Posted on 10/26/2011 9:26:04 AM PDT by Cronos
Before returning to New England for the second time, I served two African American Presbyterian Churches. And during that time I never thought, two decades ago, that the entire church body would change its position on LGBTQ worshippers.
But a historic yet bittersweet moment happened on October 8th in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
And the moment didn’t happened without a long and arduous struggle against the church’s ecclesiastical heterosexism.
After decades of open struggle with the church’s recalcitrant attitude and discrimination against its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) worshippers who wanted to serve as pastors, elders or deacons, the Presbyterian Church (USA), known as the more liberal and tolerant branch of the denomination, finally conducted its first openly gay ordination.
...As a church that is borne out of a liberal Protestant Christian tradition, the Presbyterian Church’s problem with its LGBTQ worshippers is a history of how it not only broke the backs and souls of the many who wanted to serve, but also how the church recklessly discarded the gifts we bring.
...as a church that proudly touts itself as “reformed and always reforming,” when it came to all things LGBTQ prior to this recent Amendment, the church was not only losing its theological ground of being one that affirms diversity without divisiveness, but it was also losing its public face of inclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at ukprogressive.co.uk ...
And then he says As a church that is borne out of a liberal Protestant Christian tradition, the Presbyterian Church’s problem with its LGBTQ worshippers is a history of how it not only broke the backs and souls of the many who wanted to serve, but also how the church recklessly discarded the gifts we bring.
Another denomination throws the Bible under the bus.
Who’s left?
In other news, the PCUSA says Jesus is a “nice guy”, but wouldn’t go so far as to worship him. /s
ANYONE who belongs to a “church” that allows homo’s to “preach the word”, or “preach” homo sex is a okay, should remove themselves IMMEDIATELY.
If you need to be on your own for a while until you find a church that is Bible based, so be it.
The Lord will understand and walk with you, hand in hand, on your journey.
The Church has a long history of accepting those who want to serve, regardless of their prior sins. Saul persecuted the Church, but he repented of his sinful actions, reformed his behavior, and made restitution to the Church community by serving God and the Christian community once he understood God’s Will. Many later saints also led less than saintly lives before reaching a point where they were willing to follow God. The change, and it is unacceptably huge, is that today’s “Christians” want to select which parts of God’s word to follow, which means they want to do as they wish, without constraint.
I assume the next step is not just to welcome ministers who have committed adultery in the past, but those who are proudly parading the “other woman” in front of the congregation as they serve, those who steal and brag about their plans to support the Church mission or their own hobbies through theft, those who bear false witness and deliver sermons on how they plan to get even with those who have slighted the Church or them personally through premeditated perjury. These alleged Christians have missed the point (or worse). God’s Will, as expressed in His Word should be supreme in our lives. To only follow scripture when it says to do what we would have done anyways is to make the entire Bible irrelevant to our lives.
This is something I have NEVER understood about “Gays” as Church members and “Gay activists” inside a religious denomination that they recognize does not agree with them?
To me its hypocritical, because it was never that there was no place at all where they could worship in some Congregation that would accept them? There were always “alternative” Churches who would, and before the “gay rights” movement, “Gays” always peacefully found those churches.
Why not just go there?
Its like saying: “I can’t identify with this place because this place won’t accept me.”
So, if you can’t identify with a place/organization because of its views, why is that its not up to you to leave, it’s up to them to change?
I have never understood that.
None. The Scriptures never directed believers to form denominations or organizations. This is a bad holdover from the RCC which relies heavily upon "official organization". Find (or form) a group of biblically sound believers and fellowship in a home or business location and do not name your group. The word "church" was made up by the RCC and does not exist in Scripture. Ask yourself, what group did Paul belong to? Right, none except the body of all believers all over the world. You will be able to remove those who do comport with Scripture, yet close enough for solid fellowship.
Assembly of God, WELS, LCMS, Catholicism, Orthodoxy are strongly fighting against the pinkmafia
while pedophilia remains
I'm reminded of the 14 year old who was "supposedly" gay and committed suicide. Now, here's the problem....someone obviously solicited him and that person is still walking around...looking for another kid to pounce on.
Get with reality. They're predators.
Ahem, Calvin and Knox were certainly Protestant, but I don't think I would call them liberal.
You actually aren't far off. In 1973-74, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) was formed after breaking away from this PC-USA heretical group... and the deity of Jesus Christ was one of the issues leading to that split.
So as to the question "who's left?" The PCA still stands, along with the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) and a few others. We in the PCA have continued to accept breakaway congregations from the PCUSA as they reach their own levels of intolerance with their national 'leadership.'
I think you need to develop this. Otherwise, you've stated something on its face easily refuted.
The word used in the Greek NT is "ekklesia". In Latin this is simply transliterated "ecclesia". The English word "church" derives this way (according to my Websters II):
[ME chirche < OE cirice < LGk kuriakon < Gk kuriakos, of the Lord < kurios, Lord]
Tyndale chose "congregation" rather than "church" in his 1526 Englisth NT translation. There is some unfortunate RCC baggage attached to "church", but the word means "assembly". And it is not uncommon for people to associate the meeting place with the assemblage, as inaccurate as that is. (This rhetorical devise is called metonymy which substitutes one word or phrase for another with which it is closely associated.)
So, the word "church" is not the issue, but the "concept" or meaning. I think what you intended to say is that there is no notion of a "universal" church with an official priesthood taught in the Bible. The Bible calls us "saints"/"called" (Romans 1), a "priesthood" (1 Peter 2) all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, Jew or Gentile. All who believe are the "children of promise" according to Romans 4:16 and Galatians 4:28.
What? Really?
First off, yes: the church of Jesus Christ is the universal body of all redeemed believers saved by the substitutionary atonement of Christ thanks to the Holy Spirit's call. But the scriptures not only use the word 'church' in that universal context (Matt. 16:18), but also in the individual/local context (Rom. 16:27 and literally dozens of other places). Generally speaking, it's used to describe a local body of believers, though there was a main organization (which I'm about to mention).
Next: what group did Paul belong to? Clearly, he was trained, sent out by, and answered to the Church at Jerusalem. He then, of course, planted numerous new individual churches between there and Rome.
I believe you would subscribe to this next thought based on your writing, but scripture actually encourages groups of 'offical organizations' as both a means of helping organize and do all the necessary work and also preserving a protecting adherence to the scriptures. This practice goes back to Moses (see Exodus 18). This is why both deacons and elders are established within the New Testament. Clearly, the apostles filled that role as elders from Jerusalem. That would seem to be the purpose of your post: to protect the scriptures.
Now that being said, the extent that such leadership correctly performs such duties may be up for serious debate. Obviously the PC-USA has failed in that mission, and I would encourage all members of such congregations to leave that denomination in search of another that at least does a better job.
Look, no religious organization is perfect. It is the responsibility of those leaders to listen to criticism and make changes whenever the find themselves out of scriptural harmony (e.g., Paul correcting Peter - Gal. 2:14). It is also the responsibility of individuals to know the scriptures so they can know a heresy when it appears. I would argue that it is harder to see groups exercise self-correction in both tiny (congregational churches) and enormous (RCC) organizations for reasons that should be evident: power, special interest biases, and poor accountability. But no group is immune: they will all have their own 'style' or 'emphasis' biases. The best we can do is to do our servant work as best we can and humbly point out issues as they come up. The scriptures remain our guide for all of this, up to and including "remov[ing] those who do [not] comport with Scripture."
Sorry so long... wasn't exactly a soundbite-length set of ideas.
Thanks for doing that ‘technical heavy lifting’ on the word origins!
You wrote, “while pedophilia remains”[in the Catholic Church]
Some of the few Catholic priests were pedophiles, but most of the priests were having sex with boys and young men, aged 11 to 20. These priests are homosexuals. (Once read something that the percentage in the population of priests involved was less than school teachers involved in this activity; interesting but I can’t confirm.)
Pedophilia is sex with children before the children reach puberty (age 11-13?).
The media and defenders of homosexuality shouldn’t be allowed to label the homosexuals in the Catholic Church as pedophiles.
The word used in the Greek NT is "ekklesia". In Latin this is simply transliterated "ecclesia". The English word "church" derives this way (according to my Websters II):
[ME chirche < OE cirice < LGk kuriakon < Gk kuriakos, of the Lord < kurios, Lord]
Tyndale chose "congregation" rather than "church" in his 1526 Englisth NT translation. There is some unfortunate RCC baggage attached to "church", but the word means "assembly"."
You have set out the very argument; thank you for saving me the time. Tyndale's view that the "assembly" is not a trademarked name (the way "Church" implies), but rather simply a congregation or gathering is the very problem to which I refer. RCC morphed the concept into their organization, and killed Tyndale for attempting to free the slaves.
Check Acts; the "ekklesia" was also the mob uprising against Paul, helping to establish the idea that there was not a brand understanding by the writers of the NT.
No, I intended to say exactly what I said. There is no such thing as a branded "Church" in view by the Apostles. They simply were referring to the gatherings in homes, businesses, public centers during those early years. Rome hijacked this simplicity in order to enslave the disciples under their tragic cult-like control.
Gatherings in homes are just as much a part of the universal ekklesia of Jesus Christ as any other...perhaps moreso. The absence of sacerdotalism, cultish rituals, pergatory, indulgences, mariolatry, idolatry (icon veneration), Sainthood (canonizing), papalism, and a ton other background noise actually sets them above the long-ago disqualified RCC. Most of the other "denominations" of "protesting" groups have unfortunately followed their lead and wandered off into the weeds, too.
But, you are absolutely dead-on with your definition of the children of promise. Those who were elected before the foundation of the world, found in Him not having a righteousness derived from the Law, those are the Body of Christ, wherever they may gather to be taught and celebrate Christ, alone.
I kind of threw up in my throat while reading the whole story.
The Presbyterian USA church should take this to heart:
Romans 1:18-32
God’s Wrath Against Mankind
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
And of course your particular sub-cult rejects that Jesus is God, rejects the Trinity and rejects Christianity. The PCUSA hasn’t gone that far yet.
Dutchboy88’s posts are generally like that — statements with no facts behind them, rather a refusal of facts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.