PCA affirms Biblical marriage (Presbyterian Church in America)

The Layman ^ | L. Roy Taylor

[Gamecock]

The Office of the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has received numerous emails regarding the recent action of the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA) in redefining marriage. On March 17, 2015 the Presbyterian Church (USA) approved language that allows its ministers to officiate at same-sex marriages in its churches. The change comes after the General Assembly and a majority of that denomination’s 171 presbyteries approved an amendment to their Book of Order that describes marriage as “a unique relationship between two people, traditionally a man and a woman.”

There are several Presbyterian denominations in the United States. The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), formed in 1973 as an evangelical denomination in the Reformed theological tradition, is the second largest. We, like other evangelical, conservative, orthodox, and traditional Christians from many branches of the Christian faith, believe that, from creation, God ordained the marriage covenant to be a unique bond between one man and one woman. This biblical understanding is what the Church has always believed, taught, and confessed. Therefore, we believe that the divinely sanctioned standard for sexual activity is fidelity within a marriage between one man and one woman or chastity outside of such a marriage.

Throughout history, there has often been a conflict between what the Church has believed, taught, and confessed and the society to which the Church ministers. The Church, in contrast to the broader culture, is to base her views and practices on authoritative and timeless divine revelation found in the Holy Scriptures, and not on the changing and frequently subjective social practices within the society. The Church, therefore, has certain unchanging objective standards of biblical ethics.

This is especially challenging in this post-modern era of relativism. We think that the comparatively recent interpretation that biblical prohibitions against same-sex intimacy do not apply to “a same-sex marriage” is based on false premises and faulty reasoning and, therefore, is erroneous – no matter how well-intentioned.

The PCA in both its doctrinal standards (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 24 “Of Marriage and Divorce”) and church polity (Book of Church Order, Chapter 59, “The Solemnization of Marriage”) affirms biblical marriage as being between one man and one woman. Neither the General Assembly nor any of the Presbyteries nor any Session (board of elders) of any congregation that is presently a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has redefined marriage. Nor does the PCA intend to do so.

As we affirm what is sometimes called a traditional view of marriage, which we prefer to call biblical marriage, as we seek to follow the apostolic practice of “speaking the truth in love.” We reach out to all persons with the Good News by which we are being saved that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.”

[Albion Wilde]

The PCA would do well to remove “Presbyterian” from their name to further distance themselves from the heretical behavior of the like-named group of hedonists.

Why should they give up their founding? It's a pity they can't sue to get the PCUSA to remove the word "Presbyterian" from their name, since they are the ones who are apostate.

I understand the Baptists have gone through this schismatic issue over whether women should "submit" to men in marriage. Certainly the Methodists have been bedeviled for years by the screeching of the "reproductively challenged" in their ranks.

Hold the line, people. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley and the other Reformers were not trying to be "progressive." They were trying to return the church to its apostolic roots and stop the innovations and mutations that were eviscerating the basic teachings. Sort of the way a good gardener clears out the dead wood and misshapen branches and cuts the suckers off from the bottom of the trunk of a tree, and roots out the smothering vines from around it.

[Albion Wilde]

My experience is that PCA and RP churches attract a lot of informed believers. They are not very seeker-friendly, “we’ll turn down the message for the guests” types. PCA will grow as they absorb the more traditional PCUSA folks, leaving the empty shell for the social crowd.

That's how the Lutheran Missouri Synod is. I wanted to stand up and cheer the first time I heard a LCMS pastor preach against birth control, abortion, homosexuality and IVF, after prior decades of theological waffling, homespun anecdotes and Democrat apologetics in the UMC.

[Gamecock]

No annulments.

[GilesB]

I agree with almost everything you have said here, except for the statement implied in your opening question.

Yes, by rights the PCUSA should remove themselves from affiliation with the greater Presbyterian community, and Christianity in general, for that matter. But they won’t. They are not bothered by the association, they revel in it. It gives them a certain amount of cover for their apostasy.

My statement is based entirely on my fervent belief that our commitment to Christ should far outstrip our loyalty to any other name.

I have never been a member of a “mainstream” church, and therefor have no ties to a name. My Christian history has been entirely within the nondenominational churches - and I am more attuned to doctrine than I am to history, although I have a passing interest in the history of different denominations, particularly as it relates to doctrinal differences. I say this to acknowledge that I may not have the background to understand a strong tie to a particular name - and I am certainly not dogmatic about it. I just see it as a good way to put lots of space between them and the apostate group.