You have to work pretty hard if you are a mainline denomination and want to wear the coveted yellow jersey of progressiveness. The PC (USA) took a major step today toward claiming the prize by defining marriage between "two people".Presbyterian leaders approve gay clergy policy, may define marriage as between 'two people'
Presbyterian leaders voted Thursday to allow non-celibate gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy, approving the first of two policy changes that could make their church one of the most gay-friendly major Christian denominations in the U.S.
But the vote isn't a final stamp of approval for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or its more than 2 million members.
Delegates voted during the church's general assembly in Minneapolis, with 53 percent approving the more liberal policy on gay clergy. A separate vote is expected later Thursday on whether to change the church's definition of marriage from between "a man and a woman" to between "two people."
Under current church policy, Presbyterians are only eligible to become clergy, deacons or elders if they are married or celibate. The new policy would strike references to sexuality altogether in favor of candidates committed to "joyful submission to worship of Christ."
At least this movement is motivated with a deeply Scriptural purpose:
"For the Presbyterian Church to stay current and enter the next generation, they really need to let go of this debate," said the Rev. Cindi Love, executive director of SoulForce, a gay Christian group.
Love said she also believed that if the Presbyterians approve the redefinition of marriage, the church would become the largest U.S. Christian denomination to recognize marriage between same-sex couples.
Well that certainly should be the primary concern of any church, to "stay current" with the whims of the world.
I wonder if any sin still counts in the Presbyterian Church (USA) these days?
1 comment:
Also, why does PCUSA definite it as only between "two people"? Isn't that rather arbitrary? Upon what do they base "two," rather than, say, "nine" or "eleven hundred"? And why just people? The only condemnation against having sex with animals lies in that hoary Old Testament (same set of passages that condemn lying down with one of one's own gender), and it is echoed nowhere in the NT, right? In fact, why couldn't any paraphilia be perfectly OK for a PCUSA clergyman? Capricious, arbitrary, judgmental and prejudiced, these PCUSA folk, I say!
Post a Comment