The denomination “has talked about, prayed about, worked, discussed, discerned for 35 years,” …[the Rev. Ann Deibert] said. “It feels like an enormous gift and a breath of the Spirit. What it means is we are recognizing the gifts and graces of God in more and more people.”
But the Presbyterians for Renewal, a Louisville-based coalition of evangelical churches, lamented “this unfaithful action” in a statement.
“In a lot of presbyteries, evangelical folks didn’t show up in enough numbers that it swung some votes,” added its executive director, the Rev. Paul Detterman. “How opposing sides can work together without compromising their core identities under the same denominational canopy is the question of the day.”
Did I read this right? The vote on the table was to delete the requirement for fidelity in marriage between a man and woman or chastity for singles. Only indirectly does this remove barriers for non-celibate gays/lesbians.
The direct result is that one need no longer be faithful in marriage nor chaste as a single. It seems to me that this will impact a larger group than gays/lesbians.
Adultery? No problem. Keeping a mistress? Come right on up to the altar. Promiscuous? We welcome you.
Has the church lost it completely?
But doesn’t it also mean
Sorry I meant to delete the last fragment
#1–yes, that larger problem is why I was vehemently against this proposal, even more so than the “gay” part. And in addition to providing that ordained leaders in PCUSA no longer have to be faithful in marriage or chaste in singleness, the proposal also explicitly removes the requirement that ministers, elders and deacons be obedient to the requirements of Scripture.
In their zeal to validate homosexual behavior, the denomination has now thrown all concepts of sexual purity out the window as applied to ordained leaders. Cheat on your wife? Have simultaneous “relationships” going on with 5 girlfriends outside of marriage? Hook up on weekends? Have something going with the underage daughter of an attender? Not prohibited by the present non-standards of PCUSA.
And certainly we cannot hypocritically put such requirements on the laity, if they don’t apply to the clergy.
Please see my satirical response to the story printed below by Kendall, “An LA Times story on the Presbyterian Vote.”
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/36442/#comments
One commenter blathered that the vote was the result of “the breath of the Spirit”. Delusion! Delusion! Delusion.
#3: Thanks. I read your piece. Good job. Isn’t it sad though that you have to actually tell people it’s satirical?
#4: I’ve learned that when people refer to “the breath of the Spirit” or “a Pentecostal moment” when discussing some decision, they just mean that they agree with it. I don’t know where they think the Spirit is when a decision is made with which they disagree–maybe He (or should I say She!) stepped outside for a smoke.
Where are we going? Why are we in a handbasket? I’m soooo confused.