Presbyterians and gay clergy...

[Juliebug108]

npr.org/2011/05/10/136188495/presbyterians-clear-way-for-gay-clergy?sc=fb&cc=fp

Well…I’m not Presbyterian, but I feel for those who are. This is exactly what lead my family away from ELCA and brought us to the LCMS. It’s interesting to me how so many protestants rationalize changes like these. Are we not all reading the same Bible? I believe we should welcome gay people into our churches, and treat them with love and respect just like we would anyone else…but I don’t think unrepentant sinners need to be any kind of moral role model or spiritual leader within the church. What are other people’s thoughts? I know that for myself, protestant movements like these only strengthen my decision to convert to the CC. How do other people feel about this? Should openly gay, practicing homosexuals be allowed to become ordained clergy? I think the answer is pretty solidly no…

 

[Juliebug108]

Didn’t see that Firstmode had already posted a thread with this topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=560957

 

[seeker57]

I support the Presbyterian’s decision. I have known quite a few gay clergy, including several Catholic priests.

Some were in relationships, others were not.

They all did a fine job from what I could tell and were well liked and respected by their congregations.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[Madaglan]

The authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Church has been replaced with the authority of personal passions. I think whereas secular humanists through reason see a contradiction between Christian teachings (as they read in the Bible) and what they consider objective findings, and therefore reject the authority of the Church, of Scripture, of Tradition, of God; these liberal Christians, on the other hand, pick and choose from each, their choices depending on their passions at the time. Jesus ends ups becoming just another wise man or social activist, a forerunner to the more knowledgeable humanists of today.

 

[Juliebug108]

I support the Presbyterian’s decision. I have known quite a few gay clergy, including several Catholic priests.

Some were in relationships, others were not.

They all did a fine job from what I could tell and were well liked and respected by their congregations.

Peace,

Seeker

Hi Seeker,

The real issue with me is that they are moving towards allowing openly, non-celibate, gay men and women to be clergy. In my honest and humble opinion, a celibate priest who overcomes his sinful passions in pursuit of a celibate lifestyle is on a totally different level. Thank you for sharing your perspective though

 

[Juliebug108]

The authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Church has been replaced with the authority of personal passions. I think whereas secular humanists through reason see a contradiction between Christian teachings (as they read in the Bible) and what they consider objective findings, and therefore reject the authority of the Church, of Scripture, of Tradition, of God; these liberal Christians, on the other hand, pick and choose from each, their choices depending on their passions at the time. Jesus ends ups becoming just another wise man or social activist, a forerunner to the more knowledgeable humanists of today.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

 

[CMatt25]

these liberal Christians, on the other hand, pick and choose from each, their choices depending on their passions at the time.

Slaves obeying their masters was a passion of the times. Women not speaking in churches was a passion of the times.

 

[manualman]

It’s actually a very logical next step for mainstream protestantism (presuming they are endorsing “married” gay clergy). Bear with me, cause many of you ain’t gonna like it!

100 years ago, our culture defined marriage as “the union (sacramental in catholic theology) of a man and woman in a permanent bond of self-sacrificing love that forms the origin, basis and sustenance of the family.”

Starting in the 20’s and ending in the 60’s that definition morphed into what I like to call the “Hollywood” definition of marriage: “The public declaration and celebration of undying love between two people who make each other happy.”

The change came about because of an unspoken desire to legitimize contraception in marriage. To do so, you had to undermine that idea that children were part of the very fabric of marriage. But by eliminating kids from the definition of marriage, the experimenters unwittingly unleashed the forces that ultimately undermined the culture’s ability to see homosexual activity for what it is. Once marriage is ONLY about the love and happiness of the couple, our good and human sense of fairness works against Tradition and objects to the ‘unfair’ treatment homosexuals have been subject to by society in the past (i.e. refusing to endorse what they believe will make them happy).

Once the innate human sense of fairness was corrupted in this way, it is a very short step to endorsing ‘married’ gay clergy.

 

[Juliebug108]

It’s actually a very logical next step for mainstream protestantism (presuming they are endorsing “married” gay clergy). Bear with me, cause many of you ain’t gonna like it!

100 years ago, our culture defined marriage as “the union (sacramental in catholic theology) of a man and woman in a permanent bond of self-sacrificing love that forms the origin, basis and sustenance of the family.”

Starting in the 20’s and ending in the 60’s that definition morphed into what I like to call the “Hollywood” definition of marriage: “The public declaration and celebration of undying love between two people who make each other happy.”

The change came about because of an unspoken desire to legitimize contraception in marriage. To do so, you had to undermine that idea that children were part of the very fabric of marriage. But by eliminating kids from the definition of marriage, the experimenters unwittingly unleashed the forces that ultimately undermined the culture’s ability to see homosexual activity for what it is. Once marriage is ONLY about the love and happiness of the couple, our good and human sense of fairness works against Tradition and objects to the ‘unfair’ treatment homosexuals have been subject to by society in the past (i.e. refusing to endorse what they believe will make them happy).

Once the innate human sense of fairness was corrupted in this way, it is a very short step to endorsing ‘married’ gay clergy.

Interesting point!

 

[Juliebug108]

Slaves obeying their masters was a passion of the times. Women not speaking in churches was a passion of the times.

I see the point you are trying to make, but those circumstances had a specific cultural context within the Bible. Endorsing homosexuality is not exactly the same thing…at least not from my understanding.

 

[Madaglan]

Slaves obeying their masters was a passion of the times. Women not speaking in churches was a passion of the times.

Passions are personal and not “of the times”, since they themselves do not change with the times, having been introduced to human nature with Adam’s sin. Obedience and silence are not passions, and if applied towards Christian ends, can be virtuous qualities. The passion in these circumstances is not with the slave or the woman, but with any person who uses these as tools to fuel their passion for control/domination over others.

 

[Madaglan]

It’s actually a very logical next step for mainstream protestantism (presuming they are endorsing “married” gay clergy). Bear with me, cause many of you ain’t gonna like it!

100 years ago, our culture defined marriage as “the union (sacramental in catholic theology) of a man and woman in a permanent bond of self-sacrificing love that forms the origin, basis and sustenance of the family.”

Starting in the 20’s and ending in the 60’s that definition morphed into what I like to call the “Hollywood” definition of marriage: "The public declaration and celebration of undying love between two people who make each other happy."

The change came about because of an unspoken desire to legitimize contraception in marriage. To do so, you had to undermine that idea that children were part of the very fabric of marriage. But by eliminating kids from the definition of marriage, the experimenters unwittingly unleashed the forces that ultimately undermined the culture’s ability to see homosexual activity for what it is. Once marriage is ONLY about the love and happiness of the couple, our good and human sense of fairness works against Tradition and objects to the ‘unfair’ treatment homosexuals have been subject to by society in the past (i.e. refusing to endorse what they believe will make them happy).

Once the innate human sense of fairness was corrupted in this way, it is a very short step to endorsing ‘married’ gay clergy.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with the parts I bolded. Christians hitherto always have understood the having of children to be the end of marriage.

 

[CMatt25]

Passions are personal and not “of the times”, since they themselves do not change with the times, having been introduced to human nature with Adam’s sin. Obedience and silence are not passions, and if applied towards Christian ends, can be virtuous qualities. The passion in these circumstances is not with the slave or the woman, but with any person who uses these as tools to fuel their passion for control/domination over others.

Hi, perhaps passion was the wrong word. But anyway just as one “for instance”, while I’ve never attended an Orthodox church, in these times women don’t keep silent in the Catholic churches I have frequented. In any case may God bless you and all who walk His earth, including liberal Christians, as we strive in our understanding to walk our journeys with Him. Peace be with you and all.

 

[CMatt25]

I see the point you are trying to make, but those circumstances had a specific cultural context within the Bible. Endorsing homosexuality is not exactly the same thing…at least not from my understanding.

Hi Julie, I understand your point and those of others too. Pursuit of understanding is one reason why we walk with Him. God bless you and peace.

 

[ANNE_2]

The decision of the Presbyterian leaders makes me sad for the good Christians in their faith. Departing from the Bible for secularism, relativism, or political correctness of the day, does so much damage.
Sin by any religious hurts everyone.
But - Intentionally honoring sodomites by allowing them to hold religious office and teach their Congregations confuses those who are not well grounded in their faith and especially confuses the young.
Without the Bible, many Protestant faiths (but not all) have nothing significant to stand on.

Gen 19:1-29
Rom 1:24-27
1 Cor 6:9-10
1 Tim 1:10.

 

[Harpazo]

My surprised face. Seriously, though, did anyone NOT see this coming? 3 years ago the United Methodists voted 45% to change their church’s teaching on homosexuality at their General Conference. It would have taken a mere 6% more for them to legislate truth (or so they think they can do). In case anyone had any doubt, this should tell everyone that the Reformation has failed.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Sherry_G]

I was astounded to learn of the latest development in the Presbyterian faith today! Condoning sodomy, fornication and aberrant sexual activity for those in the pulpit, now too! The stampede away from this faith will shortly begin, I predict. Those who remain will undoubtedly begin tearing out more chapters and books from their Bibles. Looking on the bright side, perhaps the unification of all Christians is coming about in our lifetime! One, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Amen.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I support the Presbyterian’s decision. I have known quite a few gay clergy, including several Catholic priests.

Some were in relationships, others were not.

They all did a fine job from what I could tell and were well liked and respected by their congregations.

Peace,

Seeker

When you speak of gay clergy it’s one thing to mean men who have a homosexual orientation and quite another to mean those who are acting on their inclinations. Having an attraction to sin isn’t sinful; acting on it is sin.

A priest or minister who is openly living a sinful life and not repenting of sin is not a role model or someone who can inspire others to follow Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, our savior. That is the ‘job’ of a Catholic priest or Protestant minister.

I know of an openly gay clergyman of your denomination, my cousins attend his church and they like him very much. He seems to be a sincere and dedicated man. However, he wouldn’t be an appropriate spiritual guide for someone who wants to radically turn his life over to Jesus and die to his own inclinations in order to rise with Christ.

 

[Juliebug108]

When you speak of gay clergy it’s one thing to mean men who have a homosexual orientation and quite another to mean those who are acting on their inclinations. Having an attraction to sin isn’t sinful; acting on it is sin.

A priest or minister who is openly living a sinful life and not repenting of sin is not a role model or someone who can inspire others to follow Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, our savior. That is the ‘job’ of a Catholic priest or Protestant minister.

I know of an openly gay clergyman of your denomination, my cousins attend his church and they like him very much. He seems to be a sincere and dedicated man. However, he wouldn’t be an appropriate spiritual guide for someone who wants to radically turn his life over to Jesus and die to his own inclinations in order to rise with Christ.

I completely agree.