessions in our constitution, and lives of “fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness” . 08 (b) seeks to replace this with a statement that they live lives in accordance with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Many fear that, if passed, 08 (b) will “open the door” for the ordination of homosexuals. Personally, I believe the issue is living in the ways God would have us live — regardless of our sexual orientation. Heterosexuals abusing the gift of sexuality by having pre-marital or extra-martial sex are just as wrong as those engaged in homosexual behavior.

I found the comments of one of my colleagues very impressive today. He stood and said that — with all we see in the media that makes sex look cheap and easy — he is glad he can tell the youth of his Church that our denomination stands for the right use of the gift God has given us.

Amen to that.

He states that he does not feel we can ever “agree to disagree” on these issues — but he asks if we can ever find a “middle way”:

I guess the big question is, when it comes to the pressing and crucial theological questions of the day especially around issues of homosexuality, “Is there a middle way?” Is there a “healed” place where two sides can meet and find common approaches to theology and institutional life? What does a movement towards this look like? Does one side have to give into the other becoming winners and losers? Does one side have to simply swallow an interpretation and live with it in faithful disagreement? Do we have to make some kind of “final decision” as a signal towards gracious separation? Does someone simply have to decide to leave this part of the family? Are these not even the right questions?

As much as I would like to think that there could be a “common voice” in the church on these issues, I am not sure that there can be. I do feel, however, that there are so many other issues to address that are more important in God’s eyes — such as poverty, hunger, violence, and reaching out to those who do not know Christ. The more time and energy we spend arguing about ordination and homosexuality, the less time we spend on these more important issues.

While there may not be a “middle way”, there should be a way to work for God’s will in the world — regardless of how we feel about other issues.

You can read Bruce’s post here.

What do you think?

Now — the seventh reason he hears — and responds to: Because the war is lost.

His response goes along the lines of his other responses:

Some say it is too late already—the tide has turned, the Liberals have control, yada yada yada—the final effect being that it is time to abandon ship because stay/fight/win is impossible. Impossible? Says whom? We understand battle-weary, deflated, defeated (at least temporarily and in part), and sick-to-our-stomachs-over-it-all, but impossible?

Stay/fight/win has not triumphed because we only stay; we don’t fight. Evangelicals don’t think it’s right to act in anger or otherwise descend to anything reeking of violence. So we lose.

In other words, walking away is giving up — and losing. I agree with Anderson — it’s better to fight and lose than to quit and not fight.

To illustrate this, Anderson gives 2 videos — one more “highbrow” than the other.

You can read Anderson’s entire post here.

He now answers another reason he hears folks give: Because we want to protect our property.

To this, Anderson says:

… we PCUSA churches “drank the potion” of common property, knowing full well that there was a five-year window within which to withdraw. If you are a PCUSA congregation, it is either because you wholeheartedly agreed to the arrangement, or you just watched the time run out doing nothing. Either way, you are in, and in by your own choice. This is undeniable.

In other words, if a Church stayed in the denomination after the “five year window” from 1985 – 1990 when a Church could leave with their property, they made a decision that they need to adhere to.

What about the churches that elect to leave now?

Here’s what Anderson says:

Plenty of congregations have left since then; many of them followed the calling of God to depart the PCUSA on grounds of conscience and as they did so, left keys and property behind. To those churches, a respectful round of applause is due for their putting principle above property. These Christians stood by their convictions at a great price, and our hats are off to them—no one can accuse them of serving an idol of property. This is indeed a noble course of action, and it is clearly the only noble course denominational liberals expect conscientious evangelicals to follow.

In other words, taking a stand on convictions and being willing to leave the denomination — and leave your property — is a admirable stand to take.

The squabble over property makes the debate to stay in or leave the denomination look like spoiled children quarreling over “what’s mine” — which — as Anderson says — leads to “an abominable witness”.

Here’s Anderson’s vision of the best way to resolve the “property issue”:

The best scenario—and perhaps purely imaginary—would be one wherein congregation and presbytery actually outdo one another in showing honor. “No, you take it!” “No, you take it!” “No, we insist!” “But you know how to use it best.”

In my 25 years of ministry and over 20 years before that of membership in the Presbyterian church, I have seen churches — my home church being one — argue about who the property belongs to. It indeed makes the church look like a spoiled child, and witness is indeed abominable.

You can read Anderson’s post on the issue here.

He now responds to another reason he hears people giving for pulling out of the denomination: Because every congregation is it’s own entity.

To this, he responds:

Congregations, like individuals, can suffer narcissism. They can become so self-sufficient and powerful that they feel they need no one else. Congregational narcissism is usually manifested in our large, evangelical congregations that have built their ministries “on their own”—that is, without presbytery loans, resources, or other advices. On the positive side, this usually means that these congregations are shaping their work and mission right out of scripture and backing up their operations with the best principles of the PCUSA Constitution. But that doesn’t mean they’re not narcissistic.

I can’t agree more! While it might be a sign of strength that a congregation can “get along without the denomination” as far as finances and mission, pulling out because you don’t need the denomination is not as important as staying in because the denomination needs you — and we all need each other.

You can read Anderson’s entire response here.

The conversation revolved around Beau’s paper — “Rebuilding The Presbyterian Establishment” – which is a call for complete restructuring of the denomination.

While I can see the need for changes in the denominational structure, my concern is that Beau is calling for a drastic shift away from a ore Biblical, Holy Spirit lead structure and more to a “big business” structure that focuses on leaders being selected more for their ability to run the business than for their love for God or the mission of the church.

I completely understand that the church is a business and needs sound business practices — but I also understand that it needs leaders who have a vision for what God’s will is and how we can be accomplishing that in the world.

Does the Presbyterian Church (USA) need restructuring?
Yes.
Are Beau Weston’s ideas the answer?
Not necessarily.

You can read Beau’s paper here — listen to his conversation with Bruce Reyes-Chow here — read his response to the conversation here — and read Bruce’s thoughts about it here.

He now answers the fourth reason he sees folks giving — that Churches could attract new, younger people if they were not in the denomination. To this, he responds:

Frustrated with a lack of growth, evangelicals need someplace to assign the blame (other than ourselves, of course). The denomination is an easy target: a large, fat, dirty target with a bullseye as big as the side of a barn. It is only too easy to blame our local troubles on Louisville, GA, etc. The embarrassment is enough to make some churches pull the word “Presbyterian” off their name because (pick all that apply):

A. It is embarrassment by association.

B. Young people see the word and think: Beware! OLD!

C. Most people don’t know what it means or care.

D. Denominational loyalty is passé.

E. Denominational identity is largely irrelevant and otherwise ill-defined.

F. Denominations are relics of the Great Generation, like Lions or Shriners.

Go here to read his entire response to the “it will attract new, younger people” argument for leaving the PC (USA).

Here’s part of what he has to say:

Fear is never okay; it is always a kind of spiritual sickness. It is an inappropriate motive for anything we’re talking about here.

Fear is cast out by love. If you say (or think) “I have no love for the PCUSA and its people,” then that is your spiritual problem, not the denomination’s.

You and I are responsible for choosing the kind of love that leaves no room for fear.

If love can lead you out of the PCUSA, and you can clearly articulate how this is so, then that would be a most excellent rationale for seeking dismissal.

YOu can read the rest of his post on this topic here.