By Page Graham, the Rivard Report.
First Presbyterian Church, San Antonio, Texas
Since its inception by the Puritans, what is now known as the Presbyterian Church (USA) has usually found itself to be a sacred house divided, and events in San Antonio only perpetuate that divide.
In the 19th century, the Church was torn in two by the issue of slavery. In recent years, LGBTQ rights have been the focus of discontent. Most recently, gay marriage has become the key divisive issue. Despite official denials, that very issue is the likely cause now for a legal battle initiated by First Presbyterian Church (FPC), located in downtown San Antonio at 4th and Alamo streets.
What has been accepted nationally by the Church, in sum, is not being accepted in San Antonio.
In 2014, the Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (USA) changed its official doctrine to define marriage as a covenant between “two people,” as opposed to the long-standing doctrine that marriage was a covenant between one man and one woman.
Gay marriages are now permitted in their churches in states where it is legal. Last March, Mission Presbytery (a structure similar in nature to a Catholic diocese) – of which FPC is a member – also amended their Book of Order, adopting the more contemporary doctrine.
Not surprisingly, this fundamental shift has not been without dissent among congregations and church leaders, especially in the more conservative Southern states and cities. San Antonio has been no exception.
More information from First Presbyterian Church San Antonio
May 14 letter from San Antonio’s clerk of session
March 27 session report to the congregation
March 10 Rev. Ron Scates’ letter to the congregation on Mission Presbytery actions
14 Comments. Leave new
The ‘reporter’ (and I use the term loosely), has a lot of difficulty trying to keep her own biases out of the report; actually she has no difficulty because she injects them every change she gets.
For example: “Most recently, gay marriage has become the key divisive issue. Despite official denials, that very issue is the likely cause now for a legal battle initiated by First Presbyterian Church (FPC)”
Does she actually include the reasoning that the leadership of FPC is using? No as it would not backup the narrative she wants to write.
Another example: “A survey of First Presbyterian members was undertaken by Galloway Research last November, asking whether the church should remain in the PC(USA). Gay marriage was not explicitly stated as the wedge issue, but everyone knew that to be the case.”
Where are the interviews of the people who ‘knew that to be the case’ ??
Then there’s this: “However, Mission Presbytery has a “trust clause” concerning ownership of property, according to Ruben Armendariz, acting head of staff and associate executive presbyter, Mission Presbytery.”
No mention of the fact that Texas courts have ruled in other cases that there is no such clause.
Finally: “Although recent decisions on the part of FPC leadership may reflect the will of the current congregation, it doesn’t necessarily mesh with those who are moving into the fast-growing neighborhoods around it.”
Again no quotes or interviews with anyone who actually lives around the church, but she uses a quote about how “millennials are rejecting churches that seem outdated…” from a ” Fr. William Eavenson, Jr. lead pastor for student ministry at The Mission Chattanooga in Tennessee’. That is 1) from someone who is not Presbyterian and 2) doesn’t even live in Texas.
This should have been labeled as opinion or commentary rather than a news story.
This article begins with the statement the Presbyterians trace their roots to the Puritans in England. What sloppy scholarship. We trace our roots to the John Knox in Scotland and John Calvin in Switzerland.
The author mistakes for the congregationalists.
Why reprint error filled articles?
I agree about the opinions without fact. Very biased writing.
BTW, the author is a man, not a woman.
The Presbytery of Philadelphia, the earliest foundation of the Presbyterian Church in the New World, was founded in 1706 through the cooperative efforts of Scotch-Irish Presbyterian immigrants and American Puritans who preferred the Presbyterian form of government over the Congregational form. English Puritans were of two forms—Presbyterians and Congregationalists, but when Puritans immigrated to the American colonies, they became de facto Congregationalists, owing to the absence of any established presbytery on this side of the Atlantic prior to 1706.
So Graham was partially correct in referring to the Presbyterian Church’s “inception by the Puritans”, but he notably neglected to mention the Scotch-Irish immigrants who were also instrumental in the inception of the Presbytery of Philadelphia.
I don’t know your source—-but the English settled in New England and not PA and what became NJ. I have studied this history and you are not correct.
Try here.
This article was a complete joke, you go 1st Pres San Antonio!
Each local Body of Christ will have to decide what they will do. The decision will be painful and will hurt many. In today’s “me first” world, we need the Word of God and the church even more. The good news of the Gospel must be communicated to all. The “story” must be told to the next generation.
I would agree that it is about more than marriage. It is about the authority of scripture, it is about the person and work of Christ, it is about far left issues in the denomination, it is about the squandering of denominational resources. It is unfortunate that a church wanting to leave has to seek an injuction against Presbytery. However that decision did not happen in a vacuum. There have been too many cases where Presbytery showed up in the middle of the night, changed the locks, and fired the pastor and the session just for wanting to exercise their God given right to associate with another denomination.
First of all, re was no “Presbytery of Philadelphia” in 1706. It was called the presbytery. It met in Philadelphia. Go read the minutes. Second, Francis Makemie is credited for organizing the presbytery. And all but one man were either Scottish or Scotch Irish, though some have argued unsuccessfully so about another. Thirdly, the article is backwards. The puritans stem from the Reformation, the Reformed Presbyterians, the doctrines of whom were systematized by John Calvin who orhanized the church we call Presbyterian The Presbyterians were puritans. Not all puritans were Presbyterian. Our church in America stems from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the champion of which was John Knox, a student of Calvin.
Typing from phone. That should say, There was no “Presbytery of Philadelphia” in 1706. Let me add that, yes, in 1716, thete was a “Presbytery of Philadelphia” when the synod was formed.
Don’t get me wrong. The presbytery formed in 1706, but it wad not called the Presbytery of Philadelphia. Modern histories call it that incorrectly. Now, the article is not well written historically as was pointrd out. Thete are other little errors as well. I will also add that the ministers who organized the presbytery were presbyterians. The churches did have elders and did not consider themselves congregationalists at all.
So the Presbyterians predate the Puritans of England. When the Presbyterian Church was formed by Calvin, the term, Puritan, had not even been used yet. That came later. The puritans of England were either Presbytrrian or Church of Rngland, while some were Congregational, but the majority were Church of England which came into being after the Presbyterian Church. Calvin and the Presbyterian Church did not come from the putitans of England. Calvin was from Grsnce but formed the church in Switzerland because he wss persecuted in France. It is entirely incorrect to say the Presbyterian Church had its inception from the puritans. The puritans carried around Calvin’s Institutes. Calvin formed the Presbyterian Church.
My phone is very yuk. That should say, Calvin was from France. Other spelling errors can be deciphered. My phone is hard to type on.