Open letter:
Ruling elder renounces ordination in the PCUSA
C. Zimmerman, Special to The Layman, January 6, 2012
Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to the pastors and session of a congregation in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Then the writer sent it to The Layman. In his cover letter he wrote, “The change in PCUSA church law which occurred on July 11th was not the end of the war against social approval of sexual disorientations, only a major battle lost. That war continues, both within the PCUSA and in society at large. Because the Presbyterian Lay Committee and many of the readers of The Layman are actually or potentially warriors in that struggle, I offer a copy of my church letter … for your use as you see fit.”
July 11th, A.D. 2011
To the Pastors and Session of X Presbyterian Church:
This letter bears two requests born of great pain and sorrow, together with an explanation of why those requests have become necessary. It is also intended to shed light on a conflict which has beset both church and society in recent decades, and has yet to be resolved.
With the passage of Proposition 10-A, which takes effect today, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has succumbed to the homosexual heresy and has decided that it is unnecessary for its leaders to be role models of sexual morality. Because I cannot in good faith and conscience support a denomination which has so corrupted itself, I hereby renounce my ordination as a ruling elder of the PCUSA, along with all of the responsibilities and privileges which are inherent in that office, and ask that this action be recorded in the minutes of this church and transmitted to presbytery.
Taking this step is extremely painful for me, because I have been a Presbyterian since childhood. At first that was by nurture, because both of my grandfathers were elders in the same Presbyterian church where my parents grew up. Later it was by deliberate choice, when I concluded that Presbyterian principles of theology and church government set forth the best pathway for the application of Christianity to my life.
In spite of the pain, the rationale for this step is very simple. I can find no possible reason to believe that God approves of homosexual relationships and behavior, nor of any of the other interpersonal behaviors which march under the LGBT banner (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered). And I find this action of the PCUSA to be a gross betrayal of the principles and confessions which have distinguished this denomination in its faithful following of Christ in past centuries.
Some of the arguments that have been asserted by the pro-LGBT propagandists within the PCUSA are mindless parroting of the same arguments that are asserted by the same sort of propagandists in secular society. The so-called theological reasons that those propagandists within the PCUSA have set forth are logically unsound, and are nothing more than feeble excuses for ignoring the clearly expressed word of God in Holy Scripture.
For example, it is sometimes asserted that God loves homosexuals and therefore approves their behavior. While the premise is true, the argument is false. God also loves thieves, murderers and pedophiles, but it does not follow that God approves of theft, murder or sexual intimacy between adults and children. (This fallacious argument is especially damaging when it misleads well-intentioned parents into failing to teach their children self-discipline.)
For another example, I have heard it asserted that Bible’s explicit prohibition against male homosexual behavior is no longer valid because we no longer live in a male-dominated society. This argument is fallacious for several independent reasons.
- It rests on the principle that God’s law is subject to change according to changes in secular society. But if that were true, then the Barmen Declaration (among others) would never have been written, and the church would never disagree with anything approved by society. Such a principle would also make God the creation of mankind, rather than the reverse. Therefore this argument is false.
- It asserts that the prohibition is in the Bible solely to support a male-dominated society, as if humankind were perfectly capable of knowing all of God’s reasons for every rule which is found there. This is false, and therefore this argument is false.
- If it is indeed true that God put that prohibition in the Bible solely to support a male-dominated society, then it asserts that God formerly intended human society to be dominated by males but no longer intends that. But I can find no evidence in the Bible that either part of that assertion is true. Instead, I find the role of women in Biblical society being honored from the earliest times, and that fundamental principles laid down in the Old Testament continue to be valid in the New Testament. (While it is true that some Old Testament rules are no longer followed by most modern branches of Christianity, those rules generally fall into the categories of health and safety or of ceremony, not into the category of God’s design for interpersonal relationships.) Thus the premise is false, and God must have given humankind this prohibition for another reason (or reasons), and it remains valid.
- It asserts that prohibiting homosexual behavior supports the dominance of males over females. This assertion would be laughable if it were not so appalling, because I cannot see any possibility of truth or logic in it. Preventing males from using homosexual outlets for their sexual urges does not make them more likely to try to dominate females. Therefore this argument is false.
It may be argued that the PCUSA merely removed an unnecessary restriction, and that presbyteries are free to follow the same standards as before. This argument is specious, for it is widely understood that the reason for removal of the restriction was to allow practicing homosexuals to be ordained to leadership positions in the denomination. One obvious consequence is that the church will be setting up practicing homosexuals as role models for the children of the church to follow. Another obvious consequence is that as presbyteries disagree over standards of ordination (and they will), there will be increasing disunity within the denomination. Furthermore, the Christian church worldwide (which vastly outnumbers the Christian church in the USA) rightly views this PCUSA action as a gross betrayal of Biblical morality, and is appalled by it.
Finally, all of the arguments against approving homosexual behavior in secular society apply with equal validity to religious societies such as the Presbyterian church. One of those arguments deserves special mention, though — it is the question of tolerance versus approval. While it is true that God meets us wherever we are (if we are willing), God does not do so for the purpose of making us comfortable in whatever we have chosen to do. Instead, He meets us there in order to lift us up to the kind of life which He designed us to have. His tolerance of us is not approval of whatever we have chosen to do, nor should our tolerance of others be regarded as approval of whatever they have chosen to do.
As Christians and as a church, we are indeed supposed to open our doors to thieves, murderers, prostitutes, and the sexually disoriented of every stripe. That does not mean that we may ask them to be our leaders while they are wallowing in ungodly behavior. Instead, it means that we are to offer to share with them the transforming love of Christ which we have experienced, so that their lives may in turn be transformed in accordance with God’s plan for humanity. Those who are selected to be the leaders of the church will function as role models, and will be regarded a
s exemplifying in their lives what it means to follow Jesus faithfully. Therefore they must be held to a higher standard of behavior than can be tolerated in ordinary members, and that standard must be held across the entire denomination in order to be effective.
When it first became evident to me that the PCUSA was likely to abandon the requirement that its leadership serve as role models of sexual purity, I gave serious consideration to making this renunciation of ordination public through a paid advertisement in local newspapers, and extending it to include renunciation of membership in the local church. Because I have a number of long-time friends and acquaintances who happen to be addicted to sexual disorientation, I realized that they might well misinterpret my actions as a personal attack on them, and that those friendships would suffer in consequence. But I decided that the burden of such misinterpretation was a necessary price that I would have to pay in order to follow Christ faithfully.
Eventually, I decided against such a public course of action for two reasons. First, our son has committed to a term of service as a Deacon of this local church, and needs our support. Second, this local church has not yet succumbed explicitly to the homosexual heresy (though the Infection is at work here), so our grandchildren can still receive a proper Christian education.
Therefore my wife and I will continue for the time being to support this local church with our gifts of time, talent and treasure. However, we request your assurance that none of our financial gifts to this local church will be used to support any higher level of the PCUSA denominational hierarchy.
At the beginning of this letter, I wrote of the pain and sorrow that accompanies these requests. I could have avoided that pain and sorrow if I could have ignored what’s going on in American society. After all, I am no longer on active duty with the military, so I would not be directly affected by homosexuals taking advantage of the forced intimacy of the military environment to jeopardize morale. I’m happily married, as are my children, so my grandchildren have reasonably good role models for the importance of a healthy and loving life-long relationship between a man and a woman. And my local church officials are not trying to persuade this congregation to pretend that homosexuality is approved by God as normal and healthy.
But God will not let me hide from the truth that too many other Americans refuse to recognize. I am absolutely convinced that He has called me to speak the truth as He has led me to see it. Even though I am not a preacher, I must speak out; and if even one other person is thereby brought out of darkness into the light of clear thinking, then the effort will have been well worth the pain and sorrow I must endure. In the end, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing; and I cannot do that.
In Christian faith, hope and charity,
C. Zimmerman
Open letters are selected for publication based on their clarity and are subject to editing. They are provided as an informational service and do not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Layman Online or the Presbyterian Lay Committee.