If a Biblically and Confessionally Orthodox Presbytery (BACOP) seeks to distance itself clearly from presbyteries that choose to ordain Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) it could take any number of extra-constitutional actions, depending on how the constitutional crisis plays itself out.
One option is to nullify any unbiblical actions with which the BACOP disagrees. Beaver-Butler Presbytery, for example, has already nullified an action of the General Assembly. On July 28, 2009, it declared the following as part of its “Open Theological Declaration to the PC(USA):”
“We will not be governed by the Authoritative Interpretation adopted by the 218th General Assembly because it is constitutionally, biblically, and judicially unsustainable. This interpretation cannot change the plain meaning of the Constitution, which still holds full force and effect in Beaver-Butler Presbytery.”
The full text of the Declaration can be found here:
http://www.layman.org/Files/Theo%20%20Declaration%20Final.pdf
If the language of the current constitution were not to be changed by amendment, but if the GAPJC were to allow congregations and presbyteries to ordain SAPHAs anyway, a BACOP could take a similar sort of action. The BACOP could nullify the acts of governing bodies with which it disagrees, declaring such acts to be of no force or effect within the BACOP’s bounds.
A more extreme alternative would be for the BACOP to anathematize congregations or presbyteries that ordain SAPHAs, declaring those governing bodies no longer to be organizational expressions of the true Church.
Both nullification and anathematization would make it clear that the BACOP is not in any way in agreement with ordinations it understands to be immoral or unconstitutional. Both actions would thus solve the worst of the moral dilemmas caused by local option – that of appearing to approve of the proclamation of a false gospel.
There are, however, many problems with both of these tactics. Anathematization would practically be very difficult – for how would any BACOP know whether another presbytery has in fact ordained a SAPHA? No one wants to condemn someone else based purely on hearsay or gossip, and there would be no meaningful way to conduct hearings on the matter, since the ordination would by definition be outside the BACOP’s jurisdiction.
The main problem with nullification is that it would have little practical effect – after all, the BACOP would have no power actually to undo the actions it would be nullifying. This means that the ordination of SAPHAs would continue within the PCUSA, no matter what any BACOP might say or do. The BACOP would still be legally implicated in those actions, as long as G-9.0103 remains in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.”
Moreover, given the ability of higher governing bodies to overturn the actions of the governing bodies immediately below them, no extra-constitutional actions are likely to stand. Statements of nullification or anathematization could be, and probably would be, quickly overturned. Such extra-constitutional statements might also encourage Synods to appoint administrative commissions to prevent such irregular actions in the future.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sorting Ourselves Out - More Flexible Presbyteries
By this point, it should be obvious that it is not possible for Presbyterians who have different views on the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) to remain in full ecclesiastical communion. And yet it cannot be denied that people who hold mutually exclusive positions on this question do remain within every presbytery of the PCUSA.
One solution to this problem has been presented to the 219th General Assembly by Beaver-Butler Presbytery. Overture 45 can be found here:
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2339
The main point of this overture is to allow congregations to sort themselves out into presbyteries in which they can “express shared, deeply held convictions.” The intention is admirable, and would be most helpful for a few congregations that find themselves at odds with the clear majority of their presbytery. According to this overture, such minority congregations could decide to join another, more theologically compatible presbytery, even if that presbytery were not geographically contiguous, as long as that other presbytery were “within one day’s reasonable travel.”
This is, of course, not as radical a change as it sounds. The PCUSA already has several non-geographic presbyteries, membership in which is defined along linguistic or cultural lines. Beaver-Butler’s idea would simply extend this idea to include theological affinity along with racial-ethnic affinity.
The idea also takes into account the relational revolution we are all experiencing with the advent of the internet. With conference calls and social-networking sites so inexpensive and available, it simply makes no sense to insist that geography be the exclusive determinant of political unity.
Unfortunately, however, the Beaver-Butler proposal cannot be seen as the final solution to the PCUSA’s problems, for it would leave G-9.0103 in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as SAPHA-ordaining presbyteries remain within the PCUSA, even those presbyteries which self-consciously and publicly reject the ordination of SAPHAs would be implicated in their actions. Sorting congregations into more homogeneous presbyteries could thus only be seen as an intermediate step towards a more radical separation.
One solution to this problem has been presented to the 219th General Assembly by Beaver-Butler Presbytery. Overture 45 can be found here:
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2339
The main point of this overture is to allow congregations to sort themselves out into presbyteries in which they can “express shared, deeply held convictions.” The intention is admirable, and would be most helpful for a few congregations that find themselves at odds with the clear majority of their presbytery. According to this overture, such minority congregations could decide to join another, more theologically compatible presbytery, even if that presbytery were not geographically contiguous, as long as that other presbytery were “within one day’s reasonable travel.”
This is, of course, not as radical a change as it sounds. The PCUSA already has several non-geographic presbyteries, membership in which is defined along linguistic or cultural lines. Beaver-Butler’s idea would simply extend this idea to include theological affinity along with racial-ethnic affinity.
The idea also takes into account the relational revolution we are all experiencing with the advent of the internet. With conference calls and social-networking sites so inexpensive and available, it simply makes no sense to insist that geography be the exclusive determinant of political unity.
Unfortunately, however, the Beaver-Butler proposal cannot be seen as the final solution to the PCUSA’s problems, for it would leave G-9.0103 in the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as SAPHA-ordaining presbyteries remain within the PCUSA, even those presbyteries which self-consciously and publicly reject the ordination of SAPHAs would be implicated in their actions. Sorting congregations into more homogeneous presbyteries could thus only be seen as an intermediate step towards a more radical separation.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The New Synod Option
Some Biblically orthodox Presbyterians, including Presbyterians for Renewal, are advocating for some sort of New Synod model. The Presbytery of Santa Barbara has submitted such a proposal to the 219th General Assembly. You can find the Santa Barbara proposal here:
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2321
This idea would leave the congregations that favor the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) within the current system of presbyteries and synods. Those presbyteries and congregations that object to the ordination of SAPHAs would be allowed to withdraw into a New Synod. All the synods and presbyteries would remain within the PCUSA, and thus continue to use the resources of the Board of Pensions.
This proposal has been advanced with the best of intentions, and its proponents are truly trying to find a way for Presbyterians to live together in the midst of our current constitutional chaos. If such a solution were to be adopted it would, nevertheless, be a pyrrhic victory for Biblically Orthodox Presbyterians.
In order for this proposal to provide relief of conscience for its members, the presbyteries of the New Synod would have to deny the validity of any ordinations that took place in the rest of the synods. This would not be possible, even if the Santa Barbara proposal were adopted, because G-9.0103 would remain within the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as the New Synod remains within the PCUSA, it would thus continue to state, by its actions if not by its words, that ordinations of SAPHAs, even if done by other congregations or presbyteries, would be done in the name of the New Synod.
At the very least, the presbyteries of the New Synod would have to accept ministers from presbyteries in the other synods only after examining them as if they were coming from a completely different denomination. The New Synod model would therefore require the de facto if not the de jure division of the PCUSA into two distinct churches.
In addition, the result envisioned by the New Synod proposal would practically be very difficult to achieve. Many Presbyterian congregations are not of one mind concerning the ordination of SAPHAs, so, in order to provide relief for their consciences, individual members would be required to shift their membership to congregations that held their opinions. While this might be possible in urban areas with many different Presbyterian congregations, many rural areas are only served by one congregation. What option would dissenting members of those congregations have? Into which presbytery and synod would they go?
Because the New Synod model would allow congregations to withdraw from existing presbyteries to join presbyteries within the bounds of the New Synod, this proposal could result in a greater number of smaller and weaker presbyteries, which would necessarily have more difficulty maintaining their programs and supporting their budgets. On the other hand, if presbyteries were to maintain a healthy number of members, they would have to be geographically larger, and thus more dispersed. They would thus provide less intimate fellowship and accountability for their congregations.
Finally, the New-Synod Model would doom Biblically Orthodox Presbyterians to political irrelevance. By concentrating orthodox congregations within a small number of presbyteries, the rest of the presbyteries would fall increasingly under the sway of those who favor the ordination of SAPHAs. Those presbyteries would increasingly outvote the presbyteries of the New Synod at future General Assemblies.
A similar scenario has worked itself out within the politics of the United States, as African Americans cooperated with Republicans to create congressional districts with large concentrations of blacks throughout the South. While this did create more opportunities for black candidates to be elected to congress, it also concentrated many potential Democratic voters into a few districts. Because of the concentration of their opponents, Republicans found it much easier to win election in other Southern districts, and the region which had once been solidly Democratic shifted rather quickly to Republican dominance. Black Democrats gained purer districts, but by doing so, they ensured the victory of their opponents.
Retreating into the ghetto has never been a good political tactic.
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=2321
This idea would leave the congregations that favor the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) within the current system of presbyteries and synods. Those presbyteries and congregations that object to the ordination of SAPHAs would be allowed to withdraw into a New Synod. All the synods and presbyteries would remain within the PCUSA, and thus continue to use the resources of the Board of Pensions.
This proposal has been advanced with the best of intentions, and its proponents are truly trying to find a way for Presbyterians to live together in the midst of our current constitutional chaos. If such a solution were to be adopted it would, nevertheless, be a pyrrhic victory for Biblically Orthodox Presbyterians.
In order for this proposal to provide relief of conscience for its members, the presbyteries of the New Synod would have to deny the validity of any ordinations that took place in the rest of the synods. This would not be possible, even if the Santa Barbara proposal were adopted, because G-9.0103 would remain within the Book of Order: “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” As long as the New Synod remains within the PCUSA, it would thus continue to state, by its actions if not by its words, that ordinations of SAPHAs, even if done by other congregations or presbyteries, would be done in the name of the New Synod.
At the very least, the presbyteries of the New Synod would have to accept ministers from presbyteries in the other synods only after examining them as if they were coming from a completely different denomination. The New Synod model would therefore require the de facto if not the de jure division of the PCUSA into two distinct churches.
In addition, the result envisioned by the New Synod proposal would practically be very difficult to achieve. Many Presbyterian congregations are not of one mind concerning the ordination of SAPHAs, so, in order to provide relief for their consciences, individual members would be required to shift their membership to congregations that held their opinions. While this might be possible in urban areas with many different Presbyterian congregations, many rural areas are only served by one congregation. What option would dissenting members of those congregations have? Into which presbytery and synod would they go?
Because the New Synod model would allow congregations to withdraw from existing presbyteries to join presbyteries within the bounds of the New Synod, this proposal could result in a greater number of smaller and weaker presbyteries, which would necessarily have more difficulty maintaining their programs and supporting their budgets. On the other hand, if presbyteries were to maintain a healthy number of members, they would have to be geographically larger, and thus more dispersed. They would thus provide less intimate fellowship and accountability for their congregations.
Finally, the New-Synod Model would doom Biblically Orthodox Presbyterians to political irrelevance. By concentrating orthodox congregations within a small number of presbyteries, the rest of the presbyteries would fall increasingly under the sway of those who favor the ordination of SAPHAs. Those presbyteries would increasingly outvote the presbyteries of the New Synod at future General Assemblies.
A similar scenario has worked itself out within the politics of the United States, as African Americans cooperated with Republicans to create congressional districts with large concentrations of blacks throughout the South. While this did create more opportunities for black candidates to be elected to congress, it also concentrated many potential Democratic voters into a few districts. Because of the concentration of their opponents, Republicans found it much easier to win election in other Southern districts, and the region which had once been solidly Democratic shifted rather quickly to Republican dominance. Black Democrats gained purer districts, but by doing so, they ensured the victory of their opponents.
Retreating into the ghetto has never been a good political tactic.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Given Local Option, What Can the Faithful Do?
So, what can a Biblically and Confessionally Orthodox Presbytery (BACOP) do if the PCUSA allows local option, which means that other presbyteries within the PCUSA begin legally to ordain Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs)? Some possible responses would only serve to strengthen the concept of local option.
For example, a BACOP could state that it will no longer be in full fellowship with SAPHA- Ordaining Presbyteries (SOPs). This would in effect mean that a candidate or minister from a SOP would be examined more strictly, perhaps as if he or she were transferring from another denomination. But this is exactly what local option allows. Local option already recognizes the right of every presbytery to examine its members in whatever way it sees fit. To affirm this principle of local option while remaining in fellowship with unorthodox presbyteries would continue to tar the BACOP with the brush of their heresy.
Other potential responses would not currently be allowed by the constitution. In the main, Bush v. Pittsburgh was good news for orthodox Presbyterians, as we have seen. Bush says that every constitutional standard has to be followed, and thus that no presbytery or session can allow candidates to be exempt from any behavioral requirement in the Book of Order. But because of this, Bush also says that presbyteries and sessions can’t say ahead of time that they will in fact enforce certain parts of the constitution: “Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions.” This is because, according to Bush, such restatements imply that specific standards can, in fact, be neglected or ignored. And so, Bush requires the standards of the church to be applied to candidates only on a case-by-case basis. The bottom line is this: Bush prevents orthodox presbyteries from stating ahead of time that they will not allow any exceptions to G-6.0106b. It is thus no longer possible for any BACOP to build a firewall around itself, saying that it will not allow SAPHAs to be ordained within its bounds.
For example, a BACOP could state that it will no longer be in full fellowship with SAPHA- Ordaining Presbyteries (SOPs). This would in effect mean that a candidate or minister from a SOP would be examined more strictly, perhaps as if he or she were transferring from another denomination. But this is exactly what local option allows. Local option already recognizes the right of every presbytery to examine its members in whatever way it sees fit. To affirm this principle of local option while remaining in fellowship with unorthodox presbyteries would continue to tar the BACOP with the brush of their heresy.
Other potential responses would not currently be allowed by the constitution. In the main, Bush v. Pittsburgh was good news for orthodox Presbyterians, as we have seen. Bush says that every constitutional standard has to be followed, and thus that no presbytery or session can allow candidates to be exempt from any behavioral requirement in the Book of Order. But because of this, Bush also says that presbyteries and sessions can’t say ahead of time that they will in fact enforce certain parts of the constitution: “Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions.” This is because, according to Bush, such restatements imply that specific standards can, in fact, be neglected or ignored. And so, Bush requires the standards of the church to be applied to candidates only on a case-by-case basis. The bottom line is this: Bush prevents orthodox presbyteries from stating ahead of time that they will not allow any exceptions to G-6.0106b. It is thus no longer possible for any BACOP to build a firewall around itself, saying that it will not allow SAPHAs to be ordained within its bounds.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Local Option is Suicidal for the Church
The question of ordaining Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) is one of the few historical instances in which theological purity, ecumenical outreach, and practical self-interest happen to coincide. For the fact is that, according to the teachings of the Bible from cover to cover, it has never been God’s will that people should give themselves over to whatever sexual urges they have. From Moses to Jesus, legitimate sexual activity has always been exclusively confined within the bonds of marriage. And from the days of Adam and Eve, marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman for one lifetime. This standard has been upheld first by the Jews and then by the Christian Church as long as history has been written.
Moreover, it is a standard that is embraced by the vast majority of Christians all over the world today. Those who call themselves Christians but who abandon such a divine, universal standard thus cut themselves off from the witness of the Church throughout both space and time. Practically speaking, governing bodies that ordain SAPHAs risk losing whatever ties they have to international partners.
Finally, sessions that choose to ordain SAPHAs would be placing severe limits on the potential growth of their congregations. Parents with young children would be unlikely to expose them to people who endorse perversion. Meanwhile, biological fact would dictate that people who engage in homosexual activity are much less likely to have any children of their own. By cutting itself off from a principal method of congregational growth, a session that ordains SAPHAs would be giving itself a death sentence.
In sum, a church that embraces sexual perversion as a moral good must and should wither away, cut off as it is from God’s truth, from the Apostolic Church, and from healthy human society.
Moreover, it is a standard that is embraced by the vast majority of Christians all over the world today. Those who call themselves Christians but who abandon such a divine, universal standard thus cut themselves off from the witness of the Church throughout both space and time. Practically speaking, governing bodies that ordain SAPHAs risk losing whatever ties they have to international partners.
Finally, sessions that choose to ordain SAPHAs would be placing severe limits on the potential growth of their congregations. Parents with young children would be unlikely to expose them to people who endorse perversion. Meanwhile, biological fact would dictate that people who engage in homosexual activity are much less likely to have any children of their own. By cutting itself off from a principal method of congregational growth, a session that ordains SAPHAs would be giving itself a death sentence.
In sum, a church that embraces sexual perversion as a moral good must and should wither away, cut off as it is from God’s truth, from the Apostolic Church, and from healthy human society.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Local Option Brings Scandal on the Church
So, what should be done if local option does come to pass, and Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) are legally allowed to be ordained in the PCUSA? Given the political, theological, and ecclesiastical problems inherent in local option, it is simply impossible for any Biblically orthodox Presbyterian, any congregation or any presbytery to tolerate it. For a Biblically and Confessionally Orthodox Presbytery (BACOP) to remain in full fellowship with SAPHA-ordaining presbyteries (SOPs) would be for the BACOP to be in league with a false church, and thus to compromise the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Why is that? First for political reasons. G-9.0103 makes clear the political problem: “All governing bodies of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” In short, for a BACOP to remain in fellowship with a SOP would be for the BACOP to state that it approves of the things the SOP does. Unless the BACOP can somehow strongly and publically distance itself from the actions of the SOP, people both within and without the church will believe that it agrees with the SOP, and thus that the BACOP is also proclaiming the false gospel that the SOP preaches.
We must not deceive ourselves: denominational labels speak, and sometimes very loudly. For better or worse, the many different Presbyterian denominations are known for what makes them different, not for what they hold in common. The PCA and the OPC are known as the denominations that don’t ordain women. The EPC is known as the denomination that allows sessions and presbyteries to decide for themselves whether to ordain women. With the adoption of local option, the PCUSA will become known as the denomination that ordains SAPHAs. And without somehow distancing itself from the rest of the denomination, every BACOP will be implicated in that scandal.
Why is that? First for political reasons. G-9.0103 makes clear the political problem: “All governing bodies of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” In short, for a BACOP to remain in fellowship with a SOP would be for the BACOP to state that it approves of the things the SOP does. Unless the BACOP can somehow strongly and publically distance itself from the actions of the SOP, people both within and without the church will believe that it agrees with the SOP, and thus that the BACOP is also proclaiming the false gospel that the SOP preaches.
We must not deceive ourselves: denominational labels speak, and sometimes very loudly. For better or worse, the many different Presbyterian denominations are known for what makes them different, not for what they hold in common. The PCA and the OPC are known as the denominations that don’t ordain women. The EPC is known as the denomination that allows sessions and presbyteries to decide for themselves whether to ordain women. With the adoption of local option, the PCUSA will become known as the denomination that ordains SAPHAs. And without somehow distancing itself from the rest of the denomination, every BACOP will be implicated in that scandal.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Local Option means the PCUSA no longer proclaims the true Gospel
When a Self-Acknowledged Practitioner of Homosexual Acts (SAPHA) seeks ordination, he or she is not just unqualified. He or she is by definition stating that homosexual acts are not sinful. Another way of saying this is that he or she is proclaiming wickedness to be righteous. Isaiah took a very dim view of such statements: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21)
But the SAPHA’s proclamation of a false gospel doesn’t end with his or her ordination. Each SAPHA by actions if not by words continues to proclaim that perversion is not perverse, and that sin is not sin. At the very least, by claiming to be unable to control his or her sexual behavior, the SAPHA casts doubt on all Biblical regulations concerning such behavior, including the most fundamental of all: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Since impressionable young people are most likely to believe such spoken and unspoken messages, and thereby to be led into sexual sin themselves, ordained SAPHAs should pay special attention to these words of Jesus: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)
But Jesus’ warning isn’t just for the SAPHAs who are ordained – it extends to every governing body that ordains a SAPHA. This is because the act of ordination is also a form of communication. By laying hands on someone, the ordaining body is saying, “We approve of this person and his or her ministry. This person speaks for us.” And so, by ordaining a SAPHA, a session or presbytery is agreeing with him or her that it is not necessary for the SAPHA to repent of sin. The ordaining body is thus agreeing that sin is not sin.
Moreover, given that homosexual acts are in fact sinful, and given that the ordaining body is not in fact requiring the SAPHA to repent of them, the ordaining body is by its action stating that repentance is not required for sin. And if the ordaining body fails to require the SAPHA to repent because the ordaining body believes that “homosexuality” is an innate human characteristic, the ordaining body is also denying the real possibility of sanctification, of the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives, bringing real change and growth in holiness.
Any governing body that ordains SAPHAs or approves of their ordination thus proclaims wickedness to be righteous. It denies the need for repentance. It denies the possibility of sanctification and belittles the Holy Spirit. Such an ordaining body therefore must cease to be part of the true church because it can no longer be said to demonstrate one of the essential marks of the church – the true preaching of the Word of God. In short, ordaining SAPHAs doesn’t just change the qualifications of those who are allowed to preach the gospel – it changes the content of the gospel itself.
But the SAPHA’s proclamation of a false gospel doesn’t end with his or her ordination. Each SAPHA by actions if not by words continues to proclaim that perversion is not perverse, and that sin is not sin. At the very least, by claiming to be unable to control his or her sexual behavior, the SAPHA casts doubt on all Biblical regulations concerning such behavior, including the most fundamental of all: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Since impressionable young people are most likely to believe such spoken and unspoken messages, and thereby to be led into sexual sin themselves, ordained SAPHAs should pay special attention to these words of Jesus: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)
But Jesus’ warning isn’t just for the SAPHAs who are ordained – it extends to every governing body that ordains a SAPHA. This is because the act of ordination is also a form of communication. By laying hands on someone, the ordaining body is saying, “We approve of this person and his or her ministry. This person speaks for us.” And so, by ordaining a SAPHA, a session or presbytery is agreeing with him or her that it is not necessary for the SAPHA to repent of sin. The ordaining body is thus agreeing that sin is not sin.
Moreover, given that homosexual acts are in fact sinful, and given that the ordaining body is not in fact requiring the SAPHA to repent of them, the ordaining body is by its action stating that repentance is not required for sin. And if the ordaining body fails to require the SAPHA to repent because the ordaining body believes that “homosexuality” is an innate human characteristic, the ordaining body is also denying the real possibility of sanctification, of the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives, bringing real change and growth in holiness.
Any governing body that ordains SAPHAs or approves of their ordination thus proclaims wickedness to be righteous. It denies the need for repentance. It denies the possibility of sanctification and belittles the Holy Spirit. Such an ordaining body therefore must cease to be part of the true church because it can no longer be said to demonstrate one of the essential marks of the church – the true preaching of the Word of God. In short, ordaining SAPHAs doesn’t just change the qualifications of those who are allowed to preach the gospel – it changes the content of the gospel itself.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Local Option means the PCUSA no longer proclaims one Gospel
The political problems raised by local option pale in comparison to the theological chaos it will unleash. For the simple truth is that the ordination of Self-Acknowledged Practitioners of Homosexual Acts (SAPHAs) can’t be compromised. Some Presbyterians see it as an essential expression of the justice of Jesus Christ. Others see it as moral perversion. These positions are, quite simply, mutually exclusive.
In addition, both positions cannot at the same time be consistent with the gospel. If homosexual behavior is moral perversion, then preventing people who engage in that behavior from being ordained would not be an abrogation of Christian justice. Instead barring SAPHAs from office would be a correct application of Christian justice through the proper exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. Conversely, if homosexual behavior is not sinful, then those who see it as moral perversion are guilty of the worst sort of hatred and condemnation that can be expressed against Christian brothers and sisters. If homosexual behavior is not sinful, those who oppose it should themselves be subject to ecclesiastical discipline.
Thus, allowing each presbytery and session to decide for itself whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful will not bring peace and unity to the church. Instead local option guarantees that different governing bodies will preach different gospels, declaring that diametrically opposite actions are sinful. And since both of these opinions cannot be right, that means that a significant part of the church will in fact be proclaiming a false gospel. No Christian can, in good conscience, tolerate such a situation for long.
In addition, both positions cannot at the same time be consistent with the gospel. If homosexual behavior is moral perversion, then preventing people who engage in that behavior from being ordained would not be an abrogation of Christian justice. Instead barring SAPHAs from office would be a correct application of Christian justice through the proper exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. Conversely, if homosexual behavior is not sinful, then those who see it as moral perversion are guilty of the worst sort of hatred and condemnation that can be expressed against Christian brothers and sisters. If homosexual behavior is not sinful, those who oppose it should themselves be subject to ecclesiastical discipline.
Thus, allowing each presbytery and session to decide for itself whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful will not bring peace and unity to the church. Instead local option guarantees that different governing bodies will preach different gospels, declaring that diametrically opposite actions are sinful. And since both of these opinions cannot be right, that means that a significant part of the church will in fact be proclaiming a false gospel. No Christian can, in good conscience, tolerate such a situation for long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)