It turns out that the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s decision to overturn 2000 years of Christian teaching and permit the ordination of sexually active gays is having repercussions beyond the borders of the United States. The National Presbyterian Church of Mexico, which was founded by an ancestor of the PCUSA in the 19th century, has filed for divorce, according to the Presbyterian Outlook:
The National Presbyterian Church of Mexico (known as INPM) has voted to end its 139-year partnership in mission with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in response to the PC(USA)’s decision earlier this year to allow the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians.
That decision to sever the relationship came on a 116 to 22 vote of the Mexican church assembly on Aug. 19. It likely will jeopardize the continuation of the work that 11 PC(USA) mission co-workers have been doing in Mexico – including significant work along the U.S.-Mexican border – as well as the future of short-term congregational mission trips to Mexico and more than two-dozen partnerships that PC(USA) presbyteries and synods have established in Mexico.
In meetings before the assembly, PCUSA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons and colleagues tried the old line about how we can be in mission together even when we don’t agree on their Mexican brethren, who would have none of it:
On Aug. 16, several representatives of the PC(USA) – including Gradye Parsons, the denomination’s stated clerk, and Hunter Farrell, director of World Mission – went to Mexico to meet with 11 leaders of the Mexican church and to discuss the Mexicans’ unhappiness and theological disagreement with the decision on 10-A.
“The discussion was frank and honest,” Farrell wrote in an e-mail following that meeting. “The disappointment of the Mexican church was expressed.”
The PC(USA) representatives asked their Mexican partners to agree to a time of discernment, in part to see how they could continue to work together in mission despite differing views over issues such as ordaining gays and lesbians, or women’s ordination.
“Despite the significant theological differences that 10-A puts between our churches, the mission context of increasing violence on our borders, the precarious situation of the poor in both nations, and our own church’s need for the INPM’s help in sharing the Gospel with Spanish-speakers in the U.S. cries out for prayerful strategizing and increased mission collaboration,” Farrell wrote after that meeting. “The truth is we need each other now more than ever.”
That’s not how the Mexicans see it. I suspect they were of the opinion that joint mission is meaningless (or at best becomes just mutual humanitarianism) if the two churches can’t agree on even the most basic issues of Christian faith and practice. In fact, according to the Outlook, they included a provision in their action that prohibits the restoration of the relationship until the PCUSA repents and repeals the new Book of Order provision that lifts the ban on ordaining non-celibate homosexuals.
The PCUSA has in effect chosen schism as well as heresy by passing Amendment 10-A. The denomination will just have to learn to live in the tiny ghetto it has moved into, along with the other dying mainline American churches.
August 22, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Dear David Fischler,
This comment is about your stupid comment left at GetRelgion.org. …[snip]
As to your article on the upcoming Presbyterian schism, I welcome it. I think bigoted people should leave the denomination and form their own. I prefer more light and less heat.
August 22, 2011 at 6:39 pm
That …[snip] is me editing your comment. If you want to respond to what I said at GetReligion, do it there.
As for the rest of your comment, applying the word “bigot” to those who disagree with you says all I need to know about your agenda. Name-calling instead of argument. Please take your “inclusiveness” elsewhere.
August 22, 2011 at 6:56 pm
So why exactly does the PCUSA want a relationship with the INPM if they disagree on fundamental issues? What purpose could be served?
August 22, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Now I’m curious – which article at Get Religion did you comment on, David?
August 22, 2011 at 9:36 pm
This one. Let me know what you think of it if you head over there.
August 23, 2011 at 7:28 am
Anyone who defends the religious right the way you do in the GR post tells me all I need to know about whether he or she is a bigot. Get over it.
August 23, 2011 at 7:32 am
Right, Jay. Whatever you say.
August 23, 2011 at 7:46 am
Seemed pretty innocuous to me.
August 23, 2011 at 4:08 pm
As a prominent PC(USA) pastor taught in a class I recently attended, every last human being on earth is a bigot…though he was speaking in a racial sense. If you look at Webster, it says a bigot is “one who stubbornly or intolerantly adheres to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” When it comes to the essentials of Christian theology, I am a bigot. So sue me. ^_^
August 23, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Jason’s comment reminds me of something funny I have heard before…paraphrased:
You see, David, we live in a liberal, democratic society. And liberals determine who is a bigot. Once you are labeled as a bigot, they are compelled by their righteous beliefs to be intolerant and you will get nothing but animosity.
You might ask, “Isn’t that bigotry too?”
No, because liberals don’t call that bigotry.
Do you understand?
August 23, 2011 at 6:49 pm
All too well, Phil. All too well.
August 24, 2011 at 7:41 am
Also notice this part of the article. Major League Amen to this vote as well.
“The Mexican church, with close to two million members, held a special assembly Aug. 17-19 specifically to discuss the ordination of women – voting overwhelmingly, by a margin of 158 to 14, to sustain its policy of not ordaining women. The assembly also voted 103 to 55 not to allow any sort of grace period for presbyteries that had, on their own, already begun ordaining women. That vote means that any presbytery which has already ordained women must immediately revoke those ordinations.”
August 24, 2011 at 7:58 am
By the way the comments after the article are priceless and show how necessarily paternalistic liberalism is.
August 25, 2011 at 2:59 am
“The Mexican church, with close to two million members, held a special assembly Aug. 17-19 specifically to discuss the ordination of women – voting overwhelmingly, by a margin of 158 to 14, to sustain its policy of not ordaining women. The assembly also voted 103 to 55 not to allow any sort of grace period for presbyteries that had, on their own, already begun ordaining women. That vote means that any presbytery which has already ordained women must immediately revoke those ordinations.”
Yes, Mr. Glaser. That certainly deserves a major-league amen.
That’s a kick in the posterior to what the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has done.
August 25, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Since your comment at GetReligion quoted Schaeffer extensively in support of your opinion, I don’t see what’s wrong with it.
Name-calling (“bigot”) is a sign of people who don’t want to discuss the underlying issues.
As to the Mexican Presbyterians, it’s nice to see people who have principles and understand the consequences of their principles.
August 26, 2011 at 12:29 pm
A: “You’re a bigot!”
B: “You called me a name. I don’t like being called that name. Other people might repeat what you said and start to believe that I’m a bigot. My reputation will suffer. I don’t want to be known as a bigot.
If I stop saying that same-sex acts are sin and if I go quiet about same-sex marriage becoming the law in our state, will you stop calling me a bigot?
It really matters to me what people think and say about me. So if I do what I said before, will you promise not to call me bigot or any other epithet that will get me into trouble with other liberals and moderates?”
A: “Yes. What you’re offering is a good first step in repenting of bigotry. In fact, what you’re promising to do is so Christian of you, that I’ll buy you two rounds at the St. Louis Cardinals and Rams Sports bar so that we can continue this splendid conversation.”
B: “Thanks! Talking about something until I give in always makes me feel good.”
A: “Indaba-daba-do!”
February 28, 2013 at 10:56 am
[...] Consequences [...]