Will the Presbyterians, like the Methodists, move back from the brink?
The Civil Union and Marriage Issues Committee at the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has agreed upon two items to be considered by the assembly, one of which would amend the church's definition of marriage.
Those on the committee voted 28-24 on Tuesday in favor of sending the proposal, which could change the church's definition of marriage "between a woman and a man" to being "between two people," to the General Assembly for consideration. The proposal would also change the definition of marriage from being a "civil contract" to a "covenant" that "according to the laws of the state also constitutes a civil contract."
According to a live blog about the committee, they also approved sending another proposal, which would move the entire denomination "into a season of serious study and discernment concerning the meaning of Christian Marriage." This "season" would last until the next General Assembly in 2014, when the topic would be readdressed. -- The Christian Post
44 Comments
338 No
308 Yes
One presby member was quotes: "As much as it pains me to say it, from what I read in the Bible and Paul's letters, as confusing as this is, as much as I don't like to believe it, I believe the practice of homosexuality is a sin."
Now, why would it "pain him to say it?" How has our society come to hold sexual promiscuity of all sorts in such high esteem?
When religion becomes democracy, changing its tenets based on popular vote, it is destined for dissolution. People want consistency and stability from their religion, not debate and fluctuation. The Catholics learned this the hard way with Vatican II; fortunately, it is taking steps to roll back those changes.
To hell in a handbasket.
It's good to love others, but that doesn't mean we need to love or agree with every idea they have and every behavior they engage in.
We love our children, too, but we sometimes have to tell them no.
It's an accurate analogy b/c sometimes the opposition behaves just like children, whining to get their way, throwing temper tantrums, breaking things and hurting others.
It's good that the Presbyterian Church voted to leave the definition of marriage as it is, but they did so with a small margin. If they're serious about moving into a "season of serious study and discernment concerning the meaning of Christian Marriage," they must look realistically at all the negative consequences of marriage redefinition.
They can love their gay and lesbian congregants but, like children, the Church must say "no" to their demands for marriage redefinition.
It's unfortunate it lost, it was a very narrow loss too. Oh well, maybe some time in the future equality will reign supreme.
Barb no disrespect but we are adults looking for legal protections that marriage offers not childern asking for a large icecream cone when we know they can only eat a small one. It is not the same thing.
Homosexuality is SIN! I don't know what the debate is! God is VERY clear on marriage - all the Presby's need to do is read there Bible and quit trying to change today, what God said many years ago.
Barb,
The problem with your analogy is that whether people on one side of the issue or the other act or do not act like children, they are not children, and you are not their mamma.
Divorce (except for the cause of fornication) is SIN! I don't know what the debate is! God is VERY clear on divorce - all the people need to do is read there Bible and quit trying to change today, what God said many years ago.
So, Christians can now vote to change God's definitions? News flash: humans CANNOT change God or supercede His teachings! There are moral absolutes and marriage is one of them. Like or not, homosexual marriage is a grave sin that offends God.
In religion, the analogy of children and a father holds strong. If you join a Christian religion, you ARE asked to become like a child, and that includes being told what is right and what is wrong. Also, the 'rights' of marriage in religion is not defined by man but by God. If you're looking for 'legal rights' then forcing recognition in a church doesn't follow.
The fact is, the Bible is clear about what is a sin and what is not. The question is whether they will reinterpret the Bible to suit what they think will be more popular, and bless a sin or not. Comparing it to divorces therefore doesn't hold water because while a church may allow divorce, no Christian religions that I know of BLESS divorce. Marriage is a blessing over two people, uniting them. Most churches, especially Presbyterians, allow Gay families even if they are sinning just like they allow divorced couples, or couples living without marriage. But that doesn't mean the church blesses those, and the Bible is clear they shouldn't.
Allow sinners in yes. Bless them in their sin and act as though it's not a sin? No.
OK folks... this is NOT a civil rights issue! If it was Rev. Martin Luther King would have been marching for this at the same time a equal rights for African-Americans. It is stated CLEARLY in the Bible about homosexuality. And to Reformed.... I worked through a marriage after catch my wife in bed was my best friend. Forgiveness is possible. Strike two at 16 years... KO (Knock Out) It's about Christian that will BE committed to following God's Word and not COWERING and Bending to society! We have a President that cannot lead, a congress that will not act, because it's either a democratic or republican issue, and a supreme court that doesn't know how to read (the constitution) I PRAY for REVIVAL for this great nation. We are at a crossroad!!!!!
BTW...I am white, so don't throw a race card out!
'. . . the proposal, which could change the church's definition of marriage "between a woman and a man" to being "between two people,. . ." '
Why just two? If the gender is regarded as arbitrary, what keeps everything else - age, number, status-as-living-or-dead - for being up for grabs?
I think we've forgotten how to think clearly because we're afraid it will be described as hatred. But it isn't.
"Divorce (except for the cause of fornication) is SIN! I don't know what the debate is! God is VERY clear on divorce - all the people need to do is read there Bible and quit trying to change today, what God said many years ago."
If people of faith get divorced, that is between them and God. He will be their judge. But that by no means is a reason for the state to disregard religious liberties altogether and force people to violate other tenents of their faith by pressuring them to approve of what is labeled a sin.
The decisive generational shift that lies ahead for the church was made clear in a separate tally of votes by seminary students and young adult advisory delegates, known as YAADs.
The students voted 82 to 18 percent in favor of changing the definition of marriage, and the young adult delegates voted 75 to 21 percent — but their votes were solely advisory.
One hopes when the YAADs are older and wiser they will “be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men…” (Eph. 4:14).
Koreans, both in the US and in South Korea are the fasting growing segment of the Presbyterian church.
It is uncertain if the generational mismatch on issues such as marriage will continue if/when a more traditional culture becomes dominant.
Okay, so you want to satisfy the demands of some and vote in approval of homosexual behavior (obviously, you have to have that before you can even get to the question of "same sex marriage"). Okay, got it. But why stop with just that sin? If it's all really so arbitrary as to be voted in or out based upon man's whims, just vote out the whole bible while you're at it. At least you'd be worthy of some respect for being consistent (even while absurd).
It's amazing how they claim to revere the bible all the while disregarding it's most elementary teachings, not the least of which is pleasing God over man...
"Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29).
Regardless of any vote that may ever occur on Earth as to the definition of marriage, for true bible believers it's already been defined by the only one who matters...
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
It's very important for this Presbyterian to note that the PC(USA) is one denomination of several Presbyterian denominations in the US. My denomination, the PCA, broke off from the PC(USA) in 1973 because it was obvious back then that the big church was more interested in pleasing the world than in pleasing God. The PC(USA) is fully mainstream, bleeding members, losing churches by the hundreds, and doesn't realize that it's already dead. As they continue to seek the world's favor, they become increasingly smaller and irrelevant.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) does not speak for all Presbyterians.
18
Interesting. Something I hadn't thought of before.
"For this reason..."
Precisely for the reason that He created them male and female, a man leaves and joins with his wife, the woman, there to be one flesh.
So-called "same-sex 'marriage'" does not fulfill that.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
So, Jesus excludes so-called "same-sex 'marriage.'"
"In the short term, the vote also means that many conservative congregations threatening to leave the denomination likely will stay. The 1.9-million member church, which had more than 2.1 million members two years ago, has quickly lost congregations and individual members in part because of its increasingly liberal views on homosexuality. According to the Presbyterian News Service, at least 100 congregations have defected in recent years."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/gay-marriage-presbyterian-general-assembly_n_1655327.html?ref=topbar
Time for another boycott....
Google launched a new campaign on Saturday supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage around the world.
The initiative, called "Legalize Love," debuted in Poland and Singapore, and "will focus on places with homophobic cultures, where anti-gay laws exist," though it will operate in every city in the world where Google has an office.
Pretty darn close.
It will pass next time.
The bible has a lot of rules that don't apply today. Care to argue this point you will lose. Thru the years looking over several thousand of religions who is to say the bible is correct and the rest are wrong. Even if you go off the notion that many religions make homosexuality sin, you can look as close as of today some religions don't allow races to mix, or women to have a voice or choices in some areas, and don't think for a minute that religion answers mentally ill peoplein some cultures they are considered weak and not worth keeping around. Saying that the bible says it is wrong and that is the merit for it does NOT, justify it.
The bible says a lot so do a lot of other religious groups, the mormans, jewish, muslims, budist, ect..... Women can be stoned or raped or killed or what ever for their beliefs are, nations can be attacked like we were on 9/11 for relgious beliefs, people of different color have been inslaved because of a belief. Bottom line all those books out there say a lot but "it does not make them the truth".
With that said if any of those books are right, then we all should have a lot more to worry about than just one another. Because our god or gods are just as evil as the enemies we think we have.
Nevertheless, religious opposition to homosexuality has secualr origins. Homosexual activity has always been a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle for thousands of years in that it is the most efficient method of spreading STDs. People way back when no doubt noticed that those who practiced homosexuality got sick and died in droves - just like today. Before we learned that it is germs and viruses that cause disease, people back then clearly thought that God was punishing them for "having sexual relations with a man as man does with a woman."
Whether you look at it from a secualar or religious perspective, there are many reasons to discourage homosexuality.
Ridiculous Son of Adam. you're aware heterosexual activity leads to disease as well?
Research the history of syphilis outbreaks sometime.
Son of Adam:
"Nevertheless, religious opposition to homosexuality has secualr origins. Homosexual activity has always been a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle for thousands of years in that it is the most efficient method of spreading STDs."
This is simply not true. This is probably in vane, but please, try and get some factually correct information about homosexuality before you publicly proclaim this kind of slander.
Actually, homosexual behavior results in the majority of STD related health problems to those who practice it, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. Every year the Center for Disease Control reports that the majority of all new sexually-transmitted AIDS cases are the result homosexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases.
The evidence shows that homosexual unions are medically inferior to man-woman unions.
These STDs are caused by viruses and bacteria, not directly from homosexual behavior. Even promiscurity, which, as a practical matter, would certainly increase the risk of STDs are not the direct cause. One can have lots of sex with lots of different uninfected partners and never contract an STD. It's not something I'd recommend, but it happens to be true. The evidence you present proves absolutely nothing regarding the intrinsic value of homosexual unions versus heterosexual ones.
It's irrelevant what the Presbyterians or any church or religion decides to do when it comes to Civil Rights.
Actually, SoA, the problem is not homosexuality, it's the male species. Men are physiologically programed to have a high sex drive. To blame homosexuality is ignorant and shows no concept of reality or the facts of life. Men are the "problem", not homosexuality.
eliasasm, that is just as absurd as saying that guns have nothing to do with killing people since it is the bullets that do the actual killing.
In same-sex relationships, the pairing of identicals propels extremes not balance. Male homosexuals experience the most damaging effects of imbalance. Instead of the sex drive of the man being balanced by the emotional needs of the woman, male homosexuals reinforce and amplify the sex drive of one another. That’s why their behavior often becomes compulsive to the point of explosive promiscuity—anywhere from 21-43 percent of homosexual men have several hundred sexual partners!
Also, if AIDS and other STDs will not break promiscuity in homosexuals, it is unlikely that SS"M" will. As AIDS is falling among heterosexuals, it is rising among homosexual men according to the CDC.
"It's irrelevant what the Presbyterians or any church or religion decides to do when it comes to Civil Rights."
Such a post is in itself irrelevant since SS"M" is not a civil right.
Ok what if gay people don't redefine marriage as anything other than between a man and a women?
But instead have a Unity Ceremony that has all the rights and obligations that afforded to married couples? Also, that there be no obligation for any religion to participate in a Unity Ceremony?
And is it only gay marriage that the problem or same sex marriage? Because I was wonder and may some of the lovely people here can answer this, What if two straight people wanted to marry?
“Men are physiologically programed to have a high sex drive”
Marriage is designed to restrain and channel that sex drive. Marriage is properly designed to protect women in their relationships with men and to attach the mutual offspring of men and women to both parents.
Some church leaders start to believe sometimes they are the leaders and whatever they decide goes, even if against biblical scripture. They try it, thinking themselves above scripture. They want to include everyone, they say. Well, then they start to see how some of the members go to other churches. In the USA, there's churches every few blocks in villages and cities. There's no lack of churches. Once they've lost half of their congregation, they start realizing the cost of their leadership. They start to realize it is not their leadership the members followed, it is biblical scripture which gave them the job in the first place, and the belief in scripture as is. Sin is sin because it has social consequences, not because of some absolute edict. In the days of the Book of Leviticus eating pork had severe consequences, due to parasites in the meat. Friendship doesn't necessarily warrant a marriage license, and there's no pain in realizing so. Would we be so sympathetic to -pedophiles- such that we would invite them to teach children in Sunday school? I mean, for the sake of 'diversity' or 'inclusion' or 'tolerance'. In reality, what some Pastors or church leaders are espousing (no pun intended) is that they allow their congregation to be more inclusive, thinking that will be more peaceful, less controversial, and most important for a Pastor: more numerous. In some respects, a church can become simply: a business. The self-contradicting concept of 'same-sex marriage' purifies the churches, because they have to decide whether to follow their denomination going astray, or they are going to follow biblical scripture, which is what developed the church in the first place. Churches are being purified by the same-sex pseudo-marriage movement. The counterfeit churches will be cast aside. Only the building will stand.
SoA #32,
Is heterosexual marriage a civil right?
Little Man,
Your chosen religious beliefs do not pertain to everyone and have absolutely nothing to do with those who do not believe as you.
@ eliasasm
MARRIAGE is not a civil right - no more than driving a car, hunting, or fishing is a civil right. Why do you think we need a license for them?
eliasasm:
So, why are you answering me?
#40,
Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.
elias, everyone has equal access to the law... already. If you want to marry, great! If you don't, that's ok too. You have the same access to the law that I have. Equally.