...or rather no longer have to pretend they're not. :cool:
QuoteU.S.|Wed, May. 11 2011 03:01 AM EDT
PCUSA Votes to Allow Openly Gay Clergy
By Alison Matheson
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has become the fourth Protestant denomination in the U.S. to allow the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy.
It follows a majority vote by the 173 presbyteries (district governing bodies) on Tuesday to change the body's constitution in order to allow openly gay people in same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers, elders and deacons.
The move does away with the constitutional requirement for clergy to live "in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."
It also ends 33 years of wrangling between supporters and opponents of the move and reverses the outcome of a key vote two years ago, when the majority of presbyteries blocked the proposal.
Last year, the PC(USA)'s highest legislative body voted to remove the ban against noncelibate homosexual clergy. It was the fourth time since 1997 that the General Assembly passed such a resolution. Previously, the measure was rejected each time by the denomination's presbyteries. A majority vote from the presbyteries is required to ratify the overture.
Over the past year, presbyteries have voted on whether to approve the amendment to the church constitution and this time round, 19 presbyteries that had previously voted against the move backed it, a possible consequence of the departure of conservative congregations in recent years. On Tuesday, the Twin Cities presbytery became the 87th presbytery and the deciding vote to give the green light.
"We've been having this conversation for 33 years, and some people are ready to get to the other side of this decision," PC(USA)'s stated clerk and highest elected official, the Rev. Gradye Parsons, was quoted by the New York Times as saying.
"Some people are going to celebrate this day because they've worked for it for a long time, and some people will mourn this day because they think it's a totally different understanding of Scripture than they have.
"I hope that going forward we can stay together and be faithful witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Mark Chaves, a professor of sociology, religion and divinity at Duke University, said the move reflected changes in American culture.
"They're making this change amid a larger cultural change. General public opinion on gay rights is trending pretty dramatically in the liberal direction," he said.
The United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church already allow the ordination of openly gay candidates.
The ordination of the openly gay Gene Robinson in 2003 caused an irreversible fissure in The Episcopal Church, which led to the breakaway of orthodox members and the formation of a new body, the Anglican Church in North America. Though the global Anglican Communion, of which TEC is part of, bans openly gay clergy, TEC adopted a resolution in 2009 opening the ordination process to all baptized members, which would include practicing homosexuals.
Splits have also been occurring in the ELCA, which opened the door to partnered gay and lesbian clergy in 2009, and the PC(USA). Though the Presbyterian church body had not approved gay ordination until this year, many orthodox congregations were discontent with the liberal direction it was already moving in. According to the Presbyterian News Service, around 100 congregations out of 11,000 have already left the PC(USA) in the last five years, with the prospect that more may soon join them.
A conservative group in the denomination, Presbyterians for Renewal, said in a statement Tuesday that it was considering the possibility of forming new covenanted fellowships "within and perhaps beyond the PC(USA)."
These fellowships would be based on closer theological agreement and "support continued biblical faithfulness," it said.
"While the ongoing voting in remaining presbyteries is important, both as a means of faithful witness, and for the sake of understanding the state of our divisions, the biblical standard of fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman and chastity in singleness will soon be removed as an explicit denominational standard for ordination and/or installation of church officers," the group said.
"We deeply grieve this unfaithful action, for it brings great harm to the life and witness of the PC(USA)," it continued. "We have prayed that our denomination would uphold this biblical standard, and we have worked to maintain it. But now a line has been crossed.
"The revision of our Book of Order signals a massive change in our covenantal life and a departure from the beliefs and practice of the historic and global church. We who are committed to holding fast the clear teaching of scripture must pray and work all the more to discern how to move forward with biblical faithfulness in and for a denomination that has lost its way."
Another mainline Protestant denomination, the United Methodist Church, is still debating the issue. The much smaller and more conservative Presbyterian Church in America prohibits the ordination of women and openly gay candidates.
If your religion is split over whether to admit folks who are gay, one has to wonder at one's choice of religion in the first place ... :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:35:22 AM
If your religion is split over whether to admit folks who are gay, one has to wonder at one's choice of religion in the first place ... :lol:
I'm not sure what you are saying. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 08:40:09 AM
I'm not sure what you are saying. :unsure:
+1 :blush:
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 08:40:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:35:22 AM
If your religion is split over whether to admit folks who are gay, one has to wonder at one's choice of religion in the first place ... :lol:
I'm not sure what you are saying. :unsure:
That it's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously agonize over such medieval nonsense, isn't worth much as an organization.
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:47:11 AM
That it's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously agonize over such medieval nonsense, isn't worth much as an organization.
I think there are a lot of people who still dislike gays, and while I personally might not like that, I think it would be foolhardy to simply ignore broad mainstream religious organizations that quibble over such matters.
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 08:50:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:47:11 AM
That it's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously agonize over such medieval nonsense, isn't worth much as an organization.
I think there are a lot of people who still dislike gays, and while I personally might not like that, I think it would be foolhardy to simply ignore broad mainstream religious organizations that quibble over such matters.
Not a question about ignoring - it's a question deciding to give one's own personal allegiance.
I'm not religious, but if I was, I could never join (say) Catholicism - not for theological reasons, but because their vision of society, as reflected in their Church, is so backwardly medieval. Refusing to accept women or homosexuals as equals is just emblematic of this.
There are other religions which have chosen to join the modern world.
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:47:11 AM
That it's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously agonize over such medieval nonsense, isn't worth much as an organization.
:hmm: Aren't most sects of Judaism against gay marriage?
(yes, I realize you're an atheist)
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 08:55:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:47:11 AM
That it's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously agonize over such medieval nonsense, isn't worth much as an organization.
:hmm: Aren't most sects of Judaism against gay marriage?
(yes, I realize you're an atheist)
Some do and some don't; in fact, of the 4 main ones, two - Reform and Reconstruction - accept gay marriage.
The Orthodox never will (they are, in fact, most obstinate in medieval backwardness in all sorts of ways) and the Conservative are in sorta the same position as Anglicans - some want to, but most still resist.
The way Jews are organized, it is easy for any individual congregation to be gay-friendly, and many are.
http://www.glbtjews.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=5
Obviously, I'd never in a million years join an Orthodox congregation!
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:55:20 AM
Not a question about ignoring - it's a question deciding to give one's own personal allegiance.
I'm not religious, but if I was, I could never join (say) Catholicism - not for theological reasons, but because their vision of society, as reflected in their Church, is so backwardly medieval. Refusing to accept women or homosexuals as equals is just emblematic of this.
There are other religions which have chosen to join the modern world.
Maybe but I don't think most people go around shopping for a faith. They are raised in one and decided whether or not to stick with it. Now while I personally wouldn't, I can easily see how people pick and choose their battles. It might be of little or no consequence to a particular individual that gays can't be ordained in their sect. After all, it isn't like there are any Christians that actually believe everything in their bible...and besides, their congregants might share that vision of society. :P
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 09:03:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:55:20 AM
Not a question about ignoring - it's a question deciding to give one's own personal allegiance.
I'm not religious, but if I was, I could never join (say) Catholicism - not for theological reasons, but because their vision of society, as reflected in their Church, is so backwardly medieval. Refusing to accept women or homosexuals as equals is just emblematic of this.
There are other religions which have chosen to join the modern world.
Maybe but I don't think most people go around shopping for a faith. They are raised in one and decided whether or not to stick with it. Now while I personally wouldn't, I can easily see how people pick and choose their battles. It might be of little or no consequence to a particular individual that gays can't be ordained in their sect. After all, it isn't like there are any Christians that actually believe everything in their bible...and besides, their congregants might share that vision of society. :P
Personally, not being gay, whether or not to accept gays can't mean anything to me directly ... it's simply a "surrogate marker" for all sorts of attitudes that tend to go with it.
In short, those unwilling to accept gays as full participants are likely the sort to hold attitudes that I'd not agree with in other areas (quite aside from the injustice of the matter).
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 09:06:36 AM
Personally, not being gay, whether or not to accept gays can't mean anything to me directly ... it's simply a "surrogate marker" for all sorts of attitudes that tend to go with it.
In short, those unwilling to accept gays as full participants are likely the sort to hold attitudes that I'd not agree with in other areas (quite aside from the injustice of the matter).
Fair enough. But others may (and clearly do), feel differently...as awful as that might be. <_<
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:55:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 08:50:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:47:11 AM
That it's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously agonize over such medieval nonsense, isn't worth much as an organization.
I think there are a lot of people who still dislike gays, and while I personally might not like that, I think it would be foolhardy to simply ignore broad mainstream religious organizations that quibble over such matters.
Not a question about ignoring - it's a question deciding to give one's own personal allegiance.
I'm not religious, but if I was, I could never join (say) Catholicism - not for theological reasons, but because their vision of society, as reflected in their Church, is so backwardly medieval. Refusing to accept women or homosexuals as equals is just emblematic of this.
There are other religions which have chosen to join the modern world.
While as an atheist I agree with you, most people who are religious do not actively "shop" for a religion they agree with, but rather go with whatever is traditional for their family/culture/nationality etc. So I don't think it can be dismissed like you do.
Quote from: Martinus on May 11, 2011, 09:42:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:55:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 08:50:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:47:11 AM
That it's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously agonize over such medieval nonsense, isn't worth much as an organization.
I think there are a lot of people who still dislike gays, and while I personally might not like that, I think it would be foolhardy to simply ignore broad mainstream religious organizations that quibble over such matters.
Not a question about ignoring - it's a question deciding to give one's own personal allegiance.
I'm not religious, but if I was, I could never join (say) Catholicism - not for theological reasons, but because their vision of society, as reflected in their Church, is so backwardly medieval. Refusing to accept women or homosexuals as equals is just emblematic of this.
There are other religions which have chosen to join the modern world.
While as an atheist I agree with you, most people who are religious do not actively "shop" for a religion they agree with, but rather go with whatever is traditional for their family/culture/nationality etc. So I don't think it can be dismissed like you do.
I've heard this twice now, and for some it is true, but increasingly people *do* "shop" for a religion here - partly, it's a result of high levels of intermarriage between folks of different denominations. It is increasingly unusual for any but the most traditional to specifically refuse to date someone who is not (say) Presbyterian.
When two people of different faiths marry, the question of choice arises.
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 09:57:49 AM
I've heard this twice now, and for some it is true, but increasingly people *do* "shop" for a religion here - partly, it's a result of high levels of intermarriage between folks of different denominations. It is increasingly unusual for any but the most traditional to specifically refuse to date someone who is not (say) Presbyterian.
When two people of different faiths marry, the question of choice arises.
Probably wouldn't be very wise to say: No, honey, I won't join your faith, it's out of touch with the modern world. :P
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 10:07:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 09:57:49 AM
I've heard this twice now, and for some it is true, but increasingly people *do* "shop" for a religion here - partly, it's a result of high levels of intermarriage between folks of different denominations. It is increasingly unusual for any but the most traditional to specifically refuse to date someone who is not (say) Presbyterian.
When two people of different faiths marry, the question of choice arises.
Probably wouldn't be very wise to say: No, honey, I won't join your faith, it's out of touch with the modern world. :P
Why not? I did. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 10:09:00 AM
Why not? I did. :lol:
Not everyone is as loving and open as your wife. :)
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:35:22 AM
If your religion is split over whether to admit folks who are gay, one has to wonder at one's choice of religion in the first place ... :lol:
There's a difference between admitting & ordaining. Most (all?) mainstream denominations in the US will let you attend worship service if you're gay. Most will also allow you to become/remain as a church member if you're gay. Only a few (for now) allow openly gay clergy.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2011, 10:19:23 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:35:22 AM
If your religion is split over whether to admit folks who are gay, one has to wonder at one's choice of religion in the first place ... :lol:
There's a difference between admitting & ordaining. Most (all?) mainstream denominations in the US will let you attend worship service if you're gay. Most will also allow you to become/remain as a church member if you're gay. Only a few (for now) allow openly gay clergy.
They may be "admitting" gays in congregations - but clearly, not as equal members, since they are not allowed to lead conregations if they are open about it.
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 10:09:00 AM
Why not? I did. :lol:
Same. :cool:
Princesca had pretty much left Christianity, with a few brief periods of relapse, when we started dating though.
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 10:27:30 AM
They may be "admitting" gays in congregations - but clearly, not as equal members, since they are not allowed to lead conregations if they are open about it.
That's inequality only for the tiny number of gay church members who want to be clergy. Pretty insignificant IMO. Besides, most churches still at least officially view homosexuality as sinful, so it would be hypocritical to have an openly gay person lead the congregation.
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 10:09:00 AM
Why not? I did. :lol:
Same. :cool:
Princesca had pretty much left Christianity, with a few brief periods of relapse, when we started dating though.
Since the release of the Gospel of Judas, I've revived my faith. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2011, 12:07:33 PM
so it would be hypocritical
Like mainstream religions have ever cared about that. :lol:
Re: the shopping for a faith point
I haven't been to a church in several years, but I do know that in Catholicism (as it was cited as an example), there are also liberal churches where parishoners (especially the younger ones) pretty much ignore / disagree with Church teachings on birth control, the priesthood, gays, etc. While they do hope for change, a lot of them simply can't or won't leave the faith due to upbringing, family, friends, bona fide beliefs, etc. I imagine the same holds true for any number of faiths.
Though obviously nowadays it's way easier to break with your faith and find a new one (or not) than it's ever been before. It's just for many folks, it's not always quite that easy, and staying within your faith but rejecting this or that teaching can often be the preferred way to go.
I think it is also different in the US/Canada, compared to Europe. Here there is much less of a "religion shopping" thing.
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:47:11 AM
That it's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously agonize over such medieval nonsense, isn't worth much as an organization.
That's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously believe in medieval nonsense like invisible superfriends and miraculous events, isn't worth much as an organization.
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2011, 02:24:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2011, 08:47:11 AM
That it's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously agonize over such medieval nonsense, isn't worth much as an organization.
That's a no-brainer - a religion which refuses to join the modern world, and whose members seriously believe in medieval nonsense like invisible superfriends and miraculous events, isn't worth much as an organization.
Too predictable. :D
The article talks about PCUSA, and I gotta say, that's grossly overstating the unity of Presbyterian churches- even when I was still attending (and that's going back at least 10 years), the presbytery of the PCUSA mostly just represented the moderates within the denomination; the Presbyterian Church of America is more liberal, and PCA has been allowing homosexual clergy for a while now (actually knew a lesbian pastor in the PCA back in the '90s), while the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is much more conservative, and has been known to excommunicate homosexuals who won't "repent."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2011, 03:51:21 PM
while the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is much more conservative, and has been known to excommunicate homosexuals who won't "repent."
I'm guessing this is the type of Presbyterian church my uncle (the Syrian dude) belongs to.
FWIW, I've known of some obvious lesbian ministers in the United Methodist Church-- seems like some UMC districts take a DADT approach toward their clergy.
Personally, I'd have a hard time taking any female minister seriously, lesbian or not.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2011, 03:51:21 PM
The article talks about PCUSA, and I gotta say, that's grossly overstating the unity of Presbyterian churches- even when I was still attending (and that's going back at least 10 years), the presbytery of the PCUSA mostly just represented the moderates within the denomination; the Presbyterian Church in America is more liberal, and PCA has been allowing homosexual clergy for a while now (actually knew a lesbian pastor in the PCA back in the '90s), while the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is much more conservative, and has been known to excommunicate homosexuals who won't "repent."
The PCUSA is the most liberal of the three.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2011, 04:26:10 PM
I'm guessing this is the type of Presbyterian church my uncle (the Syrian dude) belongs to.
FWIW, I've known of some obvious lesbian ministers in the United Methodist Church-- seems like some UMC districts take a DADT approach toward their clergy.
Personally, I'd have a hard time taking any female minister seriously, lesbian or not.
When I was a kid our UMC church had an obviously (but not officially outed) lesbian Associate Pastor.
pussyified christians. :rolleyes:
QuoteThe move does away with the constitutional requirement for clergy to live "in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."
This is one of those times when gay rights moves things forward for everybody.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 11, 2011, 04:32:04 PM
The PCUSA is the most liberal of the three.
Not across the board. Also, there's less of a gap between the PCA and the PCUSA as between either and the OPC. Of course, the OPC are wingnuts, IMO (they're almost single-handedly the reason I consider myself a "lapsed" Christian- too many bad experiences to list in this post, really).
EDIT: I should also mention there's some bias- after becoming disillusioned with the OPC, we tried a PCUSA church and had a really bad experience in a hyper-conservative congregation, which was about when I called it quits.
We went to PCA churches throughout my childhood, they were all extremely conservative. They'd pass out AFA flyers and the like.