General Assembly Final Thoughts

My last post ended with “The PCUSA as we know it is dead.”

Reasons for this statement:

• The constitution (Book of Order and Book of Confessions) is what holds us together as a denomination.
• More Light Presbyterians openly disobey the constitution. Other progressive Presbyterian groups, pastors and churches openly disobey the constitution.
• Pastors openly disobey the constitution and perform same sex marriages.
• The General Assembly openly disregarded that GA Permanent Judicial Commission’s Bush ruling—openly trying to circumvent the constitutional requirement of G-6.0106b.
• The recent Advisory paper by the Stated Clerk’s office states that local option for ordination is now the rule of the day—even before the Presbyteries have voted on the proposed amendments to the constitution.

I find it fascinating that while the PCUSA does not function by its own rules it is quick to condemn the Evangelical Presbyterian Church for accepting congregations who can no long, in good conscience, stay in the PCUSA. How dare our denomination condemn another denomination when our denomination plays fast and easy with its own rules. Additionally, I find it comical that the Assembly voted to build a war chest of millions of dollars to fight congregations who want to join the EPC; and then, at the Assembly said that congregations looking to the leave the PCUSA should be treated with grace. I take this final action as the progressive Assembly saying to evangelical/orthodox Presbyterians “Don’t let the door hit you in the rear as you leave.”

Has the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) “jumped the shark?” Or, to put it another way, Was this past General Assembly the Assembly of Heresy? (Part ???)

More Light Presbyterians headline: “Kikuchi and Wiesner Wed at GA Dinner.” The article goes on to say that the two were married at the conclusion of the More Light Presbyterians Dinner at General Assembly on June 21. The marriage was legal in the State of California. Here are the problems:

• More Light Presbyterians ARE PRESBYTERIANS and are suppose to live by denominational rules.
• The PCUSA defines “marriage” as between one man and one woman—not between two people of the same gender.
• The marriage was conducted by a Presbyterian pastor—who knew that she could be charged with an offence by the denomination.
• The General Assembly meeting was just beginning—no action had been taken on Amendment B, on the attempt to redefine “marriage” or any new Authoritative Interpretation.

This marriage was an IN YOUR FACE to every Presbyterian. This marriage was an IN YOUR FACE to the delegates who had traveled from across the nation to debate issues. This marriage was an IN YOUR FACE to every Presbyterian who tries to do things by the rules.

So what was the result of this marriage? I can find no reference to the Assembly condemning this action—there is only silence.

The PCUSA as we know it is dead.

Has the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) “jumped the shark?” Or, to put it another way, Was this past General Assembly the Assembly of Heresy? (Part 5)

Hold the presses!! A pronouncement from Constitutional Services of the PCUSA puts a new twist on yesterday’s post. Constitutional Service said:

The 218th General Assembly also adopted (Item 05-12) a new Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108:

…the requirements of G-6.0108 … apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).

We believe this modifies the 2008 GAPJC decision of Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, in that the scrupling of either belief or practice is now allowed. The effect of this action is to remind ordaining bodies that they bear the responsibility for determining whether any particular standard (including those described in G-6.0106b) will be a bar to that particular candidate’s ordination/installation. This Authoritative Interpretation preserves the historic right of sessions and presbyteries to determine their membership; all these decisions, however, continue to be subject to review by a higher governing body.

This changes everything!! Constitutional Services had in effect declared that local option is now in the rule of the day!

Heaven help the PCUSA…

Has the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) “jumped the shark?” Or, to put it another way, Was this past General Assembly the Assembly of Heresy? (Part 4)

The recent General Assembly of the PCUSA made some troubling decisions. Today I will move on to the horrible move by the Assembly.

Error #3.

The General Assembly tried to do an “end run” around the recent General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) Bush decision by adopting a new Authoritative Interpretation on G-6.0108. A little history is needed to understand what the Assembly did or didn’t do.

Since 1978 Definitive Guidance the PCUSA has held that “homosexuality is a sin” and is not God’s “wish for humanity.” Assemblies in 1980 and 1993 affirmed this stance on homosexuality. G-6.0106b was added to the constitution through the amendment process to help clarify the issue. In 2006 the General Assembly tried to change the Authoritative Interpretation but adopting the Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) report. That report gave Presbyteries the right to determine whether a candidate was qualified to be ordained as a Minster of the Word and Sacrament. A person could “scruple” something that they did not agree with within the PCUSA—including G-0106b (the section on fidelity and chastity). This action caused wide-spread anger in the denomination. The action was viewed as doing away with Amendment b without the action going out to the Presbyteries for their approval. The issued ended up going through the church courts. The GAPJC Bush decision ruled that Amendment b COULD NOT be scrupled because it is a requirement that is in the constitution.

“The 218^th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217^th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218^th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112, interprets the requirements of G-6.0108 [to] apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”

-218^th General Assembly

Problem #1: This decision is a slap in the face of Permanent Judicial Commission. The commission had recently ruled that requirements that are specifically in the constitution CANNOT be waved. Period. End of story. The moderator or the stated clerk should have ruled that this was out of order. The church courts had just ruled on the issue.

Problem #2: This decision ushers in a time of confusion for the denomination. Those in favor of LGBT ordination are saying that Presbyteries and Session can now set aside, on and individual basis, any area where a candidate for ordination departs from the constitutional requirement for ordination. The church courts have already ruled that such actions are illegal. Once again the denomination will be in a state of confusion until a case works its way through the church courts (it will take about two years for this to happen).

Problem #3: This decision will have a cost to time and money for our denomination and Presbyteries. Lawyers will be hired. People will travel to attend court. This is a needless expenditure of limited resources.

Problem #4: This decision does not overturn the Bush decision. Yet, churches, Sessions and Presbyteries will act is though it does.

Several months ago my step-mother was admitted to the hospital. She was one sick lady. The doctors found that she had pneumonia, a MRSA infection in her lungs and a MRSA infection in her blood. She could have survived any one of these health issues. The combination of these three health problems was more than her body could handle and my step-mother died after almost two months in intensive care.

The new authoritative interpretation adopted by this past General Assembly will not kill the church—by itself. What it did was to give an already troubled denomination one more extremely divisive and unnecessary issue to deal with.

Has the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) “jumped the shark?” Or, to put it another way, Was this past General Assembly the Assembly of Heresy? (Part 3)

The recent General Assembly of the PCUSA made some troubling decisions. In previous posts on this topic I introduced the meaning of “jumping the shark” and I looked at the most serious error of the Assembly. Today we will look at the second error.

Error #2.

The Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) contains the following section:

“Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001)), or chastity in singleness.” (G-6.0106b)

The section of the Book of Order quoted above has been referred to as the “fidelity and chastity amendment” or “amendment b.” The removal of this section from the Book of Order is a serious error.

Readers of this blog who are not Presbyterian need to understand what the Assembly actually did with G-6.0106b. A General Assembly CANNOT remove a section (larger or small) from the Book of Order. An Assembly can vote to removed (or add a section) and then that action goes out to the Presbyteries to be ratified (over 50% of the Presbyteries must vote in favor of the change). The recent General Assembly voted to remove G-6.0106b from the Book of Order, replacing it with new language: “Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.”

I recently heard someone ask, “Why has the Presbyterian Church been so concerned about the ordination of homosexuals for the past thirty years and not before that?” An aunt who is not a Christian recently told me, “There is not a single place in the Bible that calls homosexuality a sin.” Both of these people show how little knowledge there is about the Bible, sexuality and church history.

It is true that the PCUSA has been fighting over the ordination of practicing, non-repentant lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (from now on referred to as “LGBT”) persons since 1978—that was the year that the denomination tried to for the first time to ordain LGBT persons. The Presbyteries defeated the proposed change and have done so every time it has come up since then. What changed in the 60s and 70s? What changed is the sexual revolution! Sexual promiscuity had always been a part of American culture but for the first time it was become “mainstream.” The climate for change was ushered in when the church moved away from a high view of scripture AND much of society embraced a more open view of sex, marriage and sexual orientation. The church did not fight over the ordination of LGBT persons prior to 1978 because the church and society would never have stood for the ordination of LGBT persons.

Since coming to Evergreen Presbyterian Church twelve years ago, the General Assembly has tried on several occasions to remove Amendment b from the constitution. On the first occasion I taught a class of the Bible and Sexuality. I was shocked and amazed at how many long-time Presbyterians had no idea of what the Bible actually says about sex (homosexual or heterosexual). These fine people had formed strong opinions based on human experience. I was further amazed at how many were willing to disregard what scripture had to say of the topic—based totally on human experience.

It is easy to see why my aunt was misinformed about what the Bible says about homosexuality. How can a person who never goes to church or Bible study be expected to know what the Bible says about sexuality when those within the church don’t know what it says or are willing to blatantly ignore what it says?

The Bible has a lot to say about sex. The book of Song of Songs (a.k.a. – Song of Solomon or Canticles) sits on the borderline between erotic and X rated. The Bible is filled with instances of lust, love and rape. The Bible condones certain sexual practices and condemns other sexual practices.

Two chapters that focus on sexual practices that are condemned are Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. Leviticus 18: 20 says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 20 says, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The New Testament continues the prohibition of same sex intercourse. Romans 1:26-27 says, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural 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 indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The same theme is present in all of these texts—same gender sexual intercourse is wrong in the eyes of God. “Detestable” (in the Leviticus 18 passage) means that the practice is so horrible that God will not even look upon it. “Detestable” is an extremely harsh word in biblical Hebrew—this cannot be ignored.

I see the 1 Corinthians passage is a passage of hope—forgiveness. There are times when we are “greedy” or “slanderers” or anything else on that list. When we confess our sin we receive forgiveness. This is what G-6.0106b is all about. It is not just about gay sex—it is about confession of sin and forgiveness. The problem is that those who believe that same gender sexual intercourse is acceptable to God do not see that type of sexual expression as a sin, or that forgiveness is needed.

Those who believe that same gender sexual intercourse is acceptable to God are faced with two possible ways to justify their beliefs: discredit (explain away) the biblical texts or ignore the texts. For years and years those who are in favor of LGBT ordination tried to explain away the prohibition texts. That battle strategy has proven to be ineffective on all but a very few people. The newer tactic is to ignore the texts. You might have heard the argument of “we ordain people who are divorced” or “we ordain women” or “we selectively enforce the things that are prohibited in scripture.” It is s beyond the scope of this post to cover these additional topics. Let me just say that divorced person who do not repent should not be ordained. As for the ordination of women, God appointed Deborah to be a judge. Enough said.

The main issue is repentance and forgiveness!

So, why is removing G-6.0106b such a big deal? First, that section was placed in the constitution because many years ago the GAPJC said that the Authoritative Interpretation of 1978 was not enough—it needed to be in the constitution. So, various Presbyteries submitted the text of Amendment b, it was passed by the General Assembly and ratified by the Presbyteries. Second, when a Presbytery or Session ordains a person they do so for the entire church. There are Sessions and Presbyteries that do not believe that sexual intercourse outside of the bounds of one man and one woman who are married is a sin. Third, sex is a BIG DEAL! The sex drive is one of the strongest drives a person has. In many ways, sex impacts most areas of our lives. There is so much “worldly” confusion about sex that the church needs to be clear about what it teaches and believes. Fourth, the Bible is clear on its prohibition of same gender sexual intercourse. Fifth, Amendment b goes way beyond same gender sexual intercourse—it deals with all sin and forgiveness. Amendment b helps the church deal with pastors, elders and deacons who have “affairs.” Amendment b helps us to deal with candidates for the ministry who are “sleeping around.” Amendment b helps us to deal with pastors who are practicing alcoholics or thieves. Amendment b deals with sin, confession and forgiveness.