Today’s edition of The Tennessean (Nashville), includes a story by journalist Heidi Hall, reporting on the upcoming “marriage definition” vote to be taken by the Presbytery of Middle Tennessee.
The article, “Middle Tennessee Presbyterians to vote on marriage definition,” begins with this:
Middle Tennessee’s Presbyterians will help interpret what marriage means for members of their denomination, another step in a process of clarifying sexual orientation-related doctrine that has fractured churches nationwide.
On Jan. 10, the 89-congregation Presbytery of Middle Tennessee will vote on whether to amend the definition of marriage from a “civil contract between a man and a woman” to a “unique commitment between two people.” All 171 presbyteries in the nation have until summer to weigh in.
A few paragraphs down, I added my thoughts on the subject:
It’s likely the local vote will go in favor of changing the definition, said Carmen Fowler LaBerge, president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee — a Franklin-based conservative watchdog group and news agency — but she said that doesn’t mean it’s the right move.
Fowler LaBerge, a former Presbyterian minister who set aside her ordination over denominational changes, said those who support the amendment should note that Jesus reaffirmed the original version of marriage when asked about divorce.
“I’ve got the Princeton Seminary education, too,” she said. “I know how to manipulate the hermeneutic in such a way that you can twist the Scriptures. Taken at their plain meaning, you can’t make them say what they don’t say.”
Read the entire article here.
3 Comments. Leave new
Manipulation bears false witness as you know, but to pcusa, a way of life, and those who do not believe The Holy Bible is the Holy Word of God.
Manipulation violates the commandment bearing false witness as you know.
Doulos, did you know the name you use means servant in Greek?