07/02/2004: "Let's play "spot the internal contradiction""

I hate to say it, but this vote is meaningless. It will do nothing to stop the trend toward ordaining gays in the PCUSA, the key being the nearly dead-even vote:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) legislative assembly narrowly rejected a measure Friday to allow regional governing bodies to ordain gay clergy and lay officers.

Under the 259-255 vote, the current interpretation of church law forbidding the ordination of gay clergy will remain binding on the church, including on the regional bodies, known as presbyteries.

Immediately after the vote, about 300 Presbyterians who supported allowing the ordination of gay clergy gathered in a courtyard where many wept and embraced.

"Tonight is another 'no' to us," the Rev. Jane Spahr, a lesbian minister from San Rafael, Calif., told the group. "All we wanted to do is walk beside you and serve beside you."

So, Rev. Spahr, what exactly is it that's "binding on the church"?

Replies: 8 Comments

on Saturday, July 3rd, WannabeAnglican said

And also the same liberals are left in charge, particularly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick.

on Sunday, July 4th, Alcuin said

What is binding on the church is the will and decisions of its voting leaders. Get over it, or stick to the ever so savy "misrepresentation of the masses" defence. Guess what, the laity's role in church governance is limited for good reasons! Generally, the laity tears churches apart much faster than the leadership does. It's better for laity to leave a church than burn it down in the name of self-promoted "reform." If I shouldn't read blogs and Michael Moore should "leave the country" (another savy one), then individuals should leave their churches!

on Sunday, July 4th, Athanasius said

You've missed the point-again. My problem is not with the vote, which I applaud. My point is that some liberals in the PCUSA, just like their theological bedfellows in the ECUSA, UMC, ELCA, don't care much what the rules of the denominaton are. They're going to do as they please. If I get your drift, you seem to be saying that liberals should now leave the UMC and PCUSA because they've failed to change the rules at this summer's convention. I would bet just about anything that that won't happen.

on Sunday, July 4th, Alcuin said

Yes, they are going to do just as they please because, as you say yourself, this vote is meaningless. It is only a matter of time when policy matches polity. This just reiterates your hypocritical attitude with regard to pastoral submission to provincial authority (remember Greg Little?). Apparently, only the people you disagree with on matters of theology are hypocrites worth mentioning. I see how your "orthodox" understanding of church polity works. "If I oppose the church it's okay, because I'm justified. Everybody else is illogical, hypocritical, or morally stunted." Ah, welcome to blogville.

on Monday, July 5th, Reepicheep said

I have to say, Alcuin, that yes, you have missed the point. The ultimate authority is Scripture, not laity, not denominational leadership. The laity does not rend the body of Christ, nor does the leadership... its the failure to submit to the Ultimate Authority that destroys churches.

on Monday, July 5th, Athanasius said

By the way, at no point on this blog did you ever read that I approved of Macedonia withholding funds from the Southern Province. My disapproval was with the way the PEC handled Greg's situation. And Reep is correct, too�substance has something to do with the issue as well.

on Monday, July 5th, Alcuin said

No, nor have I ever read a criticism of someone who has acted against a church authority when you have considered his or her action to be justified by your understanding of scripture. But everyone who acts in a manner you feel is not supported by scripture is acting hypocritically against the authority of the church! That is, unless you decide it is easier to call into question the authority of the authority and how it makes and applies its own policies (the PEC)! Apparently, you have a justification for everything you find right or wrong in the world, even if it causes you to violate the principles of "logic" and "reason" that you try shroud yourself in here! Stop your masquerade of logic! You are not "logical." You are not consistent in your application of moral standards. No, you take a particular understanding of scripture for granted and preach to your anonymous choir! I guess it is much easier to find a congregation that will love you and hang on every word you say online, because I can't imagine anyone would take this sort of talk for very long from the pulpit!

on Monday, July 5th, Reepicheep said

Alcuin - The fact that you have resorted to personal attacks that are just short of name calling tells me that you have more bluster than substance to your assertions. I have actually found Ath. to have one of the most even-handed and logical approaches to the dillemas facing the Church Catholic. The measure is Scripture, not man/men. Can you be more specific in your criticism?