Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: dconnor@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Daren Connor) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Gay Ordination in the Presbyterian Church Message-ID: Date: 8 Mar 91 06:27:15 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Lines: 95 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I occasionally attend a Presbyterian church here in the San Francisco bay area, and last Sunday the head minister set aside a few minutes to mention this subject. His main points were that a) since the report did not represent the majority views of Presbyterians (as evidenced by a recent poll), this motion (or declaration or whatever it is exactly) is very unlikely to pass, and b) in the unexpected event that it did pass, he assured the congregation that it would be ignored at THIS particular church (presumeably because it did not represent the majority views there). He also promised a couple sermons addressing the issues in the future. Apparently several members had mentioned the report to him and were concerned that the church might be affected by its passing. He seemed to want to assure them that they would stick to their Biblically-based doctrine and not cave in to the pressures of this group. I take issue with the moderator's remarks in the basenote. Paul's writings in the new testament are not the only portions of scripture that condemn sexual immorality and homosexuality, so by saying that the Presbyterian church threw out his teaching on womens' role in the church means they should accept homosexual practices is banal (not to mention the fact that many people don't agree that what he teaches there means that women may not have such a role in church in the first place). Though "political correctness" may not be quite the right term, I don't believe it's far off. I think what we're seeing, in general, is a lot of pressures on churches to bend to the man's selfish wants, which are constantly inflamed by the media. How much of the time do we have shoved down our throats the message that "sex-is-ok-if-you-really-love-the-person"? You are almost ridiculed in many social circles if you hold those "antiquated views" about wanting to reserve your sexuality for the boundaries of marriage, even though we have examples all around us (unwanted pregnancies, AIDS, etc) of the consequences of not following this teaching. Of course, this is not to say that marriage is any panacea; I think we're all aware by now of the incredible struggles there are in any marriage. So even though "pc" may be ill-fitting, it's probably the closest term we've got so far. - Daren Connor [Sorry if I said something unclear. I was not attempting to give an argument for acceptance of homosexuality. In fact I believe one can formulate grounds for accepting ordination of women and while still not accepting ordination of homosexuals. My response was to the claim that acceptance of homosexuals would have great and farreaching effects on the PC(USA). My comments were intended strictly to inform people about the detailed situation within the PC(USA), which I believe is such that allowing ordination of homosexuals would not be the revolution in that church that it would be, e.g., if the Southern Baptist Convention adopted such a change. First, as to any theological implications: As far as I can tell, the primary difference in Protestant churches today is in how they use Scripture. In deciding to ordain women, the PC(USA) has already crossed the line. Thus I don't believe ordination of homosexuals alone would indicate any change in the basic attitude towards Scripture that hasn't already been made. I do not mean to imply that the current stand forces us to ordain homosexuals, just that if we decide to ordain them, we already have at hand the necessary types of arguments, and so we will not need to make majors changes in our approach to Scripture to do so. Second, as to any practical effects: The current stand on homosexuals is murkier than many may realize, and officially accepting them for ordination may not be as much of a change as it sounds. In the Presbyterian system, decisions on ordination of pastors lie primarily with the presbyteries, and decisions on ordination of ruling elders lie primarily with the session. Higher bodies can intervene if they wish, but it's unusual. Under the current policy, those presbyteries or sessions that do not see it as a problem are unlikely to raise the issue with candidates, except in extreme circumstances. As far as I know, the current policy, while stating that ordination of homosexuals is not correct, does not allow one to challenge someone who is already ordained on the grounds that he is a homosexual. (I seem to recall a "no witch-hunts" provision.) It also includes language saying that we oppose "homophobia". If the policy changes, it's unlikely that it will change far enough to force presbyteries or sessions to ordain homosexuals if they don't want to. It will more likely simply allow them to make decisions based on their assessment of the individual, which I suspect is what is happening anyway. Finally, any effect on broader questions of sexual ethics would depend strongly on the arguments used and what other changes on sexual issues are "packaged" with any change in approach to homosexuals. As I commented originally, if all of the analysis in the report is accepted (and if the summary I've seen is representative of the whole document) that *would* be a major change. However if we wanted to allow ordination of homosexuals without making any other changes in sexual ethics, we would simply rescind the current policy, and say that we trust the individual church bodies to apply proper Biblical criteria for choosing officers. Then those who already believe homosexuality is acceptable -- and there certainly are such within our church -- would proceed and those who don't wouldn't. Again, these comments are not intended to advocate one result or the other, just to try to clarify the current situation within the PC(USA). --clh]