I truly wanted to vote for a more concise, less cumbersome new Form of Government (“nFOG”). One that would inspire and send the church fully empowered and engaged in what God is doing in the world. But the proposed new Form of Government actually moves our church backwards, distracts us from actually doing ministry, and further illustrates our denomination’s disconnect with our culture.
Even if you are in favor of gay and lesbian ordination, you should vote against Amendment A, for three reasons. The same reasons pertain to battle-weary centrists eager to put the conflict to rest.
[This essay is based on remarks I made to Foothills Presbytery on 7 November 2010, at the request of the Presbytery overture committee. The committee members came from the whole spectrum of the PCUSA—right, left, and center. The Presbytery voted to adopt Belhar by a vote of 54-42.]
This essay covers the debate over ordaining gays and lesbians in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) at three points: (A) the four stages of the argument to date, (B) where the debate leaves us theologically, and (C) where the debate leaves us as far as some kind of resolution.
Amendment 10-A: Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000).
A few weeks back, we published an editorial suggesting that the first 10 years of the 21st century could well be dubbed, “The Decade of Disclosure.” With the proliferation of Facebook, YouTube, blogging, instant messaging, etc., we’ve become a whole generation of folks with never an unpublished thought.
Good evening, I’m Michael Kirby, minister member from Good Shepherd, Chicago, and I’ve been asked to speak to you on behalf of those supporting Amendment 10-A.
This brief essay will cover three sub-topics. Namely:
1. What does the New Testament say about homosexual practice? 2. Misguided readings of these New Testament texts. 3. What is at stake in the discussion?
