F.C. Presbyterian Pastor Hails End of Ban on Openly Gay Clergy

Falls Church News ^ | 31 May 2011 | LESLIE POSTER

[Cronos]

Earlier this month, the national Presbyterian Church approved a change in its constitution to allow openly gay church members to serve as ministers and church leaders. It is a change that one local church pastor says has been a long time coming.

"It's been a Presbyterian family quarrel for about 30 years," said Jonathan Smoot, interim pastor at Falls Church Presbyterian Church.

..

"It's just ridiculous to lift up sexual orientation as a primary criterion for that person's character or suitability for ministry," Smoot said. "I hope this puts an end to it."

"It needs to be read in its historical context and not just used as a bludgeon. It needs to be carefully interpreted as the original writers meant," Smoot said. "I would disagree with my conservative sisters and brothers that the Scripture is making definitive statements about sexuality."

[Cronos]

From the article "It needs to be read in its historical context and not just used as a bludgeon. It needs to be carefully interpreted as the original writers meant,"

Ay-ay-ye -- more yopios, personal interpretation?

[Fido969]

If a homosexual pastor has sex, and he isn’t married to his partner, is it “fornication”?

Or are they doing away with that as well?

[RatRipper]

apostasy

[Cronos]

If a homosexual pastor has sex, and he isn’t married to his partner, is it “fornication”?

Why not? After all, if they are in "committed" relationships, thats all that matters, right?

"Committed" doesn't have a time duration -- can be committed for a couple of hours too... or even a few minutes

[kingattax]

Isaiah 5:20

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.

[DJ MacWoW]

"It's just ridiculous to lift up sexual orientation as a primary criterion for that person's character or suitability for ministry," Smoot said.

Oh absolutely. Deviant sexual behavior has nothing to do with "character".. /s

[DarthVader]

“It’s just ridiculous to lift up sexual orientation as a primary criterion for that person’s character or suitability for ministry,” Smoot said. “I hope this puts an end to it.”

No Rev. Smoot, the Bible has very specific requirements for those who are fit for ministry. It also has descriptions about false teachers of which you clearly demonstrate you are.

[Genoa]

For mainline Presbyterians who have had enough, there are PCA churches (Presbyterian Church in America) who are much more conservative. I'm not one, but I can vouch.

[cranked]

Apparently, both the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches continue to fail to comprehend one of the reasons why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God.....=.=

[Titanites]

For mainline Presbyterians who have had enough, there are PCA churches (Presbyterian Church in America) who are much more conservative. I'm not one, but I can vouch.

Or you can just go and start your own.

[fwdude]

There IS NO sexual ethic in the new church of perversion. None.

[Titanites]

It looks like this chart needs to be updated.

	Denomination	Ordains Women	Abortion	Homo- sexuality	Scripture	Trinity	Salvation by Grace
1	American Baptist	1964		2000
2	Anglican	1974
3	Christian Science	1881				Denies	Denies
4	Church of England	1992
5	Church of the Nazarene	1908
6	Disciples of Christ	1888
7	Episcopal Church	1976	1973	1996
8	Evangelical Lutheran Church	1970	1991	2006
9	First Congregational Church	1853
10	Foursquare	1927
11	Free Methodist
12	National Baptist convention	1895
13	Presbyterian Church USA	1930 -elder 1956 - Minister	1973	1987
14	Salvation Army	1865, 1870
15	Unitarian Universalist Association	1863	1973	1980
16	United Church of Canada	1936	1990?	1988
17	United Church of Christ			2005
18	United Presbyterian Church	1955	1973	Against
19	United Methodist Church	1956	1973
20	Universalist Church of America	1863
21	Wesleyan Methodist Church	1856

[Cronos]

Deviant sexual behavior has nothing to do with "character".

Of course not, don't be judgemental /sarc ;-)

[DJ MacWoW]

Wouldn’t think of it! ;-)

[blueunicorn6]

Another church without doctrine.

[longtermmemmory]

is this the official ruling body or just another fringe of a church with the name?

[DJ MacWoW]

The Presbyterians are changing their church constitution to allow individual churches to choose who to ordain and take as a pastor. They may now be a practicing homosexual.

[fwdude]

Here is a relevant except from the excellent essay by Ronald G. Lee, "The Books were a Front for the Porn: The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement."

Although to this day [ex-Father John] McNeill, like all gay Christian propagandists, avoids the subject of sexual ethics as if it were some sort of plague, his life makes his real beliefs clear. He believes in unrestricted sexual freedom. He believes that men and women should have the right to couple, with whomever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and as often as they want. He would probably add some sort of meaningless bromide about no one getting hurt and both parties being treated with respect, but anyone familiar with the snake pit of modern sexual culture (both heterosexual and homosexual) will know how seriously to take that. And he knew perfectly well that if he were honest about his real aims, there would be no Dignity, there would be no gay Christian movement, at least not one with a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. That would be like getting rid of the books and letting the casual window-shoppers see the porn. And we can't have that now, can we? In other words, the ex-Fr. McNeill is a bad priest and a con man. And given the often lethal consequences of engaging in homosexual sex, a con man with blood on his hands.

And elsewhere:

Let me be clear. I believe that McNeill's real beliefs, as deduced from his actual behavior, and distinguished from the arguments he puts forward for the benefit of the naïve and gullible, represent the real aims and objectives of the homosexual rights movement. They are the porn that the books are meant to conceal. In other words, if you support what is now described in euphemistic terms as "the blessing of same-sex unions," in practice you are supporting the abolition of the entire Christian sexual ethic, and its substitution with an unrestricted, laissez faire, free sexual market. The reason that the homosexual rights movement has managed to pick up such a large contingent of heterosexual fellow-travelers is simple: Because once that taboo is abrogated, no taboos are left. I once heard a heterosexual Episcopalian put it this way: If I don't want the church poking its nose into my bedroom, how can I condone it when it limits the sexual freedom of homosexuals? That might sound outrageous, but if you still believe that the debate is over the religious status of monogamous same-sex relationships, please be prepared to point out one church somewhere in the U.S. that has opened its doors to active homosexuals without also opening them to every other form of sexual coupling imaginable. I am too old to be taken in by "Father" McNeill and his abstractions anymore. Show me.

If you haven't already, I would recommend that everyone read this very excellent article by Lee, one who has been on the "inside" and knows of that which he speaks. It's long, but well worth the effort.

[Pining_4_TX]

Thank you for mentioning that there are other Presbyterian churches that still follow biblical teaching. Besides the PCA, there is also the Orthodox Presbyterian Church that left the main Presbyterian denomination when it started down the liberal path back in the 1930s.

[Pining_4_TX]

Many folks follow their own path, but the Bible’s teaching remains forever. Count me among the members of the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church).