The Layman
Does the Presbyterian Church (USA) have a new official seal?
A new variation of the denomination’s seal has been appearing on various web sites celebrating the 221st General Assembly’s approval of measures allowing same-sex marriage to be performed in the PCUSA in states where the practice is legal.
In his June 20 blog, “What rainbowing the Presby seal works for me,” Andrews Kukla wrote, “Yesterday … The Presbyterian Church (USA) – made way for marriage equality … Then a lot of Presbys took FB (Facebook) profile pics by storm changing our seal to some version of rainbow.”
He said that he saw the “rainbow seal as appropriate precisely because I am pro gay. Because called to love my neighbor, the stranger, the alien, and the outcast. I am pro humanity. I am pro people who have been denied love and care, particularly by the church. I’m pro being in a church that is trying to cease to be an oppressive force which it has been (and always will be because we see through a glass dimly).”
Kukla, a Presbyterian pastor in Boise, Idaho, wrote that “for today and tomorrow my seal will be rainbow. It could be, and should be all colors and no color and whatever it takes to remind us that God is God of all people, of many covenants, of steadfast love and faithfulness who tends to hang out with the people forced to the margins by the dominant narratives of our corporate life but endeavors to gather us all in celebrating our uniqueness while creating a wholeness and unity in an Acts 2 kind of outpouring of the Spirit. Today’s rainbow may feel like the scandal of particularity (ala Israel itself) to you, and that should be – because that is the way of our God who lifts up those who need lifting, and at one time or another that is all of us.”
Illustrating a sermon
The Rev. Randall T. Clayton, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Wilmington, Del., used the rainbow seal as an illustration when he posted his June 22 sermon - Storm stories – on his blog.
Speaking of the General Assembly’s decisions on same-sex marriage, Clayton said that “Although some see these actions as a threat to tradition, or as a misreading of Scripture, I see it very differently. I see it as a faithful response to God’s love, and a faithful understanding of what I believe Scripture says we are to be and to do and to become. A cornerstone of our heritage as Presbyterians is the concept that having been once reformed, we are always in the process of reforming as we understand more fully God’s word and call in each new time. And so we are.”
Not everyone, he said, “joins me in celebrating these actions. But regardless of where we are on these issues, all of us are truly one in Christ, and we are all part of a denomination that seeks to be faithful to God’s word and to God’s call anew in each day and age. … These actions by our highest Council give me great hope that our denomination will continue to be a church marked and shaped by the incrediblewelcome of God, and that we will be able ever more faithfully to bear witness to the justice and love of our Savior Jesus Christ in the world around us today. It is my prayer that our church can live into these actions with grace and love, with hope and joy.”
Celebrating a ‘big day’ in the church
The Rev. Marci Glass used the rainbow seal in her June 20 blog on “Marriage equality in the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
“This is a big day for our church,” she wrote. “This allows us to live into our calling to welcome ALL people, to baptize, to feed at the table, to nurture, to care for, to celebrate their marriages.”
In her blog, Glass wondered why “many churches will leave and many international church partners will sever ties with us because of these changes.”
She asked the churches that are considering leaving the PCUSA over the decision, “How are you being hurt by allowing a persecuted minority group the rights and privileges you have long held, without removing your rights and privileges? Why do you need to leave our fellowship if nothing is being changed in how you worship, serve in mission, and live out your life in faith?”
And to the ecumenical international partners who may leave, she asked, “have you not heard of mutual forbearance? We extend it to you in order to be in relationship with you. Many of our international Christian partners don’t recognize the gifts of women in leadership. That doesn’t mean we don’t talk to you.”
To the churches and people who are considering leaving the denomination, she said, “You don’t have to go. None of us want you to. We don’t want you to have to change the way you live out your life in faith. We have just been working for that same privilege to be extended to everyone in our fellowship. Now that we have equality, we hope you won’t feel the need to leave.”
As for the PCUSA’s international partners, she said that “We hope you’ll stay in relationship with us as well. We trust our faith is strengthened by your witness, no matter how different our culture, our context, or our biblical interpretation might be.”
The PCUSA’s rainbow seal can also be found at:
43 Comments. Leave new
OH YE GADS! The progressives won. At this point this a victory lap that is tacky, un-presbyterian let alone un-Christian. And some of these comments are even far left of me, telling churches or our fellow presbyterian churches around the world that will either leave or sever ties have they heard of “mutual forbearance”. Are you kidding me, I would not put with this kind of crap out of my kids. Leave our PCUSA seal alone. GROW UP!
Just to give appropriate credit for the artwork, Adam Walker Cleaveland, Associate Pastor at Winnetka Presbyterian Church and Owner at Cleave Design, designed this “rainbow seal.”
I do see that there was a link to my blog at the end of the article. So thank you for giving me credit in that way.
In not only the writings, listed above, but in some of the comments that have appeared in the last two weeks, I find myself wondering: Who has read the Bible–or even just the Gospels–to which they claim to be referring? The supposedly “principled” appeals to forbearance and unity, above, would be given no quarter by Jesus or by Paul, if we bother to read–and comprehend–more than just a few select verses. Revelation’s letters to the seven churches also, at various points, cast down a great many of the progressive formulas and compromises that are being paraded as love.
On the other hand, a sort of Stoic declaration of apathy or aloofness toward (and abandonment of) individuals and congregations still in the PCUSA, seems also not to follow the model of Christ’s love (as in Matthew 18) or of God’s long-suffering seeking of the lost. While faith in Christ, adherence to his truth, and obedience to his word should be uncompromising, these things are a part of our taking up daily of our cross (Lk 9). In rejecting the waywardness and wiles of the progressive celebrants of disorder, let us not reenact a hand-washing ritual and a set of words that sounds more reminiscent of Pontius Pilate than of Jesus Christ.
The progressive wing (and now core?) of the PCUSA has largely walked (or run) away from the obedient church. But I continue to believe that those who God empowers should learn some key elements from Daniel–in his fervent prayer for exiled Israel. They should also try, as possible, to follow Jude’s injunctions to tend to the doubters, the imperiled, and even some who have entered into defilements. Daniel 9 and all of little Jude are surely worthy of renewed reflection, at such a time and juncture as this.
You are a talented artist. It’s darkly beautiful.
Ironic last phrase.
Adam, I didn’t realize your church was presbyterian, at least not what I could tell from the website.
Kevin,
ii agree with what you’re saying, but as a human it’s getting very difficult to turn the other cheek for about the millionth time, i can certainly understand where some of these comments are coming from, and empathize with the frustration level. i come from a Presbyterian USA family, many of my close friends are still Presbyterian. i converted to Catholicism four years ago officially, it was a work in progress for several years prior to that. i’ve had countless conversations, in person, over the phone, in writing, with PCUSA family and friends about the error of their ways, etc. etc. when all else failed i simply started praying the Rosary for souls who were clearly lost. that was several years ago. the level of defiance i’m witnessing from some of these souls is surreal. not only have they rejected sound Biblical doctrine, many of them are trampling it and throwing it back in my face. at some point the only Christian response is to shake the dust off and move on. obviously i still pray for these souls, but i not longer stand in front of the speeding train, waiting for it to kill me. there are demons associated with many of these issues, we are playing with fire when we put ourselves in a position to be influenced beyond our human capabilities to defend ourselves.
Not sure I understand.. if Mr. McLane is not PCUSA he is not allowed to find your last phrase to be ironic? I don’t know if you are a member of the PCUSA, you do not know if I am a member of the PCUSA, but we DO know that a third of the Layman Board members are from other denominations, the previous president was from another denomination, the current president renounced her PCUSA ordination and her current denominational affiliation is not mentioned on this site, and a great many of the people who provide their real names and regularly attack the PCUSA here are from other denominations. This is pretty much a non-PCUSA organization whose primary purpose seems to be stirring up conflict in the PCUSA. Now THAT is ironic…
For the record I’m a ruling elder in the PCUSA, I aware of the make up of the board, I’m progressive on some things, not on others. I consider this discussion to be done with a PCUSA mindset. So my comments reflect that.
Wait…the libs quotes Scripture to demand forbearance while rejecting Scripture on marriage. How about I reject the parts of the Bible that say I have to be gracious and loving? Read Professor Aaron James’ latest book.
There is no Word against homosexuality in any of the four Gospels, but there is more than enough context to define Leviticus and the rest of the Epic of Israel as a cautionary narrative rather than a literal history (e.g.: Jesus never told Moses the rules for selling one’s daughters into slavery, nor did he command Joshua to commit genocide).
Sexual orientation is ONLY a choice for bisexuals. As a heterosexual, I can attest that I cannot receive pleasure from intercourse with a member of the same sex, so I believe that the inverse must be true of homosexuals (as opposed to bisexual gays).
Desires that do not victimize others or harm oneself when acted upon cannot be sin. Moreover, if such desires are core to the nature of a person, saying that a person is “sinful” because of them is bigotry.
Jesus has/will never countenance bigotry, so if the Apostles included bigotry in their writings, then they were simply wrong–as humans are prone to be. Jesus never edited or approved the canon.
Milton,
I want to look at what you’ve said, here. I’ll begin with your second paragraph, as I’m not catching your point in the first paragraph.
In paragraph 2, you assume that sexual orientation is simply built into a person’s nature. While I have seen no adequate evidence for this claim, I would note that it stands in blatant contradiction to so much else that the progressive wing of academia pitches, namely, the “social construction” of reality. I know people who both take it that all matters of gender and roles are strictly “social constructions” and that, mysteriously, sexual orientation is entirely biologically determined. As far as I can tell, the insistence that sexual orientation is biological has become dominant because it was discovered that it played well to a gullible American public. For who could say that someone should not act consistently with who they are? I would urge you to reflect, however, on other areas of life. There are many areas in which someone may say, “I could never stand X” (whatever X is). But, what we also know is that, with either a very different upbringing–or with very different earlier practices, habits, and resultant preferences–it could have been that that same person could have tolerated or even preferred X. To assume that children are not impressionable and subject to radical changes (especially when subjected to certain kinds of influences that psychologists have known about for years) is an assumption by which children are left vulnerable to grave dangers.
In your third paragraph, you say, “Desires that do not victimize others or harm oneself when acted upon cannot be sin.” This, obviously, has little to do with the Bible’s conception of sin, since, by your supposed principle, the early commandments of the 10 Commandments have nothing to do with sin. But, even restricted to narrower human ethical concerns, your principle is not at all convincing to me. In fact, I would caution you with this claim: If you just insist upon your principle around impressionable young persons (as they are trying to figure out how to cope with life and with the world), you may contribute to the harming of those young persons. For what you are largely asserting is that as long as someone isn’t crossing the worst of the moral boundaries, it doesn’t really matter what they do. Your principle is both a principle of despair and a principle that demolishes the encouragement of self-discipline. It is no principle that would help anyone to strive to live consistently with the upward call of Christ. By asserting such beliefs, you’ll join a chorus that I fear will especially help to guarantee that the fewer women and children in the future will have dependable husbands and fathers for the trying aspects of life.
In your last paragraph, you claim to know about Jesus–but you claim to have this knowledge independently of the Gospel reports. By implication, you seem to be ready to say BOTH, “Jesus is good, as I define good” AND “If the Gospels say anything about Jesus with which I disagree, then the Gospels are wrong.” Clearly, you are not taking the Bible with any seriousness.
In sum, whether I reflect from the Bible or even just from my own limited understanding of how humans seem to work, your beliefs are unconvincing and your proposals fraught with danger.
Your response only further validates my original comment. #smh
Guest,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’ve read some other comments that you’ve recently posted, and it has been clear to me that you have borne a real burden–and suffered some wounds. What is also clear is that you have not fallen into the dichotomy either of tolerating everything for the sake of inch-deep unity or of walking away in a huff, saying, “Oh, I just don’t care.”
Obviously, also, you did leave the PCUSA–and travelled a significant theological distance. There would certainly be some topics on which the two of us would have to acknowledge real and formidable disagreements. We would not be able simply to say, “oh let’s just ignore those differences for the sake of unity”–for such a course of action would seem far too close to a betrayal of that which we hold most dear. (Now, this is what I’m guessing would be the case. You certainly may disagree.)
Anyway, let me thank you for reaching across this divide to speak to me as a friend. I am glad to do the same. While we’ll not agree to join together in one common church congregation, truly we aim to encourage each other with biblical wisdom, moral commitment, and honest examination of the ways of human beings.
And this brings me to an observation that I hope some others will ponder along with us. As far as I can tell, it is far easier for me (a Protestant Christian) to speak with you (a Roman Catholic) than it is for me to find any significant common ground with liberal PCUSA members, however many theological or biblical terms or nice-intentioned sentiments they wish to express. For, while they’re speaking of Jesus, their narratives seem far more existentialist or post-modern than biblical, their ethics seem far more shaped by the Enlightenment or Rousseau or Mill or Marx (or by something they’ve heard on the television) than by divine imperatives or proverbial wisdom. Much as you suggested, this seems “surreal.”
As for some of the treatment you’ve received, such things are terrible. The Apostle Paul was remarkably long-suffering, but he didn’t just ask for more punishment to be handed his way. In a variety of contexts, he called persons to account for the mistreatments they were dishing out. When certain synagogues made clear that they wanted nothing to do with the Gospel message, Paul went elsewhere. In his discussion of the armor of God, Paul says, “…take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm” (Eph. 6:13). Aim, friend, to stand firm–but not to dash into self-destruction.
My prayers are with you. Thank you, again, for your thoughts.
true that
Rev. Marci Glass asked why churches are leaving. Evidently she doesn’t understand why. On the other hand, I don’t understand why the PCUSA voted not to come to the aid of a baby who survived an abortion. Only a bad end can come to a denomination that endorses such barbarism & inhumanity.
In this case the alteration of the PCUSA seal is fully appropriate. Time for those confessionally orthodox who remain in the institution to own up to what it has become. They won, we lost. It’s all over but the shouting, so either admit it and keep feeding the system or get on with finding another pasture in which to pastor.
no argument here.
adam & z, the difference regardless if you belong different denominations, presbyterian or not is that I have skin in the game, not a casual bystander outside looking in with your smart@$$ comments.
James, this article with unidentified author is tagged as from “the Layman” – as noted an essentially non-PCUSA organization whose rather ignoble mission is to stir up conflict. You seem to have no problem with the many, many non-PCUSA posters who agree with the views of this organization. Yet you want to call out Adam for having “no skin in the game.” Finding a phrase in your post to be ironic is not “smart@$$”.
I am posting anonymously, so I consider observations or citations of facts as appropriate, but I would not use the phrase “for the record” when saying something about myself.
Sad commentary on the PCUSA. I grieve that the church that birth me, nurtured me, educated, ordained and sustained me has prostituted itself to the culture.
Interesting…I have the same background yet feel the exact opposite. I celebrate the “church reformed, always reforming, according to the Word of God”. (And btw I’m a long-time RE, clerk of session, and past REC at GA 218).
“(And btw I’m a long-time RE, clerk of session, and past REC at GA 218).”
i have no idea what any of that means, but from where i sit, naive to the ways of PCUSA politics, it sounds to me like it supports Lawrence’s point, “prostituted itself to the culture.”
sincerely,
BA, MBA, APC, MS
Easier said than done. We just were dismissed and it cost us about 20% of our assets. The Trust Clause is being completely misinterpreted and misused from its original intent and is now being applied to extort money from congregations that are doing just what you have suggested. There is no graciousness in being dismissed by the PCUSA only greed and punitevness. I have been a member of 4 presbyterian churches in 4 different presbyteries and have been an elder for over 30 years and the PCUSA does not represent the denomination founded on the principles of John Calvin and John Knox. Reformation does NOT mean adhering to the cultural norms of today rather we are to witness the truth to the world through our words and actions. Love, yes, but defending the truth at all costs by following Jesus Christ who would love the sinner but not endorse the sin.
Dear Guest,
I’ve been following your comments across the boards. Enjoying it! For your enlightenment (though you may not want it!):
RE (Ruling Elder – elected lay person serving the board of the local church)
Clerk of Session (elected elder to take minutes and other appointed tasks for the board of the local church – the session)
REC (Ruling Elder Commissioner – elected ruling elder to serve as voting delegate to the biennial conference of the entire Presbyterian Church (USA))
GA (General Assembly – that biennial conference that has voting delegates from laity and clergy representing all the presbyteries in the denomination, etc.)
Write on!
BA, MDiv, TE
I read the story and the comments. I saw no mention of the one fundamental doctrine that we are suppose to teach and uphold. Since it is not for us to change the Bibles meaning or the ‘Church Logo’ to suit our purposes, should we not be obedient to God and to Scripture and enact Church Discipline!
I in this life have only to answer to The Father, the logo is beautiful-so is satan! Scripture doesn’t mince words so that we decide everything for ourselves. And as one of my Seminary professors was so fond of saying, “if you must err in interpretation of the Holy Scripture, err in the eye of fundamentalism.”
It is time for sackcloth and ashes, as the Ninivite might say so that we may come closer to God, not step away. God still loves us because He refuseses to do anything without love, and in His love He does expect us to apply Discipline, and teach it. Not change it for our purposes! David W. Hagen, M.Div. teaching elder, ordained ruling elder(PCUSA), ordained deacon(PCUS) and lifelong Presbyterian
The Word Of God states; Leviticus 18:22, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; this is detestable.”
20:12 “If a man sleeps with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is a detestable. They must be put to death, what they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own hands.”
The church has been warned about allowing unrepentant sinners in by Paul and others. All this talk that is contrary to what is in the Bible says is ” Man’s” word. People expelling these words are living in accordance with THEIR OWN “WILL”, not “God’s Will.” Do not be fooled, do not listen to false Prophet’s. Please read the Bible again and heed the warnings God gave the Israelis over and over again. God’s word has not and will not chance. 1ST Samuel: 22, ” But Samuel replied: Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To Obey is better than the fat of the rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has rejected you as King.”
I beg to differ with you Sir; please read 1ST Cor. 6: 9-10, Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. The only question is;
will people stop sinning and live in accordance with Gods will? True faith means to bend to Gods will.
Really? All those “qualifications and yet you still misquote the great motto of the church in order to justify apostasy.
For your general fount of knowledge the correct reading is: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda, secundum verbum Dei — in English, “The church reformed, always being reformed, subject to the word of God.”
It has become a common tactic of the cultural cafeteria believers to try to subtly change this motto in the past couple of decades to dishonestly and intentionally attempt to claim that changing the word of God to accommodate culture is not the offense — try again Mr. Bunch. (BTW I am a former RE and current Minister of Word and Sacrament and I reject your dishonesty.)
Not that we needed it, but more evidence that Mr. Bunch’s church would be a far more welcoming place than that of Pastor Yearsley.
Misreading a Latin participle as a gerund as the ultimate dishonesty…who knew? (A future passive participle “to be reformed”? My Latin is a little rusty)
By the way, it appears that Presbyterians for Renewal did not get the memo on that:
http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/208-pfr-issues-statement-on-the-pup-report
Perhaps Pastor Yearsley should update them?
“Welcoming”?
Two thoughts on “welcoming”:
1) On whichever side of these issues a person may stand, the sniping one-liners of the other side will make real live persons feel unwelcome.
2) Welcoming is important. It is not, however, the highest–and certainly not the sole–criterion of the quality of Christian fellowship.
Milton,
Ever hear of AIDS??
The iniquity of the Amorites that God told Abraham was “not yet full” in Gen.15:16 was likely all kinds of hetro and homo sexual relations and child sacrifice. God limited sex for his people to male/female marriage designed to build cohesive families, the bedrock of any successful society. God called laying with a man as with a woman an abomination and warned them that if they did this they would be “vomited” out of the land. They did, and they were.
Now PC(USA) has embraced abortion, 95+% of which is child sacrifice at the alter of free sex, and redefined marriage under pressure from a noisy 1.5% of the population and their apostate fellow travelers. Can God possibly bless this?! Our declining membership and the disintegration in the larger society emphatically says, “No!!”.
Jim, Who has received permission to change the Word of God from God?
You or the group you represent? When did this non reported event take Place?
Dear Milton,
You say, “As a heterosexual, I can attest that I cannot receive pleasure from intercourse with a member of the same sex,” But what does the rainbow mean? See Gen. 9:12-13: “And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.” The Lord knew his commandments to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (verse 1) and “be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein” (verse 7) were impossible to fulfill, so He established the rainbow as token of the covenant with “every living creature that is with you,” that is, with offspring of your same-sex marriage, the “living creature that is with you” after you and your mate adopted him or had him produced via surrogate pregnancy.
it’s the pitchfork on top that is most worrisome.
as a single person who was called to this life at a very early age, as young as i can remember, i seriously feel like i am being discriminated against. why is it that all the married people in this country collect the spouse’s social security check after the spouse passes away and i get nothing. why is it that the spouses get all the property rights and i get nothing. and on and on. this entire discussion has nothing to do with anything but money, period. gays have been fornicating forever, ignoring every word in the Bible about fornication being a mortal sin. now suddenly we ignore 2000 years of history and act like these folks love Jesus so much. if that was true they would have all been living in celibacy, waiting patiently to be blessed by his Church. not.
why is it that we never hear one word about the rights of so called traditional Christians. most of us have been quiet as church mice in public our entire lives. well guess what, we’ve been talking. we’ve been talking plenty, to Jesus, God the Father, Mother Mary. heaven will undoubtedly have the last word, not PCUSA.
I am DISHONEST and I am quoting the WORD OF GOD?
You are Quoting a Church Motto that was written by Whom? The Clergy? Remember everyone reading this PLEASE; It was the Clergy that had Jesus Crucified.
This person, a member of the clergy would have you believe that is OK to ignore the part of the Bible you do not agree with and that you can live any way you want to live and still receive the Kingdom of God.
Who is the DISHONEST person here?
Guest,
“gays have been fornicating forever” is a misrepresentation of 1 Kings 17:19-21: “And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. And he cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again” and 2 Kings 4:32-34: “And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed.
He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD.
And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm.” The second incident is no more than a fulfillment of Elisha’s request at 2 Kings 2:9: “And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.” That is: “Your date with the boy – I’d like that, too!” In the New Testament these two prophets – Elijah and Elisha – merge into a single character named Elias, and the bedroom business with the youths becomes a prophetic act predicting the Messianic birth. This “Elias” prefigures John the Baptist as Mat. 17:11-13 explains: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” That these couples – Elijah and Elisha, on the one hand, the Lord and John the Baptist, on the other – were in some sense “married” is a fiction of the General Assembly.
i agree with the last sentence, the rest of what you said is over my head.
i’m not a Bible scholar, or a theologian, not even close, just a sinner called to conversion 15 years ago, one of the least likely suspects.
i was speaking in NYC slang, i apologize, my old self coming out. this entire debate about the PCUSA is wearing thin. it’s not even a debate really, the truth is obvious to anyone with eyes to see.
guest
Guest,
You’re right, and I’m wrong! The prohibition against homosexuality is clear (Lev. 18:22): “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Now what Elisha did with the sick boy was therapeutic and thus permissible (2 Kings 4:34): “And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm.” That is, Elisha violated the prohibition at Lev. 18:22 in order to save the boy’s life. In Judaism that’s called Pikuach nefesh. Elisha lay down on the boy in the way a male mounts a female in the course of coitus. Sodomy, which is performed by the partners in reverse, was thus removed from the strictures at Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. Homosexuals received further justification for their intercourse as an emergency medical procedure to assuage wounded emotions. But what was the emergency necessitating Elisha’s assistance? 2 Kings 4:18-19 tells us: “And when the child was grown, it fell on a day, that he went out to his father to the reapers. And he said unto his father, My head, my head. And he said to a lad, Carry him to his mother.” Having reached puberty, the boy stumbled on the verse prohibiting homosexuality, and the commentaries (here called “the reapers”) got him nowhere. Continuing with verse 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” in the Greek, which has “to be mounted” for “lie down thereto,” the boy was struck with fear that his mother was being ravished by a beast. 2 Kings 4:20: “he sat on her knees till noon, and then died” is the lad’s prayer for deliverance. As the woman stood before the beast to be molested, the lad “sat on her knees” – that is, assumed the vertical position of a crucified man – to bear on himself her guilt. The revival of the lad coincides with the revival of the guiltless woman – a woman whose son was the product not of illicit bestial intercourse but rather of Elisha’s sexual intervention. See 2 Kings 4:14: “And he said, What then is to be done for her? And Gehazi answered, Verily she hath no child, and her husband is old.” “gays have been fornicating forever” – as you put it – but same-sex marriages are an invention of the Authoritative Interpretation.
thanks. i guess. i still don’t understand, meaning i’m not a Bible scholar; i’ve obviously read it cover to cover but as far as picking it apart word for word i try not to go there. i believe that’s how a lot of the problems we now have with different Christian denominations got started, twisting words to say whatever people wanted them to say. and if that doesn’t work, then many go back to the original language the Bible was written in and try to justify their position that way, saying the English translation of the original words doesn’t actually describe their original intent.
i happened to be visiting a PCUSA church a few years ago, for coffee hour to visit some remaining friends there, caught the tail end of a sermon. the PCUSA minister was preaching about God being a woman, not a man. i don’t know how he managed to twist that one out of the Bible, but at that point nothing surprised me around that place any more. i took it as just another indicator.
To the stated clerk and commissioners of the 221st General Assembly,
I in no way meant to imply that your decision to withhold investments from companies doing business with Israel has turned the Holy Land into bedlam – a place where prophets turn into child molesters. On the contrary. The character with the severe headaches was not the boy (2 Kings 4:19: “And he said unto his father, My head, my head”). Children rarely have such a malady and – if so – it’s the result of too many fries and milkshakes, never from reading the Bible in the field. The one with the headaches was Elisha, whose prophetic calling obligated him to predict and explain the Messiah. But all he saw was a blur –a virgin having trouble getting pregnant. How would we get our Savior? Salvation for Elisha came in the form of his innkeeper – the Shunamite woman. 2 Kings 4:8: “And it fell on a day, that Elisha passed to Shunem, where was a great woman; and she constrained him to eat bread. And so it was, that as oft as he passed by, he turned in thither to eat bread.” This time – lacking money for the room – he opted to counsel her in lieu of payment. Finding out that she was barren and that her husband was too old to procreate (verse 14), the Messianic problem became clear. Luke 1:35: “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” God, the Father, so Elisha told himself – who is older than He? What this poor woman needs is a Spiritual figure to function for the Father and bring forth the Third of the Trinity – the Holy Child. But Gen. 1:2: “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” told him that the Spirit is no spring chicken, and that if a baby was to be born he (Elisha) would have to take the initiative. When it says (2 Kings 4:34): “And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm,” it means that Elisha extended his prophetic energies to the fullest and saw the Messiah eye to eye.
Dear Committee,
I’m sorry if this is not clear. We all have jobs in life. A preacher preaches. A plumber clears drains. A stated clerk makes erroneous decisions. Elisha’s job was prophecy, and his employer was Israel. See 1 Kings 22:16-18: “And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD? And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?” What Elisha saw was bad – “Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd.” Stripped of PCUSA investments, HP – i.e. the computers to arrange logistics – and Caterpillar – the bulldozers to clear the way – were doomed to bankruptcy. Israel would cease to function, and Elisha would be without a paycheck. What to do? The prophet girded his loins, went to Shunem, found his innkeeper in need of proxy sexual service, ungirded his loins and produced the child which would not only be the joy of her life, but as representative of the coming Messiah provide Israel with the “everlasting king” (Jeremiah 10:10) that would assure Elisha’s income. See 2 Kings 9:1: “And Elisha the prophet called one of the children of the prophets, and said unto him, Gird up thy loins” and 2 Kings 4:16: “And he said, About this season, according to the time of life, thou shalt embrace a son. And she said, Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid” (King James; Hebrew: “Please, man of God, lie with thy handmaid!”).