Monday, April 14, 2008
Oh Darn Part II
Classical Presbyterian looks at the latest trend in the gay ordination argument in the PC(USA) No longer trying to parse that which is forbidden by scripture as other then sin, it seems the argument is shifting to a warped form of Evangelicalism, salvation without sanctification.
On a political level, the argument that “There are many sins that the confessions list and we don’t care about them! Why these?” is particularly devastating because of the undeniable truth of its premise. Whether it is conducting marriages of couples that have been living together for years ("Well, it is better to get it fixed than allow it to continue" - Yeah, but don't you think some months apart in a sort of protestant penance might not be a bad idea?) or the continued ordained and/or staff level service of people whose marriages are in separation, pending divorce (I seem to recall something that Paul wrote to Timothy about that whole thing), the fact of the matter is the standards have slowly been ratcheted down over the decades why stop now?
Three quick comments. One, all prior liberalizations were at least arguable in scriptural interpretation, homosexual behavior is inarguably sin.
Secondly, I would argue for undoing some of the prior liberalization, and I would start by enforcing the chastity rules for heterosexuals. I live just a few miles from Fuller Theological Seminary, and the number of students there living together, or simply sleeping together is extraordinary - candidates for ordination to the Office of Minister of the Word and Sacrament. If we are not going to be serious about heterosexual chastity standards, there really is no reason to be about homosexual ones either.
Finally, as ordained, lay Presbyterians we have got to get serious about our jobs. Politically, liberalization occurs when Sessions do not take seriously their charge to examine candidates and to help shape their lives. Example, ever had a ministry candidate under your Session care that was not chaste? Ever tried to broach the subject in a Session meeting, even with laying all sorts of groundwork, including approaching the individual on a private personal level? If you can get the job done, you are met with horror at even discussing such a thing - not horror at the behavior mind you, horror at the discussion. On a Nominating Committee, have you ever been pressured to accept a candidate for Deacon or Elder that was sub-par because of pressure to fill the slate? "We have too much to get done this year, we need a full Session...."
This problem cannot be top-downed. Yeah, we need to fight on the floor of Presbytery and the GA, but we also need to fight on the floor of Session and Nominating Committee.
Technorati Tags:pc(usa), ordination, homosexuality, lay office
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
The progressive/liberal cause still wants us to believe that certain acts that are clearly sin, according to Jesus and his Word, are not sin, but they have failed. As Jim Berkley once pointed out, they lost that debate in the church decades ago, so they have moved on to a more subtle approach for their agenda. Having failed to convince the church with this line of thought, there is another approach to achieving the revision of the church: Attacking holy living.There are two levels on which to attack this argument. The first is theological, which the CP has begun to do a very fine job of, but the other is practical.
Within the revisionist stream of reasoning we are now starting to encounter a more subtle and more deadly error: That no one can live in a state of continual repentance against their own sins.
[...]
Witness the assault on our fidelity and chastity standard. What are the arguments against it?
“No one can live up to them. We all sin, don't we?”
“They single out some sins over others.”
“There are many sins that the confessions list and we don’t care about them! Why these?”
Do you hear the subtle message of these kinds of arguments? It’s this: “Sin cannot be addressed in the life of a Christian, therefore we don’t need to call our leaders to ongoing sanctification.”
Frankly, we all know that all Christians can and do continue to sin, willfully and constantly. But the new lie being told in this argument is that Christians can’t effectively address sin in their lives. And that, my friends is a deadly error.
On a political level, the argument that “There are many sins that the confessions list and we don’t care about them! Why these?” is particularly devastating because of the undeniable truth of its premise. Whether it is conducting marriages of couples that have been living together for years ("Well, it is better to get it fixed than allow it to continue" - Yeah, but don't you think some months apart in a sort of protestant penance might not be a bad idea?) or the continued ordained and/or staff level service of people whose marriages are in separation, pending divorce (I seem to recall something that Paul wrote to Timothy about that whole thing), the fact of the matter is the standards have slowly been ratcheted down over the decades why stop now?
Three quick comments. One, all prior liberalizations were at least arguable in scriptural interpretation, homosexual behavior is inarguably sin.
Secondly, I would argue for undoing some of the prior liberalization, and I would start by enforcing the chastity rules for heterosexuals. I live just a few miles from Fuller Theological Seminary, and the number of students there living together, or simply sleeping together is extraordinary - candidates for ordination to the Office of Minister of the Word and Sacrament. If we are not going to be serious about heterosexual chastity standards, there really is no reason to be about homosexual ones either.
Finally, as ordained, lay Presbyterians we have got to get serious about our jobs. Politically, liberalization occurs when Sessions do not take seriously their charge to examine candidates and to help shape their lives. Example, ever had a ministry candidate under your Session care that was not chaste? Ever tried to broach the subject in a Session meeting, even with laying all sorts of groundwork, including approaching the individual on a private personal level? If you can get the job done, you are met with horror at even discussing such a thing - not horror at the behavior mind you, horror at the discussion. On a Nominating Committee, have you ever been pressured to accept a candidate for Deacon or Elder that was sub-par because of pressure to fill the slate? "We have too much to get done this year, we need a full Session...."
This problem cannot be top-downed. Yeah, we need to fight on the floor of Presbytery and the GA, but we also need to fight on the floor of Session and Nominating Committee.
Technorati Tags:pc(usa), ordination, homosexuality, lay office
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
