Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!gatech!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: I AM DISGUSTED! Message-ID: Date: 5 May 91 03:33:22 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 85 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu There has been a lot of talk recently in the media about the Presbyterian Church (USA) and their possible new acceptance of a very liberal stand on sex. If passed, the church will not have qualms about Christians having homosexual relations, sex outside of marriage, premarital sex, etc. This is a disgusting fact!! What does the Bible have to say about this? Well, the Presb (USA) church seems to think it is outdated for they are willing to forget the many passages that speak of homosexuality, premarital sex, etc as a SIN! The Bible has not been revised and it does not need to be. The church in general has already accepted unequally yoked couples and has forgotten the concept of church discipline. In a time of swiftly changing values and ideals, this is definately a time for the church to stand firm. In addition, I feel it is a time for Christians within the PCUSA church to GET OUT if this is passed. You may think that you can make a difference by staying and maybe change it, but when something is passed nationwide, you will only become a part of it in association. My purpose here is not to step on a toes (however, if I stomped, I can not apologize) but to express my disgust for how the church is willing to compromise. May we see the tactics of Satan in this and join in prayer against it. Jennifer Irani irani@brahms.udel.edu [I've now had a chance to look at the report. It takes roughly the following position: The Bible has a number of approaches relevant to sexuality. This includes the Holiness Code in Ex. and Lev., the prophets' emphasis on justice in human behavior, and Paul's call to build Christianity on love rather than law. They claim that a number of current attitudes on sexuality are not derived primarily from the Bible, but from the attitudes of our culture towards the body, male dominance, and considering the nuclear family to be the ultimate value. They say that they are trying to steer a middle course between a secular culture that claims to be advocating freedom while it is actually abandoning responsibilty, and on the other hand a religious tradition that has degenerated into rules that are becoming irrelevant to an increasing fraction of our membership. The question is whether we can find anything between a culture that shouts "YES" and a religious tradition that has nothing more creative to say than "just say no". What they propose is an approach to sexuality that emphasizes responsible choice, taking into account fidelity to commitments, and just relations between the sexes (and between those with power and those who are powerless). While they would remove rules against some things now considered taboo, the concerns they propose also challenge things that are now all too common. They are not quite saying "anything goes", or at least they claim that they do not intend to. The report advocates that Christians need to reclaim passion and an understanding of humans as sexual entities. I find the report (and the associated minority report) very interesting. Note that the PCUSA is already committed to a style of using Scripture that is willing to dismiss some specific rules as being culture-bound. Thus I think the PCUSA is not going to take a position that will be entirely satisfactory to more conservative Christians. The questions that I think the church is going to have to grapple with are (1) whether it is enough to foster responsible decision-making, or whether there are areas in which specific guidance is useful, as an antidote to our tendency to allow passions to overwhelm us. This is of particular concern in dealing with youth. Interestingly enough, there is one area where they call for more specific policies, in connection with pastor's abuse of their role. (2) whether the emphasis on humans as sexual beings has to some extent confused sexuality with being sexually active. To respond to this proposal, the church is going to have to look carefully at the report in some detail. My hope is that we can avoid oversimplifying the issues so that we simply throw slogans at each other. There are a lot of difficult issues posed in the reports, which I'd like to see people come to grips with. Examples are the sexuality of persons with disabilities, and of those with mental incapacity. Note that this report will almost certainly be used as the basis for church-wide study. That is, I'd be very surprised to find the General Assembly voting to accept or reject it. When dealing with major issue, the PCUSA normally attempts to get groups throughout the church to study the issue in detail and make comments. Then further hearings are conducted, and there is an attempt to come up with a position. A lot will depend upon how individual Presbyterians see Scripture applying to sexuality. I really don't know, but I suspect over the next year or two, we'll all find out. --clh]