The Layman
Stating that it “is not time to decide the church’s direction by vote, but to engage in serious and prayerful study aiming to develop a definitive guideline that would not only unify the church, but also promote effective ministry to the changing, confusing world,” Eastern Korean Presbytery has called for the 221st General Assembly to create task force to identify common ground and reconcilable differences in respect to same-gender marriage.
In Overture 047 (business item 10-07), Eastern Korean Presbytery asks that the General Assembly create a task force of at least 12 elders with diverse theological, racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds to make recommendations to the 223rd General Assembly in 2018.
The task force should:
- “identify common ground and reconcilable differences in Biblical understanding and confessional interpretation with respect to same-gender marriage;
- “study the nature, scope and controversies of the same-gender marriage laws legalized in certain states;
- “assess the impact of such laws and related sociopolitical changes on the ministry and mission of the church;
- “provide the local presbyteries and congregations with theological guidelines for their ministry, as to understand and apply the concepts and functions of family and parenting based on Biblical norms and ethics; and
- “bring forth practical and futuristic recommendations that would not only strengthen and promote unity within the church, but also solidify ministries and missions with ecumenical partners locally and globally.”
The overture also asks that the assembly direct “all councils to take no actions on the same-gender marriage issue until such recommendations are received, discussed, and disposed by the General Assembly.”
Beaver-Butler Presbytery has concurred with the overture, and it has been assigned to the General Assembly Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues (Committee 10).
The rationale behind the overture
“In a short period of time a dramatic shift in our Biblical interpretation and polity application concerning human sexuality has caused confusion, division and resentment, resulting in weakening, rather than strengthening of the ministry and mission of the church,” the overture’s rationale reads. “Many presbyteries and local congregations are experiencing membership loss, poor morale, and increasing financial burdens as a result.”
The rationale continues that several overtures have already been submitted to the General Assembly to change the definition of marriage, and social debates and legal maneuvers continue to occur across the country.
“The burgeoning of sociopolitical debate on and hastened implementation of same-gender marriage inevitably invites criticism of incongruity with Biblical and theological understandings, which causes further confusion and disunity for all engaged in the pastoral and public ministries, and ultimately threatens the already fragile goals of peace, unity and purity of the body of Christ,” states the rationale.
While it is important for ministry to adapt to the various changing needs of society and culture, Eastern Korea Presbytery states that it is “imperative for the church to discern and prophetically declare the role and function of each Christian and congregation in applying Christ’s teachings to each changing need. In the course, it is not surprising that apostolic teachings are found often incompatible with the prevailing cultural norms. Thus, in attempting contextualization to the rapidly changing socio-cultural milieu, we need to recalibrate our understanding, as we endeavor to be transformed through spiritual renewal, rather than conforming to prevailing culture.”
It continues that as “we strive toward the goal of oneness in Christ, the church ought to invigorate her efforts to uncover common theological understandings of human sexuality, marriage, family and parenting.”
The presbytery’s rationale also declares that it is “fundamentally critical for us to grasp a clear sense of marriage and family, as they reflect God’s character, perfect harmony and unity, the Triune God, and the revelation of the great mystery of Christ’s love for the church. Marriage and family are the central human relationships that God has gifted each person to achieve the embodiment of Christ in our daily walk.”
“Society in general and people in younger generations in particular expect the church to provide a practical guideline with persuasive rationale that they can apply in their search for God’s purpose in the confusing world and directing themselves towards godly lifestyles,” it reads.
The 221st General Assembly will be held June 14-21 in Detroit, Mich. The official GA web site can be found here. The Layman’s coverage of the 2014 GA can be accessed here.
15 Comments. Leave new
Contrary to the overture, the “differences in Biblical understanding and confessional interpretation with respect to same-gender marriage” are irreconcilable. They cannot, and will not, be reconciled by any period of study and discernment.
There is no doubt the PCUSA will approve of same-sex “marriage”. The only question is whether it will happen on the first attempt, or take multiple attempts as the repeal of the fidelity and chastity clause did. Do the Detroit GA commissioners feel brave enough to face the backlash from rank and file Presbyterians if a same-sex “marriage” overture is approved? We’ll find out in a few weeks.
Many, many churches are already in the process of leaving. I think everyone is assuming that this GA will pass same-sex “marriage,” and that will be the end of the denomination.
I recall for a couple of decades hearing dismayed presbytery commissioners, elders on session, and church members ask concerning the debate over the ordination of people who engaged in alternate sexual lifestyles, “Why are we having this conversation?”
The simple fact that the 220th General Assembly started the conversation (debate?) over redefining marriage was enough for my session to initiate the process of leaving the PCUSA. We did.
Neal Humphrey, Teaching Elder
Mountain Road Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Unfortunately, many will leave the church for a variety of reasons. Jesus calls us to be different than the world rather than conform to the world. All are sinners but we cannot call any sin a righteous act. To do so perverts the Lord’s word. I am one of the sinners leaving PCUSA although i am waiting to see what happens at this General Assembly.
One should not hold their breath on this matter. It would require OGA/GA/Louisville to in essence change it business model. High stress up or down votes, steamrolling the agenda under the label of “social justice” and if that seems to fail, then go the rout of the AI. An administrative fiat by which the polity of the church is bypassed, and the ruling elites impose their will. apart from the consent of the governed. Such was done by PUP in 2006 when it came to them matter of ordination, why should this time be different? Many of the same players are on the stage.
From the ideological purge on the Middle East study group, to the cool reception any amendment gets that calls into the question he matter of presbytery boundaries to per capita, suffice to say ‘the fix is in’. All else in Detroit is theater and self-affirmation of the organization.
How can a denomination that approved ordination for non-celibate homosexual and heterosexual persons deny their right to marry? What are the moral or Biblical grounds for doing so? A bit hypocritical, I would say.
What is the Biblical reason for marriage? Why do some believe in the authority of the Ten Commandments while others consider them outdated laws not to be taken seriously? Why do some take to heart, feel the pain and appreciate that Christ was crucified In a torturous and humiliating death to pay the penalty for our sins while others place their belief in sociological and cultural demands of the day seeking to amend the Bible to suit their desires? Faith is easily acquired; one has but to ask. However. blessed are those who teach the way, the truth and the life. One must ask: Is same sex marriage a sociological and cultural demand or a Biblical commandment?
Jonathan’s marriage vow to David in 1 Samuel 20:14-17:
14 And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not:
15 But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth.
16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David’s enemies.
17 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
is marred by two Hebrew ambiguities: that of the negative “not” (lo) with the affirmative “verily” (lu, lo) and that of “with” (‘im) with “people” (‘am). The ambiguity is strong enough that “shew me the kindness” in verse 14 is alternatively “don’t show me the kindness,” “that I die not” is “that I verily die,” “thou shalt not cut” in verse 15 is “thou shalt verily cut” and “no, not when the Lord” is “and verily when the Lord.” Furthermore, “enemies” in Hebrew is the same word as “my enemy,” so that the last clause becomes confusable with “when the Lord has verily cut my enemy.” Because “make a covenant” is the same word as “cut off,” “So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David” is the same as “So Jonathan cut off the people of David’s house.” These incongruities make the proclamation of love in verse 17 more than a little suspect and – by extension – call into question 2 Sam. 6:16: “(Michal) despised him in her heart.” But what does it mean: “Jonathan cut off the people of David’s house?” It means that Jonathan’s marriage vows became a curse that occasioned the David-offspring Amnon – whose rape of his stepsister Tamar caused his execution (2 Sam. 13), Absalom – who added to the murder of Amnon the rebellion against David (2 Sam. 17-19), and Solomon, whose shenanigans split Israel into two (1 Kings). Not to mention the Bathsheba affair, which showed a severe lack of sexual sense. The question is not then whether David and Jonathan were married, but rather would things have turned out better if the couple had physiologically been able to consummate the union. Prerequisites of a resolution of the current homosexual debate are coming to terms with the David-Jonathan relationship and understanding its role in David’s sexual persona.
Any “serious and prayerful study” should include Dennis Prager’s insightful exegesis: “Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality” linked here:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html
God’s people were unique in the in the world in limiting sex to married male and female. His command in this respect based on His infinite wisdom is not altered. The AIDS experience seems to have taught moderns nothing as they now seek safer perversion through pharmacology. Prager notes: “…. the Bible adds a unique threat to the Jews if they engage in homosexuality and the other offenses of the Canaanites: “You will be vomited out of the land” just as the non-Jews who practice these things were vomited out of the land.” The PCUSA seems to be hell bent on the same path that led the Jews to be vomited into Babylonian exile.
The only thing that got “vomited out” was Jonah. (Jonah 2:10: “And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.”) You must mean Lev. 18:22-25:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
You’ve confused the Jewish sins that caused the exile with the sins that caused the birth of Christianity. “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things … and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants” anticipates Mat. 27:64: “Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day … lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away.” Wracked by guilt, Pilate excused the crucifixion as proper punishment for the sin of lying “with any beast to defile thyself.” (Lev. 18:23 above; the birth of the Lord in a manger caused His defilement.) “All these things” of Lev. 18:24 includes touching corpses. See Numbers 19:16: “And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.” Pilate didn’t want the disciples defiling themselves by coming in contact with a corpse and thus preventing the resurrection – fulfillment of “the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitant” (Lev. 18:25). See Luke 2:16: “And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.” Mary dismounted and stood before the mule before lying down and giving birth (Lev. 18:23). You’re technically right, Dudley, with “the non-Jews who practice these things were vomited out of the land.” The Lord sacrificed his Jewishness by being vomited out of the tomb.
Sorry, Dudley, if I confused you.
Lev. 18:25 says: “And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.” “The iniquity thereof” is a single Hebrew word – עֲוֹנָהּ, which is pronounced ‘avona and is very similar to “Jonah,” which is יוֹנָה. The verse 23 prohibition which brought the land to nausea when it saw it being violated is: “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast.” Jonah violated the prohibition when he ended up prostrate in the fish’s belly while it (the fish) took a snooze on the ocean floor. Jonah’s captivity lasted three days (Jonah 2:1), after which the prophet was “vomited out upon the dry land” (Jonah 2:11). Since “dry land” (יַּבָּשָׁה yabasha) and “her inhabitants” (יֹשְׁבֶיהָ yoshbeya) are practically identical, the implication of Lev. 18:25 is that Jonah was vomited out onto the inhabitants of Nineveh, whom he evangelized (Jonah 3:3-5). Our Lord mimicked Jonah by violating Lev. 18:23 when He spent His birth prostrate in a stall of grazing beasts. At the end of His three-day captivity in the tomb “the land itself vomited out her inhabitant,” who “shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). So those of you with dogs who sleep with them, fear not! See Ezek. 37:12: “Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.”
I am literally begging and praying that the GA will give us an up or down vote on the change in the definition of marriage at their meeting this June 2014 in Detroit. I personally am against the change…..show me in the Bible where it condones same sex marriage and I will drop my protest immediately! If the GA kicks this issue down the road, I believe they will do more damage than good……we deserve to know where the GA stands, this issue has grown to the point where Churches are not able to concentrate on the word of God and the mission that he has set forth. It’s a distraction……FISH OR CUT BAIT! The world wide Presbyterian Denomination has virtually been cut in half……most of it over this very issue. WAKE UP GA……UP OR DOWN…..NOW!
“Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives … I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Sam. 1:23-26). Just as the love between Jonathan and David surpassed the mundanity of marriage (they never excahanged rings) so your passion for the denomination, Richard, will survive the nonsense of homosexuality.
I am with Richard’s comment of May 6. I am a Methodist but thinking of switching to a more Bible-oriented church. As for same-sex marriage, so-called, what is next? Polygamy, bi-sexual or polyandry “marriage”? All these are are likely to come before the courts and/or voters as a matter of “fairness” once same-sex marriage becomes available in all 50 states.
I agree with you, Rod, about polygamy. Just because Abraham and David did it, doesn’t mean it’s right. The Lord had twelve disciples but only one that He loved.
John 13:23: “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.”
John 20:2: “Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved,”
John 21:7: “Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter …”
John 21:20: “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved”
The Greek at 21:7 is clear: “that (special) disciple.” The King James comma at 20:2: “the other diciple, whom Jesus loved” is probably correct, though “the second (of the two) disciple(s) whom Jesus loved” is also possible. While the newly discovered papyrus fragment, which at line 5 has “[broken] J.C. said to them, ‘My wife [broken],” implies monogamy, 1 Cor. 9:5: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” goes in the opposite direction. If a “sister (in the Lord)” is a female wife, then “the brethren of the Lord” were His two male consorts. See gospelofjesusswife.hds.harvard.edu.