Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Gay Ordination in the Presbyterian Church Message-ID: Date: 5 Mar 91 04:58:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 86 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 28-Feb-91 Re: Imposing Christian mora.. Dan'l DanehyOakes@pacbel (1538) > Christ also expects us not to judge one another. While I agree with this general statement, I that an important caveat is that we don't fall into a degenerated state, where we are afraid to condemn *actions* which are sinful. While we should not judge individuals, it is necessary to judge actions and behaviors. Along this vein of homosexuality & Christianity, I read in the paper this morning that a special commitee of the Presbyterian Church has announced that it fully supports the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood. In the article, the commitee stated that condemnation of homosexuality was morally equivalent to "racism", and is thus antithetical to Christian morality. The commitee also failed to issue a denunciation of extra-marital sex. Are any Presbyterians out there familiar with this special commitee? How representative is this opinion of the denomination as a whole, and how much influence will it have? It seems like the content of "Christian Morality" is being _editted_ to conform to current ideals of Political Correctness. Does anyone else notice the trend towards PC-Christianity? Are we looking at a change so fundamental, that it will dwarf the Protestant Reformation in terms of alterations to the beliefs and behavior of the faithful? Stephen Chan [This was the General Assembly Special Taskforce on Human Sexuality. A number of its recommendations are uncontroversial, and will probably be acted on rather quickly. However its recommendations on homosexuality (and some other issues) will probably not be voted on directly. Rather, I believe the plan is to prepare study material and have churches study the issues broadly, and then see if a concensus can be developed. Based on reactions in our Presbytery, which is surely one of the most liberal in the country, I'd be very surprised to see a decision at the national level to sanction homosexual activity (though I could conceive of a change that again allows presbyteries to decide based on their evaluation of individual cases -- which is almost certainly what is happening anyway). I am not convinced that a simple change in attitude towards nhomosexuals -- even if it happened -- would be the major change in beliefs that you imply. Note that the Presbyterian Church (USA) already approves (indeed requires) ordination of women. This means we have already decided that we cannot read ethics directly out of Paul's fletters. Given that, I have to regard the objections to homosexuality within the PC(USA) as being based to a large extent on personal distaste rather than Biblical grounds. However some of the langauge used by the committee as justification for its recommendations might have wider consequences. I quote from the News of the Presbyterian Church (USA): "The term 'justice-love' permeates the report. A section of the report on singles says: 'Where there is justice-love, sexual expression has ethical integrity. That moral principle applies to single, as well as to married persons, to gay, lesbian and bisexual persons, as well as to heterosexual persons. The moral norm for Christians ought not to be marriage, but rather justice-love. Rather than inquiring whether sexual activity is premarital, marital, or post-marital, we should be asking whether the relation is responsible, the dynamics genuinely mutual, and the loving full of joyful caing. The line of moral inquiry directs people to things that matter.'" Whether or not this is an error, saying it is giving in to "political correctness" seems to me simply name-calling. There are cultural pressures in all directions. There's a tendency in conservative circles these days to make "the family" a sacred value that sometimes seems to come close to replacing God. There are idols of all kinds calling to the unwary. I think we should do our fellow Christians the courtesy of believing that they are actually considering things from a Biblical point of view, rather than explaining away all disagreement on the assumption that everyone else is giving into cultural influences pointing in their direction, while we of course are operating from pure Christian motivations. I should note that there was a minority report. The vote was 10 to 6 for the majority. While the committee refused to pass on the minority report to the General Assembly, it's clearly going to get there anyway. Both are being distributed by the G.A. offices to interested parties. --clh]