As the 221st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) prepares to convene Saturday in Detroit, a report has been posted on the General Assembly business web site (pc-biz.org) detailing the denomination’s response to the 2012 GA’s call for a two-year season of study and discernment concerning the meaning of Christian Marriage.
Marriage will be one of the top issues to be debated at the assembly. The GA Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues will consider seven business items concerning marriage. During the openings days of the assembly, commissioners may submit additional business, called commissioner resolutions, so more work may be added to the committee’s agenda.
The majority of the business before the committee seeks to change the denomination’s constitution so that same-sex couples can be married by PCUSA pastors and in PCUSA churches either by changing the wording of the definition of marriage in the constitution or by approving an Authoritative Interpretation.
The most interesting part of the survey results were found in the comments section. Many seem to hint at not only a volatile assembly, but also unrest following the assembly if same-sex marriage is approved.
“The study brought out major conflicts among people who had known each other for years. Not a good prediction for the ability of the Assembly or the denomination to deal with the issue this year,” read one comment.
Another came from a person who participated in a study, “The passage of 10-A started an exodus of churches form the PCUSA. The passage of an overture on same sex marriage this summer will open the flood gates of churches leaving the PCUSA. The churches not leaving the PCUSA will suffer major losses of members who cannot continue to be associated with the PCUSA.”
A stated clerk, new in his position, said that while he did not participate in any discussion on the topic, “I believe that our focus has been on stability. This very topic has the potential to produce instability at this time.”
Other presbyteries cited a lack of time as the reason for not having a study on Christian marriage, due to the amount of church dismissals they are dealing with. “We have been so busy finishing up with gracious dismissals, dealing with the closing of two congregations and dealing with a complete change in presbytery staff that there has not been time for Foothills to engage this study,” said one comment.
Another comment read, “We are doing all we can to keep our congregations in the PCUSA. We don’t encourage congregations to study issues that could or would cause division at this time. We did give the congregations a list of resources regarding several issues that they could study if they desire.
One comment even lamented the lack of participation from conservative churches in its area, saying “Our more conservative congregations were, for the most part, not interested in conversation. Those who participated were more open-minded. Preaching to the choir.”
The Office of the General Assembly sent a survey to all the presbytery stated clerks in February 2014, asking them about presbytery and congregational participation in the two-year season of study and discernment of Christian marriage.
According to the report, of the 104 presbyteries that responded, 66.35 percent engaged in a marriage study following the 2012 assembly, and a majority of the studies – 52.63 percent – took place at a presbytery meeting.
The Office of Theology and Worship’s “Christian Marriage in the PCUSA” study guide was used by 90.63 percent of those participating, while 28.13 percent used other marriage study materials, including the supplemental materials prepared by the Covenant Network of Presbyterians.
Other comments found in the survey results include:
- “Our unity is in Jesus Christ. Discussing this topic would have fractured our unity, since no one is seeking ‘to’ discern; our presbyters have already discerned and our (sic) firm (though of different discernments) in their beliefs.”
- “Some folks were interested in studying the material, most were not. Sorry!”
- “I was very disappointed in the PCUSA study. VERY thin soup. Gave little insight, little to work with. I expect much more, and we need it.”
- “A small group in the church I serve is working through the study. The experience has been one of the best we’ve had: good and sustained attendance, evidence of study/reflection between sessions, and energy for the conversations. It is well-conceived and well done. The final question each session brilliant! It allows sharing without judgment of any observation or opinion, and engages a powerful question: What difference does it make? Thank you.”
- “Baltimore Presbytery has been studying this topic at least since 2004. During the last four years my sense is that we are tired of talking about it.”
- “The leadership of Cimarron Presbytery felt that the study provided by the Office of Theology and Worship was lacking and therefore, not usable. There was an overwhelming amount of background material to cover and absorb, especially for members who have not been closely following the topic of marriage. In contrast, the discussion questions themselves seemed rather shallow. Regretfully, Cimarron Presbyter did not have the time or resources to seek out or develop other study resources on this important topic.”
22 Comments. Leave new
How can you change the boundaries on ordination standards but not on marriage? It makes no sense.
All this was quite predictable. When I entered ministry in 1972 “studying” apostasy was already begun. Now, it has reached it’s apex; the final dissolution of the PCUSA. Inevitable passage of permission for same sex weddings will complete the agonizing descent. Those not participating in more “study” are passively waiting for the final bell. They’re a bit like those who sit in the arena until the lights go out and try to find the way out in the dark.
I found this comment very telling:
““We are doing all we can to keep our congregations in the PCUSA. We don’t encourage congregations to study issues that could or would cause division at this time.”
When I was in the military, we used to call that sort of decision “treating the troops like mushrooms” .. keeping them in the dark, and feeding them, um, manure !!
The evangelical doctrine of marriage is unequivocal. Westminster Confession XXIV, 4: “It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.” Heterosexual marriage – that between man and woman – is permissable to the extent that love and romance don’t inerfere with the power of judgment. 1 Cor. 7:37:
“Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.”
I have been a pcusa member all my life. I am in my. 50’s recently engaged after being in a committed relationship for 16 years. We live in pa where we just got the ability to get married. All we two women want to do is get married in our Presbyterian church just like our two women friends just did at their Lutheran church. If this does not pass to allow our minister to marry us we will seriously look to move to a church that is truly open and welcoming.
What difference does it really make if our church marries us. All the difference to us I will tell you. I pray that our elders discern gods will which is for all in the church.
Great artical Paula. I can’t belive that this is still an issue on the table. The Bible is clear cut on the issue. What is right and wrong is not up for debate. God’s word is final. I hope the PCUSA comes back to this reality before they destroy the faith of good congregations across the country.
For what it’s worth and to clarify Andrew’s comment on the Westminster Confession and put it into context, here are the first two sections of the 24th chapter of the Confession.
1. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.
2. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.
You’re right, Mark!
And I’m wrong. It’s Westminster Confession 24,3 (not XXIV, 4) that says, “It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry.” Taken out of context that would inlcude slobs and malingerers, whom no conceivable wife would want around. 24,1 of the Confession is the main idea: “Marriage is to be between one man and one woman” with scriptural proof Prov. 2:17: “Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God.” In ontext with the surrounding verses 16 and 18 we get:
“16 To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;
17 Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God.
18 For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead.”
Marriage is a life commitment – verse 18: “her house inclineth unto death” – and the wife someone robbed of her commitment to God – verse 17: “who forsaketh … her God.”
Mat. 19:10: “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”
The removal of the fidelity and chastity standards in 10-A made fornication and adultery permissible for ordained members of PCUSA as well as being in unrepentant homosexual relationships. Same-sex “marriage” is a relatively small step after that tidal wave. All are directly against God’s Word.
And as presbyteries extract cash from departing congregations – the pcusa will feed on the carcass of faithful churches.
fornication and adultery permissible for ordained members of PCUSA
I’m not sure the previous policy on adultery and fornication, namely just cover it up, was much better.
Yes, Maunalani,
“Same-sex marriage is … directly against God’s Word.”
That word is 1 Corinthians 7:9: “for it is better to marry than to burn” with reference to Daniel’s three friends walking around in the fire. Dan. 3:25: “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” Rev. 1:13-14: “And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire.” Rev. 21:9: “And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” Deprived of women and engrossed in Bible-study, Daniel’s friends – Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego – considered marrying each other. “It is better to marry than to burn,” says Paul. At the last minute, an angelic figure clothed in white from head to toe, offered another option. Thus the early church – that is those males within it that could not “contain” (themselves – 1 Cor. 7:9) – were provided each with a figure in white “down to the foot” to help them achieve their goal. This figure was the bride in the marriage ritual. With the demise of the bridal gown and the enervation of marriage vows, the progeny of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are put to the test of dealing with their Biblicly ordained passion for each other.
Very little the PCUSA does makes sense if you happen to read the Bible.
Daniel, you see, had found a homosexual mate. Daniel 1:9: “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.” But his three friends were bereft of intimate companionship. So Nebuchadnezzar had a buxom blonde parade before them to excite their lusts and woo them away from their Bibles and into marriage. Daniel 3:1: “Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.” But the three Friends were committed to their Lord and refused to be enticed by the beautiful babe. Daniel 3:12: “There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” So they were thrown into the fire of lust for each other.
Sorry, here’s the background:
Nebuchadnezzar had a plan for thwarting the four Jewish boys he found in his keeping – Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego. Put them alone together – devoid of women – and watch them fall into the trap of homosexual lust for each other. When Daniel – the wisest of the three – saw what was happening, see Daniel 4:5 in retrospect: “I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me,” that he was having dreams of a sensuous sort, he distanced himself from his friends and began a platonic relationship with the eunuch, Melzar. Daniel 1:9: “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.” That is, Daniel saw images in his dreams that threatened the purity of his relationship with his friends – based on Bible-study. To maintain his purity and keep homosexuality out of the friendships, he took as mate an asexual partner, a eunuch. Note that the Biblical account confuses King Nebuchadnezzar – named Belsahazzar in 5:1 – with Daniel, the de facto king of the Israelites – whose given name in 1:7 and 4:19 was Belteshazzar. Chapter 2 describes the nighttime image that so frightened the pious Daniel. For “visions of my head troubled me” at 4:5 read “virgins of my head troubled me.” David’s escape from Nebuchadnezzar’s sexual trap left his companions – Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego – in a quandary. How could the three mates deal with the feelings that puberty was increasingly bringing home? Marriage between the three was out of the question. The frustrated Nebuchadnezzar came to the rescue by setting up a buxom blonde – a pornographic billboard – to whom the populace was commanded to bow down and worship at the time of the playing of suggestive music. See Daniel 3:1-5. The mostly happily married citizens had no problem with the sexy image, that appeared to them comical. For Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, however, the blonde (King James: “of gold”) beauty severely challenged their concept of sexual enjoyment as the shared consideration of the Biblical gospel message. The interest proposed by Nebuchadnezzar – the shapely female body – threw them metaphorically into a furnace of burning fire, from which they escaped when the image of the Lord’s mother – an immaculate bride in white – brought them down to earth and quelled the tumult. They realized all at once that – as 1 Cor. 7:9 puts it – “it is better to marry than to burn.” From the Christian standpoint – it is better to adopt the Trinity – represented by Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego – than to be dragged into a static relationship with God – represented by Daniel’s homosexual marriage to the eunuch.
Susan said ” I pray that our elders discern gods will which is for all in the church.”
God has made himself VERY clear throughout all the Scriptures. Just because what God has said is not what some want to hear does not make it unclear. God loves ALL people. ALL people are sinners. Some of us lie. Some of us are prideful. Some are homosexual. God made all of us the way we are. The difference is that most liars and prideful people acknowledge their sin and ask for forgiveness. Most homosexuals celebrate their sin by entering into relationships with other homosexuals. They do not repent of their sin but seek to magnify it. Anyone who does not repent of their sins cannot be saved.
I don’t know what action I will take when the PCUSA adopts and endorsement of same-sex unions. They cannot redefine marriage as God is the one who created marriage so man cannot change it. I have been reading Jude lately and I feel that I must “contend for the faith”. I certainly will encourage my local church to begin to examine how we can leave a denomination that refuses to follow the Will and the Word of God.
Andrew, at first I was angered by your ridiculous interpretation of the Book of Daniel. I the realized it was all a joke! I don’t know whether you concocted this tale all by yourself or whether someone related it to you an you embellished it an passed it on. You seem to be too intelligent to really believe this utter nonsense! I do warn you that others who read this may not be as educated and fall for your fantasy!
When the current wave of exits is through, and the United Presbyterian (USA) population is reduced to a mere 144,00, then the denominational bigwigs will realize their mistake in flouting the Westminster Confession’s position on homosexual marriage. Rev. 14:3-5:
“3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.”
If you want to establish legality, consider a judge to officiate at your service. I gather, however, you want more. If so, what is it that marrying in a church and by a member of the clergy will do for you?
Presbyteries have “extracted cash from departing congregations?” The facts don’t support this. The gracious dismissal policies of most presbyteries with which I’m familiar are both gracious and generous – pennies on the dollar in the vast majority of cases with payment terms you wish you could get from your mortgage banker. Given the southern CA location of the real estate in the one high profile departing congregation that made Layman headlines, that proposed seven figure dismissal price was also a bargain. So if that is “feeding off the carcass of the faithful” then the true church (however one defines it) has more to worry about than the definition of marriage.
except the “trust” the PCUSA claims they have over most church’s property is bogus and a shame. So any payments they extract are extortion.
Praying FPC Houston and Highland Park win their lawsuits against PCUSA…if they do, just watch the rush to the doors by the faithful churches left in this denomiation.
Folks, like it or not, 2 years from now, same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states. 15 years from now, the notion of discriminating against same sex marriage or homosexuals holding leadership positions in the church will be outdated by a super majority. The faith is moving on in the same way it moved on from slavery, multi-racial marriage, women in leadership. There is a growing tide of Evangelicals who realize they better learn how to change their opinion of the traditional, historical interpretation of Scripture on this subjective so they do not lose their Biblical foundation. Just ask your kids. If you haven’t, watch Andrew Vines youTube videos. Don’t get left behind if you are making decisions that impact the future of your congregation.
I hope you are neither a pastor nor a Sunday School teacher. The wife of the Lamb is the church.