Posted on 12/12/2012 10:31:59 PM PST by Cronos
Members of Pittsburgh Presbytery expressed grief and frustration with three churches that recently voted to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) without going through the constitutional process for doing so, while the church's national moderator, who coincidentally was at their regular meeting Thursday, said he had offered to meet with leaders of those churches and two others that are pursuing the formal process for leaving.
Representatives from only one of the five, later identified as Bellefield Presbyterian Church in Oakland, agreed to meet with the Rev. Neal Presa. About 140 churches are in the countywide presbytery.
Recently, Mt. Lebanon United Presbyterian Church, Round Hill Presbyterian Church in Elizabeth Township and the First Presbyterian Church of Bakerstown voted to secede without going through nine to 18 months of discussions with presbytery officials or negotiations over property. They joined the more theologically conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
At least 200 other churches have similarly left the 1.9 million-member Presbyterian Church (USA) since 2007. The most prominent issue was acceptance of local option on gay ordination, but those departing say that changing sexual standards reflect a broader disregard for the biblical authority. Defenders of the changes compare them to earlier reinterpretations of scripture involving women's ordination, divorce and slavery.
Rev. Sorge said he didn't believe that most members of the departing congregations understood that they were voting to violate the church constitution. He is sending letters to explain why the presbytery still maintains jurisdiction and will be sending a commission to work toward an acceptable departure under church law.
"Our effort is not to try to stop them from leaving the PCUSA but to do it in a way that is in conformity with our constitution. We aren't trying to blockade anybody," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
hello -- women's ordination is not condoned by scripture or tradition and is wrong, as is divorce
Slavery, the Bible talks of freeing slaves after a period of time and Jesus says all men are brothers -- so the slave owner and the slave too. That meaning has never changed.
Not to be too argumentative but . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia
Junia in Romans is called an apostle by Paul and she was most definitely female. Do a little research on your own remembering that there are no male nor female in Christ. We Christians are all equal in all aspects of what that means.
Please do not take this as an argument one way or the other. I come from a very traditional and evangelical background but . . . well check it out as it is controversial.
Women as priestesses, sorry, no, not for their lack of pastoral ability or preaching ability or fervor or holiness, not from a lack of any holiness, but from the point of view of the participation in the Eucharist -- a Holy Tradition that Christ inaugurated with the Last Supper
With this, as I said -- a woman preacher etc. I see no issue with so in your case none at all
It’s a stretch to call PCUSA a church anymore. Social club. Progressive meeting hall. Liberalism with old hymns.
Not sure who it was on this forum, but someone stated the same thing. It was about six months ago or so. I spend a good two weeks going through the scriptures and historical background of the issue.
Like you, I was raised with the same concepts and teachings for most of my life. I even was ordained as a minister but found it was not my calling. It is a controversy (did not seem to be in the early church where women were actually preachers spreading the word starting from the day of Pentecost). It does not appear to be a problem until the actual organization of the church and the various councils gathered to put some order in the movement (we all know the Council of Nicea). Then (apparently because the church leaders were from cultures that held women in low regard) the concept we were taught was implemented. My traditional upbringing and experiences is with the Restoration Movement in the US prior to the Civil War. The movement pretty much rejects the various councils and works to restore the church to what one finds in the early churches. The Holy Tradition that Christ . . . did not become the HOLY TRADITION until implemented by one of the councils (as per the teachings of the Restoration Movement of Campbell, Stone and others).
If one reads the Scriptures, one finds that the early church members met on the first day of the week and broke bread in remembrance of Christ’s Last Supper. The Christian Jews also attended the Sabbath Services on Saturday as well. No HOLY WRIT or show of great celebration - just met together and humbly carried out the traditions you speak of with little fanfare.
The participation in any “ritual” almost makes the concept meaningless and the ritual taking the place of the meaning (not meant to be argumentative just practical). The all-men ministers was very much part of the tradition of the Restoration Movement but probably as a tradition and not Biblical. When one says we are all equal spiritually, one really cannot say “equal except . . “ We either are or we are not. As Christians we share in the spiritual feast of our Lord without exceptions. That is the final personal argument that changed my mind along with those two weeks of intense research. Junia was an apostle with all that this term implies. Apostles carried out all the leadership functions without exception prior to any council or writ saying who could and who could not. Phoebe was a deaconess with everything that term implies as well.
I came to his conclusion with much research, thought and prayer. It is controversial and IMHO, one may want to be so positive in one’s belief on such controversial and none salvation related issues. I have changed my mind on a lot of the traditions and customs I was taught and believed over the years. Of course, I find it interesting that so many of the “liberal Christian congregations” are losing huge numbers of their members and the ministers cannot seem to figure out why. See http://dmergent.org/ for a good example of the liberal Christian view.
I am sickened by much of what some of these ministers write in regard to homosexuality and other things and their rationalization of what the Scriptures actually teach. Why would anyone attend such an organization when they can just join the local golf club or other social organization and get the same hugs and pats on the head. I think we both know why they are losing membership - they have ceased to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Just saying there is a valid argument to be made on the issue.
Two words.
Apostolic Succession.
You don’t understand the first thing about the ‘tradition of the Church’, which is why you believe this argument is reasonable.
No, it’s not, and this argument is the same, old, weak argument from before that unless women can be priests that women are somehow inferior. Would you say that a man is inferior because a man cannot have children?
The issue here is the acceptance of homosexuals to be ministers. Any such acceptance of homosexuality is the work of Satan. The Catholic Church has had their fill of damage from homosexual priests preying on young boys. This is how Satan wants to destroys Christ’s church and separate people from their vehicle to salvation.
That is why they call us protestants because we do not buy into the Catholic doctrines established by man. These doctrines have absolutely nothing to do with my salvation nor my personal relationship with Christ.
Spiritual equality.
No, Paul says Junia was noted by all the Apostles. And while male and female are equal in Christ with regard to salvation, each have their own roles. That a Priest or Pastor is to be a male is made very clear in 1 Timothy and Titus (the pastoral epistles)
That is an interesting interpretation but then why would it be a controversy if such were correct?
Some argue that Junia was a male while acknowledging him as an apostle. No such male name known in Greek so if only acknowledged by the apostles, why make him into a male? Do believe she is actually called an apostle in the Greek, otherwise, no controversy among the church historians. All the sources I found acknowledge Junia’s apostleship. Interesting though, isn’t it.
Not to worry as it will continue as a controversy among Greek and Church historians alike for years to come. Did not mean to argue, just sayin . .
Back to the issue at hand - early church leaders considered the act of homosexuality to be sinful. The Scriptures have a lot to say about such sins and one would have to be a pretzel to rationalize what is stated. I see many liberal Christian ministers pretzelizing the Scriptures. Most people I know who take their Christian faith seriously are sickened by this whole mess the country is now in.
Or on other words PCUSA wants these churches' money and property...that's what this is all about, just like in the Episcopal Church.
Money: the same reason why the ELCA (the apostate Lutherans who are now in concordance with the Episcopalians) still bothers with lying to the remaining little old ladies who desperately want to believe their church hasn't been taken over by homosexuals and leftists.
Mr. niteowl77
Bingo!
Biblical authority has been undermined for almost 200 years by the liberal church. The issue of homosexuality is a symptom, not the disease.
Read Machen's book titled "Christianity and Liberalism." It is prophetic in the sense of what he saw happening in the church then and where we are now.
I think it's interesting that the early Church --- amidst controversy, it's true --- did find slaves and gentiles qualified for ordained ministry, and this with Paul's strong leadership on the question. Note that in his letter to Philemon, Paul even hints --- in his very tactful and diplomatic way --that he would want the slave Onesimus to be freed so he could serve in the Church, as part of Paul's own ministry.
And yet while Paul calls the woman Junia an apostle, he also, elsewhere, expressed the contrasting view: that women are not to exercise authority over men in the Church.
Clearly Paul was not a man to shrink back from public opinion or cultural constraints when it came to slaves and gentiles. But sexual identity really is a different category. Slaves and freemen, Gentiles and Jews differ from each other in ways that really are socially changeable. But men and women differ from each other in ways that are in-built, and intended by the Creator: "male and female He created them."
This hints that, while men and women are equal, it might not be right to treat them as if they were interchangeable and identical.
There's more to be said on this on both sides, of course!
Incidentally, while I'm firmly convinced that women cannot be admitted to Holy Orders as ordained deacons, priests, and bishops, I see not reason why women should not serve in all non-ordained ministries, every (lay) level of leadership, including the top ones.
So maybe my thoughts are not relevant to the Presbyterian situation at all, since (as I understand it) you do not have "Holy Orders"--- priesthood--- as Catholics would understand the term.
Does that make sense?
Junia in Romans is called an apostle by Paul and she was most definitely female. Do a little research on your own remembering that there are no male nor female in Christ. We Christians are all equal in all aspects of what that means.
Yes, we are all the same as far as our salvation is concerned.
Tim 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Oops -— I posted mine before I read yours. But we seem to be making the same points. Great minds... :o)
Wonderfully written and with an obvious Christian spirit. As is often the case of many evangelicals and conservative Christians, I was taught that the Catholic church was . . . . (you can supply whatever bad word you want). As I matured in Christ and observed with mature eyes, I realized that the people are the church and not the building or the organization running the building. We all share the same salvation in Christ.
I now have a new found respect for the Catholic Church as an institution as it stands against many of the things so terribly wrong in America today. The murder of our most innocent humans and the secular approach to so many Important things in our society. The Catholic Church’s clear stand on abortion and clear stand against homosexuality brings joy to my heart as many a liberal church have fallen for the lies and deception of human secularism. Standing tall for Christianity when so many have thrown in the towel is inspiring.
As to Paul’s admonitions to the Corinthians about the place of women in the Christian society, many scholars believe that the women, having found true freedom in this new Christian society, were pushing the bounds of this freedom in such a way that was detrimental to the growth and well being of the church. The culture of the society in Corinth was metropolitan but most definitely a man’s world where women were either looked upon a chattel or at best second class citizens. To see these Christian women enjoying the same freedom as their male counterparts caused too many problems and probably made them some very powerful hostile enemies. Makes sense to me. Would Paul write the same to churches in a country like the US where women are equal in all respects? Who knows.
Thank you for your post, it did my heart good.
I agree
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.