Faith & Politics and Other Normal Subjects: Presbyterian Church (USA), Straying Church?

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Presbyterian Church (USA), Straying Church?

For all those considering the PC-USA, you may find this quote indicative of certain convictions:

"His acceptance of the Mohicans of the time is similar to my inclusion of gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered people now."
--Janet Edwards, Presbyterian Church (USA) minister and sixth-great-granddaughter of Jonathan Edwards, likening performing gay marriage to her forefather's evangelism of Native Americans. (Source: World Magazine, Apr. 2006)

1 comments:

graham baily said...: This is an interesting quote that you have cited. I do not think that anyone would suggest that the PCUSA is not considering seriously the matter of homosexual ordination. What I am concerned with is the local churces and presbytaries involved in this discussion. My understanding of this issue is that there has been three vote posed to the general assembly over this issue. With each vote the presbytaries, whch is made up of local churches has voted it down each time. With each vote the nay's have grown stronger. The problem is that there is a very libral sect within the denomination and it has become very influential at the top levels of the PCUSA. So this year the concern is taht the general assembly may issue instructive guidence which would allow for the ordination of homosexuals if the local church decides to ordain them. Eventually the general assembly will insist that presbytaries are not allowed to reject the ordination of an individual from another presbytary. This will in effect make the ordination of homosexuals a church wide practice. My concern is that this will all happen despite the geowing number of conservatives in the denomination who have already weighed in on the issue and saud that they were not in favor of it. How does one who is aclled to serve the church meet the needs of these conservative. I am also concerned about characterizing a large group pf people on the basis of what some members of that group hold as a conviction. it would be wrong to say that the PCUSA is a totally conservative group. It would also be wrong to say that they are a totally lliberal group. Finally, as a conservative myself, how can I meet the needs of other conservatives in the denomination who need to be taught the truth and who need pastors who will continue to love and serve them in spite of what their more liberal conterparts may do.

Just some brief thoughts, I am sure that there are several spelling and grammar errors as I have not taken the time to proof read as I usually do. I am sure that you will get the gist.

Blessings,
GB; 5/22/2006 9:08 AM

Post a Comment

The Modern Liberal

“The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy [1] because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble,[2] and then blames the oppressors of

Poland

Ireland

because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

-- Quote from Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, pg.53

[1] A person who is too much concerned with being proper, modest, or righteous.
[2] A trinket, triffle, or fool’s scepter.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Presbyterian Church (USA), Straying Church?

1 comments:

Labels

Blog Archive

Reformed Links

The Modern Liberal