The close outcome followed months of debate. In the end, about a dozen ordained ministers wrote a paper defending their opposition to the change.
“It’s a painful position to take,” said one of those pastors, the Rev. Steven Carter of Christ Memorial Presbyterian Church in Columbia. “I believe that we have to speak the truth, but we have to do it with love.”
Although he welcomes gay and lesbian people at his church, “when it comes to leadership positions and when it comes to the role of marriage, in the biblical picture of the world, that is intended to be between a man and a woman,” Carter said.
“There are times when I wish it wasn’t so clear,” he said.
Under the proposal, marriage in the Presbyterian Book of Order would go from a lifelong commitment made by a “man and a woman” to a “lifelong commitment … between two people.”
Another sentence would be changed from, “Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man,” to “Marriage is a covenant between two people and according to the laws of the state also constitutes a civil contract.”
“We have great people at our church. … I don’t see why they shouldn’t have the same rights as my husband and I have,” said Jeananne Stine, a member of Govans Presbyterian who helped write the overture about marriage.
Upon what principled basis do they limit such a definition to two people?
Remember the 70’s and the angst about “redefining priesthood” by changing the ordination canons from the gender specific “man”???? Same stuff/different day.
If the Episcopal church’s fall into heresy is the tip of the iceberg (which so it seems), then the rest of the iceberg is coming into view.
Br Michael, the only basis is warm fuzzy feelings.
“I don’t see why they shouldn’t have the same rights as my husband and I have,” said Jeananne Stine”
They already do.
#1 Br. Michael and #3 Br_er Rabbit see that the bottom of the iceberg carries greater risk, A.K.A. polygamy, common law “marriage,” and of course why limit all these marriage “rights” to same species relationships?
#5…ah the fallacy of the slippery-slope argument.
Worldview…that is the central issue. Is it reasonable to have a biblical worldview? No! Two reasons: 1) There isn’t a universal, biblical worldview in any of scripture; there are reflections of several different, changing, historical worldviews that are imposed on scripture, and 2) the different worldviews laying behind scripture are premodern (we just don’t think in these ways anymore, or at least shouldn’t be).
For Christians, scripture is important in informing our modern viewpoint(s), but it doesn’t present us with one consistent perspective. Neither does it present positions that are permanent or immutable.
“The close outcome followed months of debate. In the end, about a dozen ordained ministers wrote a paper defending their opposition to the change.”
So what was the outcome? Did the overture pass the Session, did it pass the Presbytery, will it move on to the Province or General Assembly?
We left TEC years ago when the National Leadership appeared to leave Scripture as its base and have become reformed in the Presbyterian Tradition. We are with a body of believers who preach, teach, and apply Scripture as the inspired Word of God. Always knowing the attack to reinterpret and dilute scripture would eventually come here as well.
#6, Animal husbandry is not a part of my world view.
Interesting: my parent’s church (and mine, once upon a time) is the one quoted as the opposition.
It’s hard to say what’s going to happen to this. Historically, radical postures get adopted at higher levels of the PCUSA hierarchy and then get reversed the next time the lower levels address the issue. A presbytery is low enough in the stack, though, to where it’s possible the individual sessions may not be that far out of step. Of course, the other thing is that taking a Presbyterian body apart and putting the congregations in different pieces is not as big a deal.
And of course the question remains unanswered.
Virgil,
I know you don’t agree, but many Christians believe in the “Biblical Worldview†as you call it. Your dismissal of this worldview as premodern is not an argument, its merely your opinion. You can assert that there is no universal biblical worldview. Not suprisingly, I disagree. In my journey I have looked at numerous competing worldviews and after a lot of reading and study I am convicted in the Truth as presented in the scriptures. I do believe that it offers a comprehensive and cohesive world view. I also realize that you think that this is merely my opinion.
Christians that hold this biblical world view believe that Truth has been revealed to us by God thru the writers of scripture. We believe that God has shown us how the world really is, and revealed his plan to us on how He will to bring it to a conclusion (thru the good news of Jesus). This worldview is extremely powerful for believers.
Its this type of belief/faith that has carried Christianity for 2000 years. Its also the primary reason that many persons holding this biblical worldview would die rather than give it up. That is the why I expect this type of faith to carry Christianity 2000 more years.
There is no way for you to convince a believer of the “Biblical Worldview†that it should be replaced with a more modern worldview. It would be like telling someone they should give up eating.
When you are convicted by the Holy Spirit with this type of faith, when the words of scripture sing to your heart, when your heart aches to see all the pain in the world, when that transforming power of Christ begins to work from the inside out…. You not only feel compelled to stand up and defend it, you have to go out and share it. ….Sorry, words fail me to properly express this concept. I am just trying to illustrate how life changing this type of belief is and how life encompassing it is.
My point is that you just can’t dismiss this worldview so flippantly. It has transformed a lot of lives (mine included) and changed the world. (I think for the better, but again that is my opinion) I can appreciate your worldview, but I don’t agree with it. Virgil, it is possible for the biblical worldview to be true. Correct?
[blockquote]
Worldview…that is the central issue. Is it reasonable to have a biblical worldview? No! Two reasons: 1) There isn’t a universal, biblical worldview in any of scripture; there are reflections of several different, changing, historical worldviews that are imposed on scripture, and 2) the different worldviews laying behind scripture are premodern (we just don’t think in these ways anymore, or at least shouldn’t be).
For Christians, scripture is important in informing our modern viewpoint(s), but it doesn’t present us with one consistent perspective. Neither does it present positions that are permanent or immutable. [/blockquote]
You do know a good Presbyterian would totally reject this argument, don’t you?
Amen, #11!
[blockquote]ah the fallacy of the slippery-slope argument.[/blockquote]
The erroneous assertion of a “slippery-slope fallacy” is really a pet peeve of mine. First, a slippery-slope argument is not necessarily fallacious. Second, this isn’t a slippery-slope argument at all. No unspecified-but-inexorable processes are involved. Instead, it’s an identity argument. As Br. Michael’s comment implies, the rationale for one (e.g., “natural desires are good”) is identical to the rationale for the others. On this topic, we’re more likely to run into the Naturalistic Fallacy (aka, the Appeal to Nature).
#12…That’s why I’m an Episcopalian.
#11…My conclusion doesn’t state my premises. I would recommend various text on constructive postmodernism by Frederick Ferré in order to establish those.
And that’s why the Episcopal Church is rapidly becoming non-Christian.
[blockquote]#12…That’s why I’m an Episcopalian. [/blockquote]
. . .and a big part of why I’m no longer an Episcopalian, but now a Presbyterian. 🙂
Back to the topic, I feel the need to point out the local Presbytery is making the same mistake TEC made. This was a closely divided vote: 76-71.
Randall
Virgil, it’s not a slippery slope when the arguments being used encompass the acts being described. If someone declares that “it’s no one’s business what two adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom,” then they shouldn’t object when I enthuse that I and my blushing bride are going to build a nuclear weapon in our boudoir.
If you want your arguments taken narrowly, argue them narrowly.
Ewww ick, Ferré. They made us study him in hermeneutics class.
Seriously, Virgil’s recommendation to read Ferré is not off base. It is good to know your enemy.
Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran. Reformed, etc.–no difference. The so-called Reformation is disintegrating into a Great Deformation with regard to sexual and marital morality.
While all the comments thus far are focusing on the accommodation to homosexuality, I think something else here is much more notable. Why in the world is the PCUSA (a perfect acronym if there ever was one!) or any other Liberal Protestant denomination maintaining the symbolic fiction of “lifelong commitment” when legislating marriage? Is re-marriage morally questionable in [i]any[/i] way in the PCUSA? TEC? ELCA? Of course not.
No Liberal Protestant believes marriage to be a “lifelong commitment” past the so-called “vows” — [i]particularly[/i] the reappraisers.
#20…One should read Ferré with an open, but critical, eye. He identifies and explains the ‘epistemological gap’ which has obliterated the epistemic ‘certainty’ of the premodernist and modernist theories. So systems (and I love systems 🙁 ) aren’t any longer feasible, at least for the ‘big’ picture. Whether his constructive postmodern model works is another question, but it is an attempt to come to grips with the new reality.
#14 & #19…If one can successfully argue for the links in the chain of a slippery slope, then it isn’t a fallacy, but if one ‘assumes’ these links without further argument, then the fallacy exists.
Virgil, so I gather you are not opposed to a service to bless “lifelong commitment … between two or more people.” And “Marriage is a covenant between two or more people and according to the laws of the state also constitutes a civil contract.”
Virgil,
The central issue that defined the identity of the Catholic Church in the second century over against the gnostics was precisely the issue of a unified worldview. Specifically, the gnostics said that the God of the Old Testament was a different one from the God of the New Testament. Indeed, not just a unified worldview, but a unified world. Ireneaus insisted that the God who creates the world in Genesis is the same God whom Jesus identified as Father, and who redeems and recreates theat world through the redemption of his Son. Canon, Rule of Faith, and Apostolic Succession were the crucial markers of this unity. In recognizing the canon, the Church did not just say that Scripture was “important” for “informing our viewpoints,” but normative for forming our viewpoints.
Of course, one can deny that Scripture contains such a unified normative worldview, but such denial is simply a less than subtle disguise for rejecting the all too unified worldview that impinges too uncomfortably on one’s own prior commitments. In denying or rather rejecting Scipture’s unified worldview, one simply indicates that one sides with the Gnostics and against Catholic Christianity.
On the issue of “slippery slope,” the connection between approval of same-sex activity and polyamory is not a slope, but a strict logical necessity. Its more honest advocates not only admit, but revel in this freedom. Easily available statistics bear this out, as do the writings of the advocates. The exclusive life-long committed same-sex union is a mythological creature, somewhat like the unicorn. Advocates of the “new thing” must proclaim the existence of the unicorn. If the undecided were aware of the actual statistical realities, they would no longer be undecided.
No. 23 – Virgil – Not necessaril disagreeing with you right here, but what is the “new reality” you mention in that post. There have been “new realities” before that have confronted the Church. Thx.
No. 25 – WW – Maybe I shouldn’t be speaking for Virgil, but I wonder if he wouldn’t agree with you in the first paragraph of you posting. I agree with you that there is a logical connection between same sex activity and polyamory (popular with heterosexuals by the way), at least as the issue has been presented in the Church. On the other hand, whether you approve or not, the admirable qualities seen in a good heterosexual marriage can also be seen in loyal, faithful, and joyous homosexual relationships.