tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post700125813498790314..comments2024-02-19T04:50:58.170-08:00Comments on Shuck and Jive: No Further Force or Effect!John Shuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-40797161173386915892008-07-03T07:59:00.000-07:002008-07-03T07:59:00.000-07:00Thank you John, also.Yes, if we were really being ...Thank you John, also.<BR/><BR/>Yes, if we were really being consistent, we might even require remarried people to LEAVE their second marriage and live in chaste singleness instead. (Under the old G-6.0106b I'd have to get divorced, break up my daughter's home, and live in chaste singleness in order to be eligible for ordination.)<BR/><BR/>But all that is far snarkier than the real point... being big on grace... and I would add, being big on commitment and service as well. Once we allow in same-sex relationships, we also allow in conversations about how same-sex couples can serve God more fully, where brokenness is in those relationships and needs to be healed, where we need to be more fully committed to Christ, where we're being lazy or insular as families, etc. So much better than the old teaching, which (for example) doesn't even make a moral distinction between fidelity and infidelity, for us.Heather W. Reichgotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04678926165429957396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-65085885895065785122008-07-03T07:45:00.000-07:002008-07-03T07:45:00.000-07:00THANK YOU, John. I've even heard someone try to j...THANK YOU, John. I've even heard someone try to justify their own divorce and remarriage by citing the Matthew account of Jesus saying<BR/><BR/>"But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"<BR/><BR/>by saying that the divorce was Kosher because he was cheating on his first wife, and that his second wife had never been divorced.Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-73522322027628502142008-07-02T19:18:00.000-07:002008-07-02T19:18:00.000-07:00Presbyman, Babies make me smile!I think Heather br...Presbyman, Babies make me smile!<BR/><BR/>I think Heather brings up an important point here.<BR/><BR/>If remarriage after divorce is a sin and the person in this new marriage is living in a state of adultery, then ordaining him or her would be wrong. <BR/><BR/>It would be consistent with our standards to have divorced people remain chaste in singleness in order to be ordained. The only true repentance would be to end the second marriage. <BR/><BR/>It wouldn't matter how hard they beat themselves up for it or how gifted they are. They are living in sin, period. Therefore, they are un-ordainable, unless they truly repent and remain chaste in singleness.<BR/><BR/>That would be consistent with our current policies regarding gays.<BR/><BR/>Disclaimer: I don't believe divorce and remarriage is a sin and neither does the PC(USA). I am simply pointing out a clear inconsistency in the way we apply standards for ordination.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-44180012459171201542008-07-02T18:29:00.000-07:002008-07-02T18:29:00.000-07:00I do want to add that it's not my policy to rule o...I do want to add that it's not my policy to rule out remarrying or ordaining divorced people per se. Maybe I gave the wrong impression in my earlier comment. But what I would look for, as discussed in the Westminster Confession, is evidence of repentance and spiritual growth. Committing a sin per se should not be disqualifying because none of us would ever be ordained. IMO, it is important to avoid the twin pitfalls of legalism AND cheap grace.Presbymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17673477298859022278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-65376557317127547602008-07-02T18:25:00.000-07:002008-07-02T18:25:00.000-07:00John,Well, we're obviously not going to come to ag...John,<BR/><BR/>Well, we're obviously not going to come to agreement on this, but thank you for your gracious comment about our new baby and for visiting my blog to leave a comment.Presbymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17673477298859022278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-30753974665339725542008-07-02T17:57:00.000-07:002008-07-02T17:57:00.000-07:00Thanks Presbyman, for joining the conversation. Co...Thanks Presbyman, for joining the conversation. Congratulations on that new baby, by the way!<BR/><BR/>I perform weddings for people who have been divorced. They serve in an ordained capacity as well.<BR/><BR/>As I see the issue, it isn't about a category of people, divorced, say that are automatically dismissed from ordination. <BR/><BR/>We look at each individual. This, to me, is the same for all people. We do not ordain (nor do we refuse to ordain) categories of people, but individuals. <BR/><BR/>I don't think it is a matter of being soft on "sin" but big on grace. <BR/><BR/>The issue before us is the categorical prohibition of people in same-gender relationships. <BR/><BR/>A few decades ago the issue was the categorical prohibition of divorced people.<BR/><BR/>I believe we went in the grace-filled direction by removing that categorical prohibition and began to look at individuals.<BR/><BR/>I think the same will eventually occur with our current prohibition.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-61910659907404659682008-07-02T17:01:00.000-07:002008-07-02T17:01:00.000-07:00Heather, among other things, you said:2. We do not...Heather, among other things, you said:<BR/><BR/><I>2. We do not need such examples in Scripture in order to ordain divorced and remarried pastors. Divorce and remarriage is unequivocally identified as sin in Scripture, and there's nothing that says it's okay. But we, because of our culture, ordain divorced and remarried people all the time, without a peep of opposition. It's not fair to have one standard for one group and another standard for another group.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with you that it's wrong to ordain divorced and remarried people "without a peep." I've made some "peeps" about it in my congregation, with some trepidation. But I think one of the biggest problems our church faces is that we have, in fact, given a pass to many heterosexual sins. There should be, and should have been, at least as much opposition to ordaining divorced and remarried persons who do not show evidence of spiritual growth and repentance, as there is to ordaining unrepentant homosexual persons. Maybe God is allowing gay ordination (if that does come to pass) because we have already turned our back on His plan for our lives.<BR/><BR/>I am at least trying to stand firm against heterosexual sins in my premarital counseling policy. It does not undue the manifest failures of the church over the past several decades, but it's hopefully a start.Presbymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17673477298859022278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-29218183665015089972008-07-01T16:02:00.000-07:002008-07-01T16:02:00.000-07:00Mark,I don't want to speak for John but here's a q...Mark,<BR/><BR/>I don't want to speak for John but here's a quick answer from me. :)<BR/><BR/>The approach of looking for gay or lesbian ministers in Scripture, in order to prove it's allowed today, seems fruitless to me for two reasons.<BR/><BR/>1. Gayness or lesbianness as we know it today didn't exist in the time the Bible was written; neither did heterosexuality as we know it today, nor the emphasis on monogamy, for that matter.<BR/><BR/>2. We do not need such examples in Scripture in order to ordain divorced and remarried pastors. Divorce and remarriage is unequivocally identified as sin in Scripture, and there's nothing that says it's okay. But we, because of our culture, ordain divorced and remarried people all the time, without a peep of opposition. It's not fair to have one standard for one group and another standard for another group.<BR/><BR/>That said, we do have some good reference points in Scripture for the idea that the heterosexual nuclear family is not the only way to do things. The romance of David and Jonathan is one. (1 Sam 19-2 Sam 1) Another is the variety of families chosen and biological in Acts and even Romans 16. We aren't given information on exactly how all those NT families are related (although the combinations make it impossible for all to be heterosexual couples)--what's important is that they serve God together.Heather W. Reichgotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04678926165429957396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-45330365434140747642008-07-01T13:56:00.000-07:002008-07-01T13:56:00.000-07:00You state that the argument for ordaining women is...You state that the argument for ordaining women is the same as the argument for ordaining gays.<BR/><BR/>While there is biblical evidence of women being leaders in Israel and the early church there is no evidence for any gay leaders.<BR/><BR/>On what Scripture do you base your argument in favor of ordination of LGBTs?Mark and Pamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233075835559267508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-24135972650195945852008-06-30T20:16:00.000-07:002008-06-30T20:16:00.000-07:00I just discovered that this blog entry was quoted ...I just discovered that this blog entry was quoted in <A HREF="http://christianpost.com/article/20080630/presbyterians-called-to-face-the-facts-change.htm" REL="nofollow">The Christian Post.</A><BR/><BR/>I find it kind of weird when news outlets take quotes from blogs, without linking to them or even providing the URL, rather than contacting individuals before quoting them.<BR/><BR/>Does that seem weird to you? I am not talking about bloggers, but news outlets.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-60585436874262734832008-06-30T19:04:00.000-07:002008-06-30T19:04:00.000-07:00Heather:Your last point is the key. I honestly th...Heather:<BR/><BR/>Your last point is the key. I honestly think that there are a lot of people out there who don't see how that could be possible. If we disagree, it must be because the other person is wrong, Satanic, heretical, immoral, etc. It can't possibly be because we're all limited, fallible beings...<BR/><BR/>Then the follow-up argument come, that Scripture is infallible - but of course, for anyone who is honest about hermeneutics, that is a meaningless statement on its face. "Infallible" Scripture + human beings reading Scripture = fallibility.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-71782666238460614972008-06-30T16:39:00.000-07:002008-06-30T16:39:00.000-07:00Stushie,The imitation of Christ is a Christian pra...Stushie,<BR/><BR/>The imitation of Christ is a Christian practice that goes back at least as far as the gospel of John.<BR/><BR/>Christian ethics have always had their roots in Christ's teachings, for as long as there have been Christian ethics.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, to imitate Christ we have to first figure out who Christ is, what he did, and how we can best imitate him now. For this we need to read the Bible and do our best to get an "idea about what He would do or say with regard to our cultural dilemmas and ecclesiastical issues." Otherwise we're just left to flounder in secular strategies, politicking, threats of schism etc.<BR/><BR/>I certainly hope that <I>every</I> commissioner carefully considered what Jesus would do, in deciding what they would say, and how they would vote.<BR/><BR/>(And I think it's perfectly normal that everyone could do that, and not all vote the same way.)<BR/><BR/>HeatherHeather W. Reichgotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04678926165429957396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-23630487738944827752008-06-30T13:04:00.000-07:002008-06-30T13:04:00.000-07:00"The sickening thing is that they are justifying t..."The sickening thing is that they are justifying this inappropriate and irrational candor with Jesus' eschatological language, the demeanor of the prophets, and Paul's language in the first letter to the Corinthians without recognizing his change of tune in the second letter."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I love it when people start the ad hominem attacks, name calling, insults, and snark fests and then attempt to defend their behavior with some lame attempt at, "Well, Jesus wasn't particularly nice sometimes either."<BR/><BR/>My response is always the same, "I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. You're no Jesus."Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-38583252116329514302008-06-30T11:41:00.000-07:002008-06-30T11:41:00.000-07:00Drew, what really struck me was that in his commen...Drew, what really struck me was that in his comment here, Stushie finally drops the pretense of "gender is God's decision, gayness is the 'Mo's decision" and just cuts and pastes the Exact Same Argument from days of yore. As I've mentioned before, the church I grew up in split in the mid-80s when a woman associate was installed. Half the church left and formed a PCA church, using the same, tired "We are a bunch of narcissistic hypocrites looking to justify our politically correct ways and cultural orientations. We cast aside our allegiance to Christ because we don’t want to submit to Him. We change what the Bible says because we want everybody to like us" speech.Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-31688579148314942022008-06-30T11:08:00.000-07:002008-06-30T11:08:00.000-07:00Yeah - we knew at this end that IRD would be foami...Yeah - we knew at this end that IRD would be foaming at the collective mouth. <BR/><BR/>Sing it with me, now: "People get ready, there's a propaganda train a-comin'"Snadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04055786911610974637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-42773189939072227752008-06-30T10:26:00.000-07:002008-06-30T10:26:00.000-07:00For a good time, you should check out Jim Berkley'...For a good time, you should check out Jim Berkley's whining about all of this over on his blog, and at <A HREF="http://www.theird.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=722&srcid=183" REL="nofollow">this article</A> over at the IRD web site, where Berkley says, "Presbyterian Action will not stand silent amid these decisions that are blatantly contrary to the Bible and to biblical morality." Blah blah blah.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-54651047667450912712008-06-30T09:28:00.000-07:002008-06-30T09:28:00.000-07:00Flycandler,I have made that obvious argument befor...Flycandler,<BR/><BR/>I have made that obvious argument before. With the role of people of color as well. Folks like stushie are absolutely convinced that homosexuality is a choice or that all homosexuals can be reformed. You cannot ask a woman not to be a woman (apparently he has never heard of trans-gendered but that's another issue right ;-)?) and you cannot ask a person of color not to be (forget about Michael Jackson and Vanilla Ice).<BR/><BR/>I have gone toe-to-toe a few times and all I have received is ad hominem attack from angry people who think "we" are the apostate. The sickening thing is that they are justifying this inappropriate and irrational candor with Jesus' eschatological language, the demeanor of the prophets, and Paul's language in the first letter to the Corinthians without recognizing his change of tune in the second letter.<BR/><BR/>All I can say to these jaded and miserable people is oy vey.Drew Tatuskohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12344192935890766744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-36352577855458247702008-06-30T09:11:00.000-07:002008-06-30T09:11:00.000-07:00Isn't it funny how Stushie's complaint could, in i...Isn't it funny how Stushie's complaint could, in its entirety and without addition or subtraction of a single word, apply to the fight over the ordination of women fifty years ago?<BR/><BR/>Take a moment. Read it in context of the same conservatives making the same arguments (and quoting Paul with equal ferocity).<BR/><BR/>The church reformed is once again being reformed, after the Word of God. Thanks be to God!Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-15132306113477090892008-06-30T06:59:00.000-07:002008-06-30T06:59:00.000-07:00Stushie cries foul because the GA took away his "r...Stushie cries foul because the GA took away his "right" to deny others theirs. Waaa waaa. He's far from alone, sadly.<BR/><BR/>I just went to see Tom Waits in concert last night, and he sang one of my favorite songs with this phrase: "come down from the cross; we could use the wood."Snadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04055786911610974637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-14705001020342144762008-06-29T22:25:00.000-07:002008-06-29T22:25:00.000-07:00Thanks! I sure will let you know and I'll certainl...Thanks! I sure will let you know and I'll certainly give proper credit.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and it's my husband who is the tournament chess player in our family. I'm pretty hopeless in that area. I included it on my book list so that people would think I was smart! :)Irishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07036519649244011605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-15564130104116387612008-06-29T22:04:00.000-07:002008-06-29T22:04:00.000-07:00Hey Iris!What a nice question. You sure can. If ...Hey Iris!<BR/><BR/>What a nice question. You sure can. If you do, and you think of it, let me know how you used it, and welcome!John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-51824276591458912562008-06-29T21:43:00.000-07:002008-06-29T21:43:00.000-07:00Do you give permission for others to use that marv...Do you give permission for others to use that marvelous litany? Pretty please?Irishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07036519649244011605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-33016817191074649392008-06-29T21:22:00.000-07:002008-06-29T21:22:00.000-07:00Chris--It sure was and is!Stushie--Bovine Manure? ...Chris--It sure was and is!<BR/><BR/>Stushie--Bovine Manure? I think bullshit is the word your looking for. There is plenty to go around.<BR/><BR/>John McNeese--She was one ugly, nasty witch.<BR/><BR/>Alan--agreed. Also liked the rundown of the GA on your blog.<BR/><BR/>Drew--Thanks for your blog posts and gathering of the presbyblogsJohn Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-10332330681464625962008-06-29T18:35:00.000-07:002008-06-29T18:35:00.000-07:00I understand the sentiment Alan. I have been accu...I understand the sentiment Alan. I have been accused of not reading my bible or caring much about theology and so forth several times already - of course after opening my big, sometimes pitbullish mouth ;-)<BR/><BR/>The use of ad hominems, slippery slopes, and such is really disheartening. There is animosity, hurt, and anger being expressed here, but there is no room in what should be a decent and in order process for such accusatory tones. I would call every Presbyterian to look at the issue objectively and pastorally first before doing any other thing.<BR/><BR/>And PLEASE talk to gay people who are struggling to stay afloat with God in the midst of intentional exclusion and also those who have struggled with same sex desire and decided not to pursue it. There's a LOT of hurt here that needs to be lanced like a big fat boil or the infection will damage not heal the church.<BR/><BR/>Terms like "bovine manure" are just not helpful or constructive unless we want to engage in pissing matches for the next year - not the most Godly of actions for sure. But I can already smell the urine.<BR/><BR/>I am tracking people's ruminations on the issue at my blog mainly so I have my own record of the language that is being used surrounding the issue. Quite a different set of tones thus far.Drew Tatuskohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12344192935890766744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-90313218880521029542008-06-29T11:34:00.000-07:002008-06-29T11:34:00.000-07:00"Our modern Presbyterianism is a theological tacky..."Our modern Presbyterianism is a theological tacky, mood manufactured, and cheapened grace of a faith. Even the word faith is false when applied to us – we have spiritual trends, and that’s about all."<BR/><BR/>Speak for yourself, bucko. I don't know who you're talking about, but they're not any Presbyterians I know (and I'd wager you're not actually talking about anyone you know either.)<BR/><BR/>My faith is just fine, based on the authority of Scripture, the work of the Spirit, the love of Christ, and most especially the mighty Grace of God.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.com