Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: I AM DISGUSTED! Message-ID: Date: 7 May 91 04:48:55 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 90 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes: 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!! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I chanted the magic phrase "sit on your hands, Mike" several times, and it doesn't seem to have worked. Have you read the new "very liberal stand"? I have. I was impressed that the authors of the report took the time to seriously investigate some difficult issues rather than to throw catch-phrases and slogans at them. Unfortunately, some people seems to prefer the catch-phrases and slogans. They make life simpler, 'tis true. 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 Well, the Presb (USA) church seems to think it is outdated for they are willing to forget the many passages that speak of homosexuality, premarital sex, etc as a SIN! Ah, it is quite clear that Jennifer has not read the report. Those "many passages" (which are rather few and limited, especially when compared with the "love your neighbor" and "love your fellow-Christian" passages) *were* examined in the report. There was considerable attention paid to them, especially in the section on homosexuality. So, whatever else, no one on that committee ignored or forgot anything. The Bible has not been revised and it does not need to be. Hey, we agree! But then, as a minister of mine once remarked, "I don't need a pope." I don't need a pope, even if it's Paul, or someone's misreading of him. The church in general has already accepted unequally yoked couples and has forgotten the concept of church discipline. The PCUSA has tried to accept all people. We regard it as essential to "[extend] the fellowship of Christ to all persons." As a result, one would be hard pressed to convince the PCUSA not to accept "unequally yoked couples." As for the claim that the PCUSA has forgotten church discipline, it certainly hasn't. It takes it far more seriously than does the average single-congregation fundamentalist church, for it tries to deal responsibly with the individual(s) involved, rather than using broad, offensive, and hate-filled techniques like shunning. It certainly isn't perfect at these two goals, but it is considerably better than many who call themselves Christian. In a time of swiftly changing values and ideals, this is definately a time for the church to stand firm. Indeed. I'd like the see the church take a stand for what is right. A stand for love, and for the expression of God's love to all people. I'd like to see the church discard the reactionary wishes of a few who confuse right-wing American culture with God-willed society. I'd like to see a church which is able to address the needs and concerns of all people rather than identifying "friends" and "enemies" and sheltering the "friends" from the onrushing crowds of immoral "enemies". 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. Golly, if the report is accepted by the General Assembly, I think that would be a remarkable sign that God is at work within the PCUSA. I also think that, if the report is not passed, I will remain, and try to work for justice and love. We don't like to acheive results through threats. Jennifer's final sentence sounds a lot like the Pharisee's comments to Jesus when the *known prostitute* washed his feet with her tears and hair. Jesus was willing to associate with those who were labelled "bad people" by the religious leaders of his day. It's a shame that some still tell us that we should avoid the "bad people" and reject them lest we be "made unclean" by 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. Consider my toes quite thoroughly squashed. I, too, would like to see the tactics of Satan exposed. I would like to see the divisiveness and vindictiveness end. I would like to see a church emerge that effectively spreads the gospel of love instead of the clique-ish false gospel of hate. This is what I pray for. -mib