I read with gratitude and thankfulness about the recent decisions issued February 11 by the GAPJC over ordination standards. 2 years after PUP, and many cases later that tested its scope, the GAPJC has ruled that no ordaining body (session or presbytery) has the right to ordain a candidate who is in violation of constitutional standards, including the "Fidelity and Chastity" standard expressed in the Book of Order (G-6.0106b). With these new GAPJC rulings, standards for ordination in the PC(USA) continue to reflect the clear teaching of Scripture on issues of sexual conduct and the plain meaning of our constitution. Praise God!
This is clearly what I and others have been saying all along: the PUP report and the scruples allowed do NOT extend to behavior, however, it has always been obvious no one understood that. There was so much fuzziness on how to apply this report. I was one of over 25 pastors who objected publicly to the PUP report and this was why. Now we have been redeemed. And so has the PC(USA) in this matter.
After PUP came out, as a member of CPM, and in my discussion with the former Moderator of our presbytery's CPM about this issue, I vehemently but in love argued with him in several calls, emails and blogs of the necessity to examine behavior AND belief in light of PUP. I was told we should not go there unless we had reason to. We handled the examinations simply by asking if the candidate had any scruples with any of the standards, without really talking about what the standards are. We did conduct an extensive review of the "essentials of reformed faith," but never launched a discussion together as an examining body about standards of conduct on sexual behaviors. Therefore we had no standard to agree upon. And I'm sure there are those on CPM past and present, who have lobbied against the fidelity and chastity standard. Some on the committee know of churches who have violated the standard. Some have turned blind eyes to it themselves. Shame on us. Shame on me. I should have brought it up. But I didn't.
I was a coward to lay myself out in front of my brothers and sisters over this - many of my colleagues were being thrown in the pit over it. I confess, I have been a wimp in my presbytery, which has not been graceful in its confrontations. So I am grateful to have the GAPJC now on my side of the fence with many, many others who have struggled for a voice on this matter. Maybe I'll have the courage to speak up in love now and question the candidates on behavior and on their pastoral care to sexually broken people. A pastor needs to pastor to this brokenness, not shove it under the rug. I want colleagues in ministry who love the broken among us, and still have the courage to stand for holiness when confronted with sexual - call it what it is - SIN. Apparently the GAPJC agrees, even if they can't use the word, sin.
I'l take it as they ruled. Thanks be to our Holy God for these holy decisions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
I disagree, Lyn. The rulings seem to be quite clear that you cannot establish an additional set of "standards" - about sexual behavior or otherwise.
I don't know about you, but it this all seems to remind me of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 20's. Presbyterians have historically abhorred attempts to apply anything wholesale. I think your former Moderator was wise in their discretion, and (from what you've shared) I'm grateful that they encouraged the committee to function as these rulings would suggest that they function: examine each candidate on their own merits. If there's no smoke, don't go look for a fire.
Mark Smith has a great analysis here. See (specifically) his look at the case involving the Pby of Washington.
Landon, as I read the decisions, they suggest that a candidate cannot "scruple" behavior or conduct, per the existing standard for fidelity and chastity. This would assume I guess as you read, that they cannot establish additional standards that disregard them. Is that what you are saying? If so, we agree on the interpretation,no?
I agree we should examine each candidate on their own merits, but how do we know there's any smoke at all, when we do not ask for their statement of conduct, only a statement of faith. Perhaps the examination practice should include that. Again, I want to know how a potential pastor will counsel a couple or individual on matters of sexual behavior, and their take on what the Bible says. Call me old fashioned, but the Bible does have some teaching on the matter that I for one am interested in how a candidate interprets. I believe this is in the spirit of the PUP guidelines, as recently ruled.
I will take some time to read the analysis from Mark Smith, and thanks for sending.
As one who came out of the homosexual lifestyle, I can speak to the Book of Order's provision for fidelity and chastity with a level of compassion as well as "authority" because I know from first hand experience of how sexual sin twists God's plan for human sexuality.
I was elated by the ruling because it does open the door to asking how a candidate would pastor to someone who struggles with same-sex attractions and all forms of broken sexuality. Homosexuality, fornication and adultery are sins according to both the old and new testaments and trying to talk around that is to ignore God's holy word on the subject.
I have great compassion for those who struggle with homosexuality and for those who are caught up in the deceptive belief that they were born that way, that God created them that way and that it can be celebrated. I do not condemn, but must speak the truth in love because there are real consequences, spiritual and emotional, to living in direct disobedience to God.
Sexual sin must be confronted. If a candidate has a scruple with living in chaste singleness or in marital fidelity, how can that be excused? New testament scripture repeatedly denounces fornication. And both Romans and Corinthians makes clear that homosexual behavior is sin. Was Paul mistaken? Did he hear wrong from the Holy Spirit about that? If so, then all he wrote is suspect. Why do so many want to water down the word?
We must uphold the provisions for chastity and fidelity. The world is watching to see if we walk the talk or if we are no different. We must be challenging the immorality of the culture we live in by living to higher and holier standards. It is not intolorent, it is not "holier than thou" to tell the truth as is found in the holy scriptures. God is watching and waiting to see if the church will walk in purity or if it will compromise.
When Israel was ready to enter the promised land, God warned them to not adopt the ways of the peoples and cultures that were currently habitating the land. He knew that it would lead them into unrighteous living. He is calling the church to stand apart from the ways of the culture that gives approval to do as one wants, that has lost its moral compass. We need to be about loving people into wholeness and purity. It begins with the leadership of the church because they are the ones who teach and preach. God holds them to a higher standard, and they will give an accounting to him for what they have taught. That is why it is imperative to ask candidates if they have scruples about that part of the Bood of Order.
In the book of Judges it repeatedly says that in those days people did as they saw right, there was no moral restraint or direction, and they paid for it over and over with God's hand of punishment. They were attacked and placed under the heavy hand of the invaders until they repented and cried out to God for deliverance. In his mercy, he delivered them each time. The church leadership cannot do as they see right apart from the word of God. It is the bedrock, the foundation of righteousness and informs the conscience. Presbyterians may only follow a conscience that has been informed by the uncompromised word of God. Without it, we will just follow the ways of the world that Christ came to redeem.
Pastor Lyn is right in her assessment of the ruling. It is a holy victory for truth and righteousness.
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for your testimony and what is obviously a discerning and convicting review of scripture on the subject of sexual sin. I know your story well and am humbled and informed greatly by it. And I am heartened to know of your subsequent long marriage and deep faith in Christ, who delivered you.
At SBPC, sadly we had a lesbian couple leave NOT because of the lack of grace shown them from me or anyone there. We all loved them, as you know, and they knew it. But the reason they left SBPC was because "the PC(USA)was too liberal on the issue of homosexuality, making it too easy for us..." Clearly, at least, one of the partners, even after 22 years, was conflicted over her lifestyle.This one partner was influenced rather by the information she was reading on line and in the press about the controversies in our denomination over sexuality, and made up her mind from that.
Your story and this one go to show me that pastoring with grace to this is not as easy as validating a gay lifestyle for whatever reason. I believe the church can condemn someone to hopelessness by wholesale validation of sexual behavior that is clearly unbiblical.
It is as I said, humbling to serve the church, to be faithful to the biblical standards of conduct as I interpret them, while keeping an open door to all who might enter by the Holy Spirit. I pray I do not thwart the Spirit's work in them or the church to be transformed.
zolpidem drug ambien 6.25 - ambien and zolpidem the same
generic zolpidem ambien side effects depressed mood - buy cheap zolpidem
buy zolpidem online buy zolpidem tartrate no prescription - generic for zolpidem cr
order ativan online ativan dose - generic for ativan
how to buy xanax online legally xanax pill press - xanax dosage cats
online xanax no prescription xanax dose get high - xanax for sleep
ativan price generic form ativan - ativan vs xanax for flying
xanax buy xanax withdrawal symptoms length - pictures of xanax pills generic
mixing diazepam and lorazepam que es mejor diazepam o tranxilium - diazepam dosage range
xanax online xanax military drug test - xanax zantac
ambien pills ambien withdrawal protocol - ambien cr price walgreens
buy valium online buy valium online uk fast delivery - buy valium online legally uk
buy soma online no prescription soma drug interactions alcohol - soma urine drug screen
ambien for sale online paxil ambien and alcohol - buying ambien online reviews
buy ambien online ambien side effects pregnancy - ambien generic
soma price how to buy somatropin - soma side effects long term
diazepam online online pharmacy europe valium - effects of valium in early pregnancy
Pills To Accelerate Anorexia prednisone medication - prednisone no prescription http://www.prednisone4sale.com/#prednisone-no-prescription
Practical Medicine purchase diflucan online - purchase diflucan no prescription http://www.diflucansaleonline.net/#purchase-diflucan-no-prescription , [url=http://www.diflucansaleonline.net/#purchase-diflucan ]purchase diflucan [/url]
tmd [url=http://www.clomidonlinediscount.net/#buy-clomiphene-online-no-prescription ]order clomiphene [/url] - order clomid no prescription - buy clomid 100mg http://www.clomidonlinediscount.net/#clomid-fertility-drug ,
egy buy cheap clomid online no prescription - cheap clomiphene http://www.costofclomidonline.net/#buy-clomiphene , [url=http://www.costofclomidonline.net/#buy-clomid-online-without-prescription ]clomid drug [/url]
Hello. And Bye. Thank you very much.
Hello. And Bye. Thank you very much.
Hello. And Bye. Thank you very much.
Hello, cheap soma without prescription - order carisoprodol http://www.californiabarattorneysearch.net/#order-carisoprodol , [url=http://www.californiabarattorneysearch.net/#cheap-soma-online-no-prescription ]cheap soma online no prescription [/url]
buy tramadol cod tramadol 50 mg image - tramadol quinidine
buy tramadol online tramadol dosage for people - tramadol withdrawal suboxone
4 Buy Duloxetine - cheap cymbalta no prescription http://www.cymbaltaduloxetineorder.net/#buy-duloxetine, Buy Duloxetine
Post a Comment