Less than a week after the unofficial defeat of the repeal of ordination fidelity/chastity standards in the PCUSA, a congregation has already put the matter back on the agenda for 2010, just as I predicted. Northside Presbyterian Church of Ann Arbor, Michigan, in the Presbytery of Detroit, has sent an overture to its presbytery to strike the current wording of G-6.0106.B and replace it with the following:
Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, as revealed in Holy Scripture, striving to follow where He leads through the authoritative 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. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s faithful efforts to adhere to these standards.
This is practically identical to the language that was just defeated:
Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), 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. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.
I’ve highlighted the portions that are different from the 2008 language in bold. The references to the revelation of Scripture and its authoritative witness, and the substitution of “faithfulness” for “sincerity,” strengthen the statement in ways that conservatives could only applaud. But those changes are obviously secondary to the primary purpose of the overture, which is to have the denomination vote on exactly the same subject–ordination of sexually active homosexuals–for the second time in four years. As I’ve said before, proponents of change clearly think that the trends are with them–specifically, more opponents will leave or give in over the next two years–and the result will be victory if they just move fast enough. Anyone who thought that the PCUSA would get a breather from this debate as a result of the defeat of Amendment 8-06b is bound to be disappointed. That’s just not the way church politics work.
(Via Layman Online.)
April 29, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The Spirit must have me in an optimistic mood today. I’m thinking the next GA will not send us another one of these overtures. We’ll see in a year if I’m right or wrong on that.
April 29, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The Satanic deception here is amazing. Replace ordination standards with pious-sounding language about following Jesus, when this is all about legitimizing homosexual activity, adultery, and other sexual immorality that is directly against God’s commands in both the Old and New Testaments.
Satan is nothing if not clever. But Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” John 14:15
April 29, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Woo Hoo. Go us!
Thanks for the shout-out, David!
“The references to the revelation of Scripture and its authoritative witness, and the substitution of “faithfulness” for “sincerity,” strengthen the statement in ways that conservatives could only applaud.”
As the dude responsible for those changes (well, the sincerity -> faithfulness change was our Pastor’s good idea) I’m glad to see you like them.
There was a concern expressed by some that the current language being voted on somehow separated Christ from Scripture. I never really understood that concern, but I hoped that these changes in our new language would answer some of those critiques. See? We actually do listen sometimes.
This is, of course, only the first. There will doubtless be other versions and concurrences.
While I’m sure that there will be several attempts to stall, or form a study committee, or some other delay/divert/distract tactic we’ve seen in recent years at the next GA, I’m hopeful that commissioners will see through those tactics and send another amendment to the presbyteries for their consideration. If we flip even half as many presbyteries next time as we did this time, we’ll win with room to spare.
If not, well, there’s always the next time. It took several tries to get women ordained too, and while I’m sure there were people that thought once was more than enough, it turns out that was a pretty good idea, looking back.
April 29, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Alan: I thought you were a member of that congregation. And suspecting that, I also wondered if you might be behind the changes. I’m not surprised!
April 29, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Gee. Does that mean I’m getting predictable?
April 30, 2009 at 9:21 am
Alan: “It took several tries to get women ordained too, and while I’m sure there were people that thought once was more than enough, it turns out that was a pretty good idea, looking back.”
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church ordains women too. When they look back, I wonder whether they’ll think it was a pretty good idea too.
April 30, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I was “DOWN” when GA passed this amendment in June 2008. I was not surprised when my Presbytery voted to approve the amendment in March 2009 by about a 3-2 margin. So why was I not “UP” when the 87th Presbytery voted against it the end of April 2009?
Because I’m tired!
Tired of all the fighting, posturing, finger wagging, and lecturing, from both sides. I’m tired of all the energy this dang issues sucks out of our congregations— energy which should be spent on practicing and fulfilling the Great Commission.
And if anyone cares to argue that arguing about ordination requirements does fulfill the Great Commission, I’ll tell them to just look at the PCUSA membership numbers.