According to the Layman Online, the effort to repeal the fidelity/chastity clause in the PCUSA Book of Order is finished–this time:
The “fidelity/chastity” requirement will remain in The Book of Order, according to the unofficial reports of votes by presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (USA). The April 22 reports raised the number of presbyteries supporting the Biblical ordination standards to 86, the number needed for a majority.
Surprisingly, San Francisco, the last presbytery to report its vote on April 22, was the 86th to reject an amendment to G-6.0106b that would have eliminated the language requiring candidates for ordination to maintain fidelity in their marriages and chastity if single. That language forbade practicing, self-affirming adulterers and homosexuals from being ordained as deacons, elders and ministers.
This would be significant, perhaps, but for the support that San Francisco gave Lisa Larges in her effort to bypass the standards for ordination. I haven’t been able to find anything about the debate in the San Francisco media, but I suspect the vote was a protest from the left–something along the lines of, “we should not only repeal this standard, but anything else in the Book of Order that suggests either ethical or doctrinal standards.” I’ll be happy to be proven wrong about this.
Three other presbyteries also reported their votes April 22. Salem Presbytery in North Carolina voted 156-149-1 in favoring amending the text of G-6.0106b to eliminate the “fidelity/chastity” language. Salem thus became the fourth of five presbyteries in North Carolina to change sides. Previously, the presbyteries of Western North Carolina, Charlotte and New Hope had voted for the amendment. Only the Coastal Carolina Presbytery in North Carolina voted against eliminating the ordination requirement.
The other votes reported April 22 were Wabash Valley, 78-60 in favor of the amendment, and National Capital, 222-102-1 in favor of the amendment. Wabash Valley became the 27th presbytery to switch from supporting “fidelity/chastity” in 2001-02.
Thus the fight on this subject comes to a halt until June of 2010, when the next General Assembly votes to send the same issue back to the presbyteries. It’s very clear what has happened this time around: enough conservatives have quit the denomination to nearly reverse the vote of 2001, when almost 75% of the presbyteries voted to uphold the standards. Advocates for change have got to figure that, with a couple more years behind them, more than enough additional conservatives will have left to make victory easy. In winning this vote, PCUSA evangelicals have only postponed the inevitable. Combine this with the launch of the “investigation” into the EPC, and the implicit threat to lock the barn door and prevent any more dissidents from fleeing, and I’d say a lot of congregations are going to be considering their options a lot more closely in the months ahead.
The Reformed Pastor 
April 22, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Regarding congregations fleeing in the near future, I tend to doubt it. I’m not in the know, but it seems to me that most churches that were serious about assessing their denominational affiliation have already done so, and have made their decision one way or the other. Whatever momentum there was to leave the PCUSA was never a tidal wave. Predictions of a mass exodus were always far greater than what actually happened in terms of denominational shifts.
That’s not to say that additional PCUSA churches won’t leave in the next couple of years – a few probably will. But I think the bulk of churches that were ever really a threat to leave have already done so. The fact is, while there are indeed a good number of evangelicals sitting in PCUSA pews, most of the PCUSA pews that actually have people in them are occupied by moderates who aren’t inclined to get into a range war with their presbytery or Louisville.
Truth be told, I think Louisville understands this, which is why they’re willing to tolerate a slow bleed of defectors as the price of canonizing liberal theology. Now it needs to be said that Louisville has no real plan for either replacing the defectors or strengthening the remnant, which is why they’re dying a slow death. But there isn’t going to be some mass exodus of congregations that cuts the denomination in half, or even a third or a tenth. If something like that was gonna happen, it would’ve happened by now.
April 22, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I think the miscalculation that was made by the Amendment B supporters this year was they made it too broad. By throwing out the entire “fidelity/chastity” requirement, Amendment B not only would have legitimized homosexual activity but also adultery and multiple sexual relationships. I would like to hope that gave some presbyteries pause.
I would also like to hope this finally scared evangelicals in our denomination enough so that they will actually begin to organize and take activism in the church seriously. There’s nothing to say that evangelicals cannot do the same thing that the liberals have done to take control of the denomination, but they have been unwilling to do so and as a result a relatively small group of leftwing activists effectively controls the church.
One of the real problems I have seen is that the voting structure in presbytery unfairly favors the small (and generally liberal, aging and failing) churches over the larger evangelical ones. Thus, in our presbytery, a small church with 50 attenders and perhaps 75 members gets half the number of voting commissioners that my church is entitled to, even though we are twenty times as large. This is one way the debate is controlled by the liberals.
April 22, 2009 at 3:24 pm
My understanding is that San Francisco has never been as supportive as people would imagine, given the stereotype. In fact, that presbytery covers much more than just San Francisco proper, and has several conservative churches in it. So no, it is unlikely that this was the protest you suggest, David.
Of course, work has already begun on introducing a new overture for next time, building on the momentum that was gained this time around.
I happen to know that because our Session just passed one.
April 22, 2009 at 3:32 pm
As for a church schism, or more appropriately the chipping of the church, as I like to call it… There are only a two hundred churches in the New Wineskins movement (about the same number, interestingly enough, as churches in MLP) of that group, which seems to me to consist of those most likely to leave, only a tiny fraction has actually left. I don’t know the actual numbers, but it’s a small, small percentage. Those folks can continue to try to hold the church hostage to their threats of picking up their toys and leaving all because of the gays, but given that most of them haven’t left and seem in no hurry to do so, I think people have rightly come to see those threats as pretty empty.
April 22, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Jason: It has happened. It’s called the OPC and the PCA.
Alan: God have mercy on your Session.
April 23, 2009 at 1:14 am
Jim wrote, “I would also like to hope this finally scared evangelicals in our denomination enough so that they will actually begin to organize and take activism in the church seriously.” Finally? I’m not sure what background you have in the denomination, Jim, but organization and activism among evangelicals has been happening for years.
Were you in the PCUSA after the Syracuse Assembly? More than a thousand evangelical ministers and elders participated in the Presbyterian Coalition’s Gathering II conference. They responded enthusiastically to the call to “Stay Fight Win.” They took activism seriously, and they were organized.
Except for one thing: no one actually defined what it meant to “win.” Some from the grass roots thought it meant a kind of denominational purification, making sure church leaders and programs were supportive of the fidelity/chastity standard. But most of the Coalition leaders had a rather more inclusive/less puritan vision of winning. They wanted to avoid divisive things like heresy trials; they didn’t want to chase anyone out of the church.
That, I think, is why you can see people with lots of years of evangelical activism vigorously defend the PUP consensus as a win-win solution that will keep the church together and (in their view) faithful to the gospel.
The Coalition leaders never seemed to appreciate (as I look back on the years after Syracuse) just how committed the “More Light” activists were and are to purifying the church and its proclamation of the gospel. I don’t know why they thought an ordination standard that was professed in the constitution but not supported and defended through curriculum and other church programs was a stable place for the church to live. People who liked the standard would soon tire of seeing it ignored and flouted. People who disliked the standard would soon tire of having to live in its shadow.
It’s nice to see Alan demonstrating the More Light folk will keep the pot churning. It will be interesting to see how the evangelicals at PFR, PGF, and other folk from the evangelical side react to the vote. Is there a way to “get on with the mission of the church”? Or has this debate become the mission of the church?
April 23, 2009 at 1:52 am
I’ve been a Presbyterian for about 10 years. I’m actually a refugee from the Episcopal Church, which I saw destroyed. I agree with most of your analysis; since it was a similar path in the Episcopal Church. In the Episcopal Church it was basically like slowly turning up the heat until the lobster boiled without it ever knowing it was cooked. Everyone was too nice or too concerned about offending someone to object. First, change the Book of Common Prayer to introduce heretical concepts such as the “Baptismal Covenant” that replaces repentance and turning to Jesus with concepts of “social justice.” Get rid of the 39 Articles of Religion, with its old-fashioned Christian beliefs, and call it merely “an historical document.” Ordain women in violation of the church canons, but say your are doing it for reasons of “justice.” Use the same techniques to mainstream homosexuals into the church, and then into church leadership. Make it uncomfortable enough for the others that they either leave or keep their mouths shut.
April 23, 2009 at 10:11 am
“Alan: God have mercy on your Session.”
Thank you! As the hymn says, “He’s never failed us yet!”
April 23, 2009 at 10:27 am
BTW, not that it probably matters much, but the Layman, never known for accuracy or apparently math skills, is now reporting what we all knew: ie. that a majority of 173 is actually 87, not 86. So the amendment hasn’t been officially defeated yet.
April 23, 2009 at 2:33 pm
FWIW … it is statically impossible for the amendment to pass, period !!
April 23, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Yeah. This time.
April 23, 2009 at 10:38 pm
“It’s very clear what has happened this time around: enough conservatives have quit the denomination to nearly reverse the vote of 2001, when almost 75% of the presbyteries voted to uphold the standards.”
I don’t think this necessarily follows at all, certainly the less than .4 of one percent of congregations who left for other Presby denominations wouldn’t account for it. You could make as credible a case that conservatives made up the swing because they saw the amendment as a broader or comprehensive defense against sins described in Scripture and the Confessions. I could be wrong.
April 24, 2009 at 9:51 am
I’m afraid the schism won’t come until a similar amendment is actually passed. But how many are withholding per capita from PCUSA?
April 24, 2009 at 7:09 pm
I love the “Yeah, this time”. So much for the peace of the church.
I think one of the reasons it received more votes this time was that the amendment was not an out and out removal of the original paragraph; just a replacement.
And the replacement sounded so reasonable, after all, we expect every elected church officer to:
… pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church.
However, this presupposes that each and every church members agrees where Christ leads, and what the standards are.
Presbyweb had an interesting article link today:http://www.christiantoday.com/article/change.is.possible.for.homosexuals.say.psychiatrists/23166.htm
One of the psychiatrists quoted in the article was talking about how they are often portrayed, and they offered this:
“There is a total misuse of the term homophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. If you have a principled disagreement with something, that is not an irrational fear and therefore is not a phobia.”
April 25, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Now it is defeated Praise the Lord!
April 25, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Viola,
Indeed … I just heard the news. The vampire is back in its coffin for another couple of years. But … he’s not dead, just asleep.
April 25, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Not even asleep.
April 25, 2009 at 5:42 pm
And I’m still pretty sure that 87 are required for defeat.
April 26, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Alan,
It was 87 when I wrote that.
April 26, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Not much to celebrate here. The homosexual issue in the PC(USA) is akin to a terminal cancer patient worrying about an impacted tooth. While quite painful and serious it is hardly the real or most insidious problem, but merely a symptom of a much worse disease.
April 26, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Benjamin,
While I agree that the homosexual question is a symptom of a larger disease, disregard for the authority of Scripture and disbelief in just about every area, still there is much to rejoice in. I can still remember reading of a Russia Pastor in the time of communism, saying to brother Andrew, as he received a batch of Bibles that God allowed the Church to advance a little at a time in the Soviet Union.
Not all victories are great victories, that is how we grow in faithfulness in Christ. I rejoice that He has been with us and continues to be. Perhaps he sees something that we do not see. Is that possible : )
April 27, 2009 at 7:17 am
Viola,
While I am happy to see another attempt to flout the clear teaching of the whole counsel of God the Apostle Peter in his second letter (it is only 3 chapters I recommend we all read it) teaches us that sexual licentiousness and general immorality is a symptom of false teaching, not just the false teaching itself. I think the reappearance Arianism, Sabellianism, and other Trinitarian heresies that run rampant in the PC(USA) either from just plain ignorance of how to teach and preach the Trinitarian nature of God or outright denial of God’s nature are much more serious issues that really should be the focus of the renewal groups. Spending all their energy fighting homosexuality is wasting energy fighting a symptom and not the disease itself.
April 27, 2009 at 8:11 am
Gay folks are like terminal cancer and vampires. LOL Someone’s been reading too many tween melodramas.
April 27, 2009 at 8:32 am
More like they are the unfortunate victims of false teachers who through great swelling words of emptiness lead them to destruction and away from the true knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Alluring them through the lusts of the flesh and entangling them in the pollutions of this world for the benefit of the false teachers alone and not for themselves.
April 27, 2009 at 9:17 am
Definitely too many tween melodramas! LOL
I agree Benjamin. Yes, some LGBT people are unfortunate victims of false teachers who through great swelling words of emptiness lead them to destruction. Sadly, too often we see the suicides of these victims. And those who don’t kill themselves are often bashed by the people sitting in the pews next to them, people who have been entangled in the pollutions of this world for the benefit of their false teachers alone.
April 27, 2009 at 9:31 am
Arguments made for the purpose of “shock” value do not persuade me nor should they you. If anything what is driving people who have homosexual desires to hopelessness is people like yourself who deny their sin and deny them the grace and love they need. Homophobes are deceitful sinners as well who should receive shame for their lack of love and care and will receive the just reward of their lawlessness. That is no excuse for hiding the truth from those who need the Gospel.
April 27, 2009 at 9:54 am
I appreciate your amazing confidence in me, Benjamin, but I don’t deny anyone grace.
Grace comes from God, not from me. I’m surprised you don’t know that. But then, perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.
But as for the people who kill themselves? You really think it’s because they’ve found sanctuary in the loving acceptance of a community of believers?
Tell that to Jaheem Bermudez.
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/last_word/2009/04/another-11-year-old-boy-hangs.html
Notice the headline: “Another 11-year-old boy hangs himself after bullying with gay taunts.”
Another.
Yeah, Benjamin, that’s obviously the fault of “people like me.” As a matter of fact I’ve volunteered as a counselor at a local youth program for years and have worked with many gay kids who were suicidal. I haven’t lost one yet. So not only is your suggestion that gay people are the reason gay people are killing themselves outlandishly stupid on its face, it isn’t even factually correct.
The number of those kids whom I’ve talked to who have overdosed on your brand of “truth” would, I hope, perhaps persuade you not to be quite so glib. But probably not.
April 27, 2009 at 10:26 am
Again Alan emotional arguments do nothing for me. Why do you think I would “shocked” into changing my position simply by your pointing to the sad and heart-wrenching effects of a fallen world where the taunting of unbelievers and sinners causes emotional and psychological damage? The link you provided nowhere mentioned that evangelical theologians or that believers were doing the taunting and if they were they should be rebuked and admonished. Maybe you should read the sentence above where I mention “homophobes” and the sin they perpetuate.
Pick up a copy of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs or read about evangelical Christians in South and Southeastern Asia being murdered, beaten, and harassed on a daily basis. Do not be so arrogant to think that only people with homosexual desires are being persecuted by unbelievers and sinners.
April 27, 2009 at 10:32 am
“Do not be so arrogant to think that only people with homosexual desires are being persecuted by unbelievers and sinners.”
I never said they were. Unfortunately, as you demonstrate, it isn’t just unbelievers doing the persecution.
It is too sad when people become so jaded that they’re not shocked by the brutality we see around us. I have no doubt now that “emotional arguments” do nothing for you. More’s the pity.
April 27, 2009 at 10:45 am
I Love those with homosexual desires, which is why when they ask for food I do not give them a serpent. My heart is broken when I see ANY person become so entrapped in their sin that their worldview becomes vexed in such a manner to substitute Truth for a Lie. The whole Earth groans under the weight of sin and is constantly being turned over in a violent and wailing manner because of it.
April 27, 2009 at 10:56 am
“I Love those with homosexual desires”
Heh. Most people wouldn’t be quite so open about it, but frankly I often suspect as much from straight people who seem obsessed with homosexuality. But seriously, there’s a difference between love and hate. Feel free to call whatever it is you do not feel “love” if you wish, Benjamin, but whatever you call it, please stop inflicting it on us.
It’s one thing to say to a 4 year old, “I know what’s best for you, so even if you don’t like it, I’m still doing this out of concern for you.” It’s a far different thing to say such things to grown adults. I believe that most grown adults actually do know the difference between love and hate, particularly when either one is directed at them. Isn’t it curious though, that when “people like you” (to borrow a phrase) believe that, even though the objects of their deep and abiding love continually call that love “hate”, you believe that you know better. Apparently we’re all so deluded and stupid that we don’t know the difference between love and hate when it’s directed at us. Nor are we clever enough to know violence when we see it. Not only are we miserable sinners because we’re gay, you want to make sure we know that we cannot even be responsible for our very own feelings. Not only do you want to control our lives out in the world, you want to dictate our emotional lives as well. Just another step in their continuing attempts to set yourselves up as god.
I’ll make you a deal, Benjamin. Call what you feel to gay people “love” or “hate” or whatever makes you happy. But whatever you call it, just stop inflicting it on us. Do your loving of gay people in the privacy of your own home, won’t you?
http://homepage.mac.com/akiste/iblog/C2076943558/E20090226111059/index.html
April 27, 2009 at 11:08 am
I will continue to pray for you Alan. I will come to embrace Biblical Love and escape from the trap that false teaching has snared you in. Read 2 Peter 2.
April 27, 2009 at 11:10 am
That penultimate sentence should read “I pray you will come to embrace Biblical Love…”.
April 27, 2009 at 11:44 am
Thanks for the prayers, but frankly I wonder if you’re praying for me, or praying against me. Well, I think I can probably guess.
Do you honestly pray for God’s will to be done or your own? And what if His will is being done and you’re just too blind to see it? If there’s one thing I can be reasonably expected to be an expert on, it would be my life. So, Benjamin, believe me when I tell you that God is not listening to your prayers. Or if He is, then He has answered your prayers, and His answer was no.
Embrace Biblical love? Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. It doesn’t say much about Benjamin, though, but I’d say that’s his problem, not mine.
April 27, 2009 at 11:56 am
Why would I pray against you? What motivation would I have for doing so?
Did Christ show Love in his whipping of those who were making an abomination of his Father’s House or was Jesus in sin with his rebuke?
April 27, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Jesus can do what He pleases because He was in the unusual position of always knowing the Truth and always being right.
I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. Benjamin, you’re no Jesus.
April 27, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Of course, Ben never said he was, so why bring up that bugbear ??
April 27, 2009 at 3:27 pm
He’s comparing his actions to Christ’s actions. If he’s making the comparison, then I will too.
I think it’s a silly comparison too, but he’s the one that made it, not me.
April 27, 2009 at 3:44 pm
BTW, totally off topic, but for all of these years, I’d always assumed that Jesus whipped the animals, not the money changers themselves.
John 2:5 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle…
Thus I thought the whip was for the sheep and cattle. Seems to me that Scripture is vague on this point, but apparently some believe that Jesus actually whipped people? Is Jesus whipping people a common interpretation? Based on what?
Just curious.
Anyway, in the context of this meandering discussion about love and hate and violence and rebuke, an example about whipping people is an interesting choice.
April 27, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Now you are just making things up. Where did I compare myself to Christ?
But outside of that canard the point was simply to show that Christ Loved His Father enough and cared about the Holiness of His Father’s House enough to whip the moneylenders and overturn their tables. Do you not believe we are to be “Christ-like” in our life and actions? Should we not care about the same level of Holiness and Righteousness that concerned our Lord and Master? Growing daily in sanctification, bringing our lives in conformity to the Will of God as He has graciously given to us in His Word?
(By the way the John 2:14-15 passage in nearly every other translation besides NRSV and NIV says “with” instead of “both” which doing a quick check of the Greek is more faithful to the Greek. Also Calvin in his commentary notes that Jesus physically drove the moneylenders from the Temple)
April 27, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Oh, I’m not doubting that he drove them out of the temple physically. I think some guy yelling and coming at me carrying a whip, proceeded by a stampede of cattle and sheep, would do the job without any actual whipping needed. 🙂
—-
Anyway as for the rest, if you feel that whipping me to convince me that you’re right and that you love me is going to make you feel better, you go right ahead and try. After all, surely you’ve got plenty of backup in Leviticus 20:13, right?
But I’m not about to call that “love” no matter how much you need to try to convince yourself that it is.
If Jesus, on the other hand, wants to come down and whip me, we’ll I’d say His sacrifice (not to mention His omniscience and perfection) gives Him a certain privilege that you haven’t earned.
Jesus also turned water into wine and walked on water. Care to repeat those? I mean, if you’re Christ-like enough to do things like whip people, then surely you can do the other ones too? Get those right and you might have a better chance convincing me that you have the perfect knowledge, authority, and understanding to start the whippings. Until then, I hope you won’t mind if I consider your arrogance just one more obvious indication of your imperfection, fallenness, and participation in total depravity.
Or to put all that more simply, I don’t think that the totally depraved ought to be quite so quick and eager with the whip. And calling it “love”? Feh. Remind me to avoid your house around a holiday.
April 27, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Yet again you miss the point and you also fail yet again to understand what God means by Love and Compassion. I do pray earnestly for you Alan.
April 28, 2009 at 7:34 am
No, I get your point. I just don’t agree. I knew that from the start, didn’t you?
I find it amazing that a random, complete stranger presumes to tell me what I do and do not understand about God’s love and compassion. I’ll give your concerns all the consideration they deserve. I do understand God’s love and compassion, the difference between us is that I know the difference between His love, and what some people attempt to rationalize as “love.” Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t agree with God. The two aren’t the same.
But I’m always grateful for prayers, of whatever sort.
April 28, 2009 at 7:49 am
Benjamin,
Do you have any evidence that Alan follows false teachers (regards your reference to 2 Peter 2)?
It has always been my observation that Alan is a staunch Reformed, Bible studying, Calvinist, Solas Scriptura and all that. So if you have any evidence otherwise, I wish you would present it, otherwise it just looks to me like you are being slanderous.
It seems to me that it would be far better to try to understand what it is that so many Bible believing, Calvinist Christians see in the Bible that leads them to conclusions that differ from your own.