Bock

Sad Day for Presbyterian Church U. S. A.

A major denomination has approved the possibility of ordination of gays in the church. The two million member Presbyterian church U.S.A. turned its back on Scripture and providing moral direction through its leadership by approving a proposal it rejected only two years ago. 

A major denomination has approved the possibility of ordination of gays in the church. The two million member Presbyterian church U.S.A. turned its back on Scripture and providing moral direction through its leadership by approving a proposal it rejected only two years ago. 

One of the church's leaders said, "I see this as an opportunity to build a stronger church. Faithful and qualified lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Presbyterians will be able to openly serve the church with energy, intelligence, imagination and love,"

This is a sad day for the denomination and for those who care about the moral standing of the family and the church. What Scripture challenged as a sign of moral decline (just read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah or what Paul says in Romans 1:18-32), this denomination now welcomes in the name of being inclusive. Another leader spoke of the church wearying at the battle, as if standing up for morality is something worth giving in on. It is important to say that those who are gay need to be ministered to by the church, and challenged in their moral walk, as all people should be whatever their moral failings (and we all have them), but to open leadership to anyone who so flaunts a moral standard of Scripture speaks not only to the failure of the one being selected for such a position but especially to a community that makes that choice. This is said not in anger, but with sadness. I pray that the day comes when the denomination longs to build a stronger and inclusive church not by turning a blind eye to moral standards God has sought from his people from long ago. This vote turns its back on many who belonged to this denomination for centuries who sought to walk faithfully with God. The "inclusive" vote now excludes their standard of seeking to be faithful to God.

41 Comments

  • Rodrigo

    Congratulations

    As a member of the Anglican Church in Brazil, I'm very happy with the news and send my congratulations to Presbyterian Church U. S. A.

  • Darrell L. Bock

    Congratulations

    Rodrigo: We agree to disagree about the merit of this decision. We do not need the church turning its back on Scripture or the teaching of those closest to Jesus on this issue. Marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman is part of divine design that Jesus defined as a core human commitment in Matthew 19:1-12, appealing to the very roots of the creation of humanity in doing so. So this view has been around a long time.

  • Michael Mills

    As a member of the Anglican

    As a member of the Anglican church in Dallas, I'm saddened by this decision. The Anglican Church has been split world-wide over this seemingly straightforward issue and I hate to see yet another denomination go down this long road to destruction. I would point people who would like to discuss the subject to a book written by William Webb entitled "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring  the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" (and Dr. Bock wrote the Foreword). It is the best book I have read on the subject, taking into account both Holy Scripture and the ensuing evolution of Church Tradition on the topic. Unfortunately, the issue in America has become polemical over the issue of homosexuality itself, when in actuality it is about the ordination of professed homesexuals. All churches should be open to allowing homosexuals in their churches, just as they would be open to all adulterers or fornicators (or liars for that matter), for we all need the gospel of Jesus. However, the real issue is church leadership and such people (whether men or women) are held to a much higher standard.

  • Lynn L.

    The Morality of Discernment and Understanding

    Should churches permit the ordination of individuals who do not fall into the catagory of what many would consider to be the "norm" in regards to gender issues, i.e., what many people would say that the Bible states to be the "only way that God created humanity"? Did God create the heterosexual person and not the homosexual person?

    Granted, there is a debate in society as to the question of being born gay, and "choice" in regards to the same-sex life partnership, as to the possibility that an individual is, in fact, born with an innate homosexual orientation, but the question remains the same.

    This is only one type of situation in the larger picture, but I'll ask anyway: If an individual is born intersex, grew up as a male, but has decided that "he" has always been more of a "she" and knows that an operation was performed at birth, without her consent, that removed the female organs, now lives as a woman…should a church ban ordination of this individual? Should her family disown her as well? Should God avoid anointing this individual for effective leadership of His flock? What is sad is for men to decide that He has not, when in fact, He has. Which also holds true for the gay, lesbian, and transgender individual who is called by God to His service.

    Dr. Bock, you say that we should look to the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the words of Paul, for the definition of what God thinks of same-sex life partnerships, because apparently it is all very simple: same-sex relationship = wicked heart towards God and no sense of morality.

    In regards to the Bible's complexities–and one is right there in the verse you cited–it was never answered, at any time in the lengthy debate that occured over several periods of time and threads on this debate…is the person who has remarried after divorce, outside of strict biblical parameters, or who marries the divorced individual, considered an "adulterer" in the eyes of God, as the Bible would appear to state in no uncertain terms? We know what the Bible says is the future of the adulterer. I asked this numerous times because it brings out much truth (including in the failure to answer). Is this to be taken in a "rigid" manner, as to the heart of God, or is there "reason" to be applied, and a view to legalism and a condemning of "the innocent"?

    You mentioned "turning their back on Scripture," but does the church face Scripture, as it is written, with an honest and open heart? (Part of how it is written is an extensive description of the wicked and rebellious, that doesn't describe the gay believers we are talking about here.) 

    As to whether it is a good idea for churches to accept ordination of individuals such as these, it could cause a decline in church attendance. People who believe it is "immoral" would no longer be comfortable there, while those who feel that this belief is in ignorance may start attending. Whatever the case, the Presbyterian Church is likely doing what they believe God would have them do, and this is therefore not a concern.     

     

     

     

     

     

     

      

    • Darrell L. Bock

      Lynn

      Not going over old ground with you on this. I knew you'd reply. The issue of one being created this way by God has become a polemical topic of debate as you acknowledge. I love how you mix categories in the long paragraph on one type of situation. I think a person who selects their sex in an ambiguous circumstance is not in view here (nor is it a basis for making a general response being an exceptional situation). What is being discussed is whether leaders of the church can reflect the emphasis of Scripture and God's moral will by openly pursuing relationships condemned in the text. The definition of marriage is not limited to Sodom and Gomorrah or to Paul. It comes in Genesis and in Jesus' own teaching, This kind of selective handling of the text to make the Bible look more complex is a part of the problem in this discussion where there is an attempt to negate what Scripture affirms.

      I did answer your question on remarriage and said a the time I thought that disqualified someone from leadership (the current topic) and that the church was not consistent in this. So that also is not a very accurate description of what I said earlier.

      Once again we agree to disagree here. 

  • Visitor-Craig

    To clarify, are they

    To clarify, are they ordaining practicing gays, as in those who are active in homosexual relationships, or only those who profess homosexuality but refrain from active relationships based on Biblical teaching?  The first would obviously be bad, but I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with a minister who admitted a natural but sinful proclivity that he was working to abstain from.  Or do you think this matters?

    • Darrell L. Bock

      Clarify

      The change has to do with openly gay. No such distinctions are made as far as I can tell.

      Here is a report from one newspaper's opening on the story (Herald Sun in Australia). I note this to show how widely circulated this story is:

      THE Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to approve the ordination of openly gay church leaders, becoming the fourth mainline denomination to do so.

      After a vote late yesterday, the protestant church decided to remove the requirement of its leaders to live "either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman" or in "chastity in singleness".

      The new language, replacing the chastity clause in the church's constitution, will now require ordained ministers, elders and deacons to "submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life".

      Heres is the beginning of the Washington Post's report:

      Today is a watershed moment in the history of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA). Over the past months, presbyteries have been voting on whether to amend thedenominations’ constitution to change the standards for ordination. Here is the new, replacement language:

      Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life. The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation. Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

      The language is important, because it removed the following restrictions:

      “Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage of a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.”

      “Persons refusing to repent of any self- acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”

      In other words: All who are called to serve may now answer that calling, without regard to sexual orientation or marital status.

      Today’s vote bases the review of each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of ordination, rather than on sexual orientation or marital status.

      I hope this clarifies the nature of the decision.

  • Jesse Richards

    Jesus showed us the way of love

    Dr. Bock,

    It seems to me that the  locus of theological authority in conservative denominations of the 20th century has been in an inerrant scripture. I think once inerrancy is dismissed the 'new power brokers' (whoever they may be, in this case PCUSA) can allow a new authority (themselves) to emerge, with a fresh new ethic for an emerging culture.

    So sad.

    I wonder if the locus of theological authority in conservative denominations was rooted more in Jesus' person and ethic of love, rather than an inerrant text, if there would not be such radical dismissal on this clear scriptural teaching? It seems like 'a text' is a hard authority to receive instruction from (for unbelievers), whereas a living person (the resurrected and exalted Jesus) who loves us and shows us how to live can be grasped a bit easier.

    I wonder if we grasped Jesus the sage showing humanity a new way to live, in love for the God of Israel and others, if we would see afresh the utter brokenness and 'darkness' of the homosexual lifestyle. 

    I have many friends, male and female, in the gay scene hear in Portland who are coming out of the scene because of the abuse and destruction it has brought into their lives. 

    How can the church call something that is unloving, loving? Especially when JESUS (forget the inerrancy debate), JESUS called us to love the God of Israel, and one another. If He is the authority, we have to trust His teaching and ethic. 

    Your work on JESUS has meant so much to me Dr. Bock! I read your stuff all the time! Thanks for your work. I would love to study at Dallas with you one day. I just need to get some more credits under my belt before I can enter the PhD program there. 

    Jesse

  • Javier Gomez

    Why do SOME conservative

    Why do SOME conservative Christians get so worked up about same-sex relatiohships?  Jesus clearly taught that to divorce and remarry while one's initial spouse is stlll living is adultery, yet very few conservative Christians get worked up about the countless churches that accept remarried people into ministry and membership, at least not to the extent they go bonkers over Christians and others in same-sex relationships.  I think a lot of conservatice Christians are obsessed with homosexuality and dislike gay and bisexual people. People are tired of conservative Christians mistreating our gay and bisexual brethren.

  • Darrell L. Bock

    Jesus and Love

    Jesse:

    Yes, I think the issue is related to devotion to Jesus. I do not juxtapose the Scripture and Jesus as much as you do in this note, since Scripture is a Word from God that believers are to resonate with out of their devotion to God. But to the extent we are not discussing merely being aligned to a rule or a text but to a person, I agree that the personal orientation is important to recall.

  • Darrell L. Bock

    SOME Conservatives

    Javier:

    I think your objection here has merit as I noted in my response above to Lynn. We tend to treat this area as a special sin. It is one among many but that does not mean giving it a "pass" when it comes to leadership. Neither should the church "pass" on remarriage and leadership (the only discussion would be if there are exceptions such as the immorality by a spouse leading to a divorce and unbeliever desertion as Scripture raises). To me both categories of exception are equally sad. So you are correct to note that there should be more evenhandedness and consistency. I also appreciate your saying "some" conservatives. That suggests you are aware some object not out of a raw dislike for gays and bisexuals, but out of a concern for what Scripture says about sin and faithfulness. There are many who work with this community (see Jesse above) who share my concern on this vote and who deeply love these people who also are made in God's image but think that in this area they have strayed. To call to holiness is not to mistreat anyone. It is to encourage faithfulness to God.

    • Darrell L. Bock

      Adam and Eva

       

      Rodrigo:

      Check out what Jesus says about the definition of marriage in Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:4-6. I prefer not to disagree with him.

  • Michael Shafran

    No Surprise

    Dr. Bock,

     

    This comes as no surprise. As a denomination, the PCUSA is far from conservative, siding with "modernism" (ie. liberalism) rather than historic orthodoxy. This dates all the from early 1930's when J. Greshem Machen was essentially terminated from the denomination and he later formed the Orthodox Presby. Church. This is not to say that there are not good men who proclaim the gospel and hold a high view of Scripture in it today. But those men are few and far between. 

    It was sad in the 1930's, and it is sad today. But it is no surprise. 

  • Lynn L.

    Discernment and Understanding

    Dr. Bock, I realize the vast majority of your readers see this area as "clear Scriptural teaching." Of course, Scripture is all very simple and clear in how it addresses both heterosexual marriage and same-sex relationships. The only problem is that, in truth and reality, it clearly is not. It is simple for the person who desires to marry one member of the opposite sex and stay faithful and committed for life, and there is no question about that at all. But in the context of evaluating how people whose lives are not in that category should be looked upon, or deciding the course for your life if you are not, for whatever reason, in that category, it is far from simple. The Bible overall isn't a simple book, considering that God, in all power and authority, established 613 laws, very few of which are part of the Christian faith and practice. To take one part that is simple, and claim to have addressed what is not simple, which your belief does, is a disservice in my view.  

    I don't recall you ever saying that remarried people should not be ordained as leaders, but it is possible that you did address that. What I know for sure is that you never answered the question, as to whether the situation of those who choose to remarry is as clear as it appears to be in Scripture. Are these individuals adulterers? (It is actually much more straightforward than the idea that the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Paul's condemnation of those in wanton lust and rebellion against God, are in fact addressing the individual who was born gay and is in a faithful relationship with a member of the same sex.) Not a single person who challenged me on this topic was willing to discuss Scripture, which they use to judge on the issue of homosexuality. Why? Because they would have to bring concepts like "reason," "discernment," and God's "kindness and understanding" into the discussion. This is clear moral teaching of God in Scripture. 

    Scripture speaks exclusively of scenarios of violence, idolatry, a spirit of rebellion, and lustfulness. Same-sex relations being part of the scenes described are treated as being inseparably linked to that rebellious spirit–but it is most often biologically-based today, and factually speaking is not inseparably linked to rebellion and lust. If someone chooses to see it as all the same to God (e.g. the gay "scene"), while deciding that there is no discussable thought process to be had on the other Bible topic, that will be between that person and God. If large groups of people collectively agree that this is appropriate handling of Scripture, that will be between them and God.   

    As I see it, those who live faithful lives, and walk by faith and justice, are fit to serve if called by God. If this is their life and testimony, I see no reason to believe that harm will be done as a position of leadership, or that the hands of the Holy Spirit will be tied.  

    For the record, I don't watch your blog for this topic. I just happened to start reading it again a couple weeks ago. Bible discussion is fascinating. I wish you the best in honoring God with your blog as you believe is true.

    • Darrell L. Bock

      Discernment et al

      Lynn:

      I am not reinventing the wheel on this discussion which we ran into the ground a few years ago. I will simply repeat what I said then- that all sin is serious and we should be more consistent in the church on this issue than we are (On that point, we see a similar problem. Our approach to dealing with it differs). Your solution is to argue that failure to be consistent in one area means we should not be so concerned about other areas (I repeatedly said to you then two wrongs do not make a right. [Of course, you do not see this as a wrong to begin with– which seems to sidestep many texts on the topic- but that we also covered in detail and agreed to disagree]). My approach would be to contend for more consistency in these matters, and not treat this issue as a special case but one among many that can disqualify for leadership. On another point, your response on this topic consistently says no one ever addresses a key point or two about what you raise. Frankly, that is not true. You just do not like their reply and so it does not count for you. (Just go over our discussion where you made such claims multiple times in our earlier discussion, even as you started that earlier discussion, and I challenged you then that it was not so). So I am not going to go back over old ground for us. I do wish you all the best.

  • ekerwin

    SAD DAY 🙁

    Dr. Bock I am in agreement with you that this is a sad day. My agreement is based not on the basis of your word but on the same Word that you hold to be true – the Holy Word of God.

    I agree with you that God has spoken quite clearly on this subject. His word is that it is an abomination. However so is all sin, no matter what form it takes. We all have been born in sin. We are guilty before a Holy and Just God. Apart from belief in Jesus' work on the cross and His resurrection there would be no hope. We would remain in our sins.

    I also agree with you that except in certain cases, divorce should disqualify someone from leadership.

    I also appreciate your patience displayed in your responses. Your patience is teaching me.

    Lord, grant Dr. Bock with continued grace as he upholds Your standards.

  • Rodrigo

    Subjetct

    Dr. Bock,
     

    Peace.


    But there was no concern with the sexes of the spouses, but with the disposal of the woman as object by the man, like a contract for possession of an item or service

    • Darrell L. Bock

      Rodrigo

      If the example Paul gives to husbands is to love their wives as Christ does the church, then there is no object idea for Christians.

  • Lynn L.

    Dr. Bock, I was prepared to

    Dr. Bock,

    I was prepared to resign the discussion because I've had plenty of say, which is a credit to you for allowing an in-depth opposing view, and it is your blog and you have addressed things as you have chosen to. For the sake of honoring God, I had chosen not to defend my pride in what I consider to be a misrepresentation of my stated beliefs in your response, which I thought may be what I would be doing. In the name of faith I was going to let it go to be dealt with later. I had also considering writing you privately.

    However, after sleeping on it and pondering it further this morning, I feel that for the sake of honoring the God of Scripture it should be raised here. My feeling about your handling of your blog is that you prefer to not get into the Scriptures and the issues with courage and depth. That is your prerogative, but it leaves me a little bothered about you, considering the bold statements that are made here on the authority of God's Word.

    I would like you to clarify your beliefs if you are willing. We had several different threads over the past few years on the subject of homosexuality and the Bible. Again, I'm grateful for that, and I want to assure you that I won't go over the fundamentals of my conviction beyond what I have said in my first two posts on this thread. 

    I want to state that the comparison to the biblical doctrine regarding "remarriage after divorce" is merely one component of the overall argument. I don't want to take you out of context, but your full comment is there to be read. You said: …"Your solution is to argue that failure to be consistent in one area means we should not be so concerned about other areas"…

    Dr. Bock, I consider myself to be a person who holds high standards, for myself and others. My comparison of these two issues isn't being accurately represented there. It is regarding the deeper considerations of why it is that there is no universal condemnation in the church of the choice to remarry after divorce. I believe it is not due to acceptance of sin in the church. It is due to concluding that it is not adultery and it is not sin. This conclusion is made, I am convinced, by the vast majority of Christians and Christian leaders. It is made based on an understanding of God and Scripture that involves the concepts, which are quite biblical–Matt. 12 and several others–that I mentioned above: "reason," "discernment," the "kindness and understanding of God," and a view to legalism, and a condemning of "the innocent."

    People only want to talk about divorce, which is sometimes unavoidable, but the doctrine is clearly regarding "remarriage" after divorce. Matt. 5:32 speaks of what appears clearly to be an innocent woman, being left by her husband, and the man who then marries her has done nothing wrong either, as we would believe. Other verses are also speaking specifically about remarriage being adultery, outside of the specific circumstances of infidelity or being left by an unbelieving spouse (added by Paul speaking from himself, as he said). It would appear that God, essentially, does not recognize divorce outside of these circumstances, and thus remarriage constitutes adultery.

    If a person finds that he or she in unable to stay in a marriage, and decides that for the sake of peace (and there could be many reasons for that), he or she must leave–this is an act that one would believe can be brought to God and forgiveness sought. It is not an ongoing act if the marriage, as recognized by the laws of the land, is severed. Biblically speaking, forgiveness can be received, but the "legal bond" of the vow before God remains, which can only be released by the death of the spouse (or the other two circumstances). Romans 7:1-3

    Dr. Bock, seeking your thoughtful address on the Scriptures: Do you believe that a person who has decided that he or she cannot stay married to their spouse, but chooses not to remarry, and is thus a forgiven person with a failed marriage in their past (possibly having been the one left by his spouse), walking by faith and the Spirit, should not be ordained as a clergyman? Do you believe that if he chooses to remarry he has flouted Scripture and is a willfull adulterer, living in an adulterous "marriage," recognized by the laws of the land but not by God?

    In my experience of this debate, this was never answered at any time. It was never even touched on by anyone. You say that it was addressed and that I just don't count it because it wasn't to my satisfaction. I don't believe that anyone, including yourself, was willing to answer this question. Do you render them adulterers? If not, in light of a clear Scriptural doctrine, which, unlike the issue of homosexuality, was spoken by Jesus Christ Himself, why not? Is a person forgiven for the ongoing act of remarriage? You ask is there any Scripture showing a same-sex partnership favorably. Is there any Scripture that approves of remarriage after divorce, as a general concept? You state that "two wrongs do not make a right." Do you consider it immoral to remarry after divorce? This would suggest that you do.

    My personal belief, is that the person in this situation is no more the "adulterer" in 1 Cor. 6:9, than the situation of the person who fears and loves God, was born gay, and is in a same-sex life partnership, would be the "arsenokoites" in 1 Cor. 6:9. This is a Greek word that I am convinced has some ambiguity, as it was only recently translated "homosexual," but in light of all addresses of this, and the historical context of the day, suggests to me that it is something other than a simple same-sex life partnership. I will add that an "abomination" in the Old Testament was related to the Holiness Code, and things called an abomination in this context are now not unholy. God also expects us to be thinking, reasonable, and discerning people.

    Scripture clearly states that the wicked will not inherit eternal life. In light of other passages, this would also be regardless of a "said faith" in Christ. God knows His own.

  • Darrell L. Bock

    In Plain English and for the Last Time

    Lynn:

    You did not read my last response very closely I think. I said the way I initially read your reaction as one sin allows another would NOT be the way you would see this. I quote myself again: "Of course, you do not see this as a wrong to begin with– which seems to sidestep many texts on the topic- but that we also covered in detail and agreed to disagree]"

    So to underline my point, I review the texts here for all to see. The text we are discussing is that Jesus said outside of immorality (and Paul said outside of unbeliever desertion), divorce [and thus remarriage] is wrong. That text is clear in what it says. We can discern and understand all we want and avoid what the text teaches. That is not being rigid, it is being faithful to what the text teaches. A person who divorces for non-biblically given reasons and does not remarry has taken the best way out of the relationship (but not without sin). Jesus called it adultery to remarry because it violates the sacred vow made before God to be married to one woman, which by Jesus' time was what marriage meant. But this action is not without consequences for leadership (even as it can be forgiven). So in the Pastorals church leaders are to be the husband of one wife. .There is the answer is plain English and with texts. I think remarriage after divorce except in the two cases noted in the texts from Jesus and Paul is wrong and that is what Jesus taught when he said God intended marriage to last for life. I will not go over old ground on 1 Cor 6 and what other texts mean. We covered that ground fully last time. NOTHING annuls what Gen 2 describes as marriage from a biblical point of view. That involves a man and a woman, period. Plain English again. We can think ourselves right into sin when we negate the text. That is what I think you do on this topic as these texts are not as ambiguous as you imply. 

    Now, Lynn, I am done on this topic with you. God knows who are his, on that we agree. We also agree that God forgives us all, but he holds leadership to a standard that can be an example, so that makes what the denomination did sad.

  • Rodrigo

    Dr. Bock The focus of Paul’s

    Dr. Bock

    The focus of Paul's statement in its context, was also another. And " the church" includes people of both sexes, not just women; it does not address concerns about sexual organs.

  • Darrell L. Bock

    Excuse me

    Rodrigo:

    In Ephesians 5:22-33 when Paul addresses wives, he is speaking to women and when he addresses husbands, he is speaking to men. There is a gender distinction being made here in the example where husbands (men) are called to love their wives as Christ dos the church. Yes, the church references are to everyone, but the exhortation is to the wife and husband respectively. My point was what was said about husbands (and thus to the men). 

  • Lynn L.

    The Word of God and the Church

    Dr. Bock,

    I don't understand the tone of resentment. It is a very valid and a very basic question, which no one would touch with a ten foot pole. Is this not a Bible discussion forum?

    You have spoken about forgiveness before in a general sense, but I don't believe you have ever addressed the specifics of Scripture on the subject, which is the very substance of any biblical discussion. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe you ever were specific enough to say what you are saying today, that remarriage after divorce is wrong and is adultery. This would mean that it is immoral and it is sinful. This is serious in its implications for so many people. This also must be the best kept secret in the church, if a majority accepts that remarriage is sin, including for the person who was left by their spouse.

    It is clear in Scripture that a component of Jesus's teaching is that law can be rigid and unreasonable in some situations, and God is looking upon the heart and at people as individuals. I believe this general concept is what the vast majority of people believe, in good conscience, and regarding the kindness and understanding of God. I don't think they believe it is sin.

    You take the text in a very direct sense, which has serious implications if it is a correct rendering, and remarriage should not be engaged in by those outside of the specific parameters set in Scripture, if it is wrong. Again, I don't see this as a teaching of the larger Christian church. Maybe it is but is seldomly spoken.

    You also say that it is forgivable. I suppose there may be a basis for asking forgiveness for what you willfully choose to do, as I noted regarding the sometimes unavoidable necessity to leave one's spouse, speaking from a human perspective. I'm speaking about forgiveness for leaving a situation. You are speaking about forgiveness for entering into a situation. I frankly don't see a biblical basis or precedent for this philosophy. Repenting is turning away from. The Lord who taught forgiveness called remarriage adultery, which I see as not only an admonition to not divorce, but as neccessitating truths regarding the nature of law and reason, which is His explicit teaching in other areas of Scripture. (If it is a situation of forgiveness, I don't understand it that way, but so be it.)

    The Bible does speak about a man and a woman. The God I serve does not judge people legalistically. Some people were born gay, and would like to serve in the church. People who judge often do not understand or interpret Scripture for themselves and their friends, in the same way that they impose it upon others.  

    Finally, I generally see Scripture as clear and fitting together and explaining itself very well. The only ambiguity that I referred to was concerning the one Greek word.      

  • Darrell L. Bock

    Done and Thank You

    Lynn:

    No resentment, just directness and a touch of frustration since you claim people do not respond to you when they do. At least you saw there was a direct reply to the question.

    Not the teaching of the larger church? Why did King Edward have to resign the throne when he married Wallace Simpson? Why were their divorce limitations on leaders in the church for centuries? (Only recently has the view on this changed among many).

    Jesus' teaching only an admonition not to divorce, not about remarriage? Is this an either-or? If the divorce that comes before is wrong, so is the remarriage that follows it, which is why in one text the problem is extended to the one who marries a divorced person.

    On gaining forgiveness after a remarriage. One can gain forgiveness without getting yet another divorce (compounding the problem). The consequences are certain roles in the church are excluded as an example to the body (a nice analogy to our topic).

    Your next to last paragraph is the very avoidance of what the text teaches I have complained about in your argument from the beginning. Not one text shows acceptance of the category you endorse. To read a text for what it says is not to judge. It is to follow the text and God's will expressed in it.

    We are done with this discussion. It now goes in circles, Lynn. Thank you for taking the time and energy to express yourself.

  • Lynn L.

    Issues in the church

    Dr. Bock,

    It seems that my distinction wasn't clear, so I'll clarify it if I may.

    Jesus presents a very limited view of acceptable reasons for divorce. "Except for infidelity by the spouse, remarriage is adultery." The fact that "the innocent" woman is called an "adulteress" for remarrying after her husband has left her, and the man who marries her is an "adulterer" tells me that it is not complete and human reason and discernment is absolutely necessary.

    If someone leaves their spouse for reasons that God would not approve of, in all truth and honesty, such as a change of feelings and lack of commitment, that is the person who has violated their marriage vow, which Jesus is condemning. If someone is left by their spouse, or there is a situation of emotional or physical abuse, or addiction, "reason" shows us that this person is innocent in leaving, at some point after prayer and time etc., and that to remarry would be right for him or her. The texts on remarriage do not say or imply as much. Jesus is speaking about this in a "legal" sense regarding the vow, and the woman would not be condemned as an adulteress. This seems clearly left to His people to sort out, in faithfulness and good conscience.

    Divorce is certainly spoken against in the church today, but people do not consider remarriage adultery, or the remarried person to be an adulterer, nor do I believe it is taught this way in the church, despite what would appear clear in Scripture on the subject. The question is not about forgiveness for remarriage "after the fact," it is whether it should be approved of in the first place, by oneself and the church. Most people do approve, while "no texts show acceptance of the category". If the innocent person is banned from ordination, that would not be fair or right.

    Many in the church are in denial about the existence and use of the principles of reason and discernment, which are applied to several areas of Scripture without a problem. Many would agree that this is based on personal bias, rather than principle. It was striking to me that people cowered at the question regarding remarriage after divorce, and refused to answer. My apologies for inconveniencing you.

    To answer your comment, yes, if the divorce is wrong, so is the choice to remarry. If the divorce is not wrong, neither is the choice to remarry.

  • Darrell L. Bock

    OK, this is a fresh topic.

    Lynn:

    The clarification helps a lot.

    This is a fresh topic, so we can engage for a time on this. I will not beat this into the ground.

    Now here is where understanding is called for (not in expanding Jesus' categories, which is what I think your reading does). If that is what Jesus had wanted to do, he could and would have been clearer. I take it that the "innocent" party in the categories Jesus notes is free to remarry (otherwise, why permit the divorce, since that is what divorce seeks to be, put one in a position to remarry). So the non-immoral partner or the abandoned (by an unbeliever) believer can remarry in my view and not be subject to the assessment Jesus makes of being an adulterer (Same goes for one who marries such a person). In those cases, exclusion from leadership is not a consequence because no sin has taken place (that is the point of naming the exception).  But otherwise (with other categories), all such divorce is seen as a violation of the vow and thus adultery (and thus has consequences of disqualification from certain roles in the church where the example is to matter). So I do not apply the term innocent as you do in this text. To this extent as well, categories like reason and discernment apply in making sense of what Jesus is or in not saying by what he says.

    However I think you (if I am reading your take on this text correctly) are using the term more broadly than that. For you use it to add categories to those Jesus and Paul note. The effect of that in my view is to deny the limitations the text names and opens the text up to say far less than it is trying to say by stressing how limited the exceptions were. The limitations are so tight that the disciples are shocked and think maybe it is better to be single!  

    But other than this probably important distinction we are tracking down a similar direction in how this text works.

  • Lynn L.

    God’s Family

    Dr. Bock,

    Jesus could've expanded the categories if He wanted to. It is clearly only "sexual immorality" that He is speaking of, greatly limiting the explicit biblical parameters. I think we are agreed on that. I personally do see a necessity for expanding Jesus's categories for acceptable divorce, and for remarriage after divorce. I do see a foundation for reason, despite law, in the Scriptures. It would be easier if God gave us a simple set of laws to live by, and no doctrine on liberty or reason would be needed. It is a fact that what He gave us is very far from that. We should be able to understand what He expects from us though, and what He will call righteousness, as there are many passages explaining this.

    I agree with your comment, regarding who is Scripturally permitted to remarry, in a strict sense. The woman in Matt. 5:32 doesn't appear to be among them, which I'm sure has perplexed countless people. I can't imagine why the categories would not be expanded due to the realities of life, or why God would not approve and expect this in His church. Please explain if I misunderstood you.

    I completely agree that persons in a position of leadership should be those who live exemplary lives. I don't understand why those who have been placed by their spouse in this position, by causing the termination of their marriage, should be restricted from ordination.

    I understand your displeasure with the ordination of gays in major denominations, considering that you believe Scripture is speaking to all contexts of relationships, and that Paul's observation of a particular godless people, which you believe carries over the O.T. law, covers the entire issue in all contexts. I hope you can be flexible enough to understand that there are different points of view from God-fearing people. God will speak one day as to whether there were vast differences in what was spoken of in His Word (and certain godless scenes in the world, gay and straight), and what we see among faithful gay and lesbian people in committed relationships, who love Him and live conservative and productive lives. 

    I only wrote again to tie up loose ends. Thanks again Dr. Bock. 

  • Darrell L. Bock

    Nice tie up

    Lynn:

    As always we slog through stuff and come to a place where it is clear where we agree and disagree with some measure of civility. For that I do thank you. Hopefully the conversation we have helps others see the issues more clearly as well.

  • Matt

    God demonstrated His love toward homosexuals too

    God demonstrated His love toward us while we were still sinners.  

    Therefore a liar can say: God demonstrated His love toward me by taking my sins of lying and punishing them upon His Son.  God has shown love toward the liar.

    Did God demonstrate His love toward the homosexual in the same way? Yes.  God has shown love toward the homosexual.  To say homosexuality is not a sin is to say Christ didn't die for homosexuality on the cross.  Which would actually be a demonstration of God's hatred for the homosexual. 

    It's interesting that the true lovers of the homosexuals are the Christians calling it sin and showing God's demonstration of love towards them.

  • John I.

    Clarity of Scripture

    I fail to see how Lynn L.'s discussion of adultery sheds light on the Bible's position on homosexuality which is consistently that homosexuality is not part of God's design for sexually intimate relationships and therefore a sin, and also consistently that God died to save the people who are subject to this disordering (disordering, not disorder).

     

    John. I.

  • Lynn L.

    A Major Theme of Scripture

    It is more loving to say that homosexuality is sin? If homosexuality is inherently sin that would be true. I'm not alone in the belief that to place a blanket condemnation on all people who engage in a life partnership with a member of the same sex, is incorrect. I am speaking from the perspective that it is an issue that is misunderstood. It is not a question of whether Jesus died for sin. He did not die for what is not sin, and that does not constitute "hatred" for what is not sin.

    If a person believes in his heart that something is sin, and engages in it anyway, for him it is sin. One person may work on the Sabbath and feel a need to ask forgiveness, while another works on the Sabbath, and he does not believe it is sin, and he has not sinned. This was a death penalty law in the O.T. The grief that is caused to people for a false judgment upon them, is not better for them than to say that they are free to engage in a life partnership, and to love someone in an intimate relationship. (Studies have shown that gay children do better when they are raised by parents who are accepting of them, than the child who is told that there is something dreadfully wrong with him or her, and must change their sexual orientation.) 

    Before this liberty gets blown way out of proportion, and I feel it necessary to answer statements that have no real thought process or logic behind them, let me say that this involves several components: that would be the individual's "conscience" before God, which involves essentially the fruits of the Spirit, evidence related to harm, and one's personal relationship with God. We all will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. We are to be careful in how we judge people.

    The two issues–homosexuality and remarriage after divorce–parallel in that the Bible would seem to many to speak clearly against a same-sex relationship (although that is not what was spoken of in Scripture, and there are context and cultural issues to consider in the condemnation that was made), and the Bible speaks clearly about remarriage as being adultery. My point was abundantly clear: (1) Believers in good conscience accept remarriage for people, with no approving texts (2) There is a foundation for "reason", which would be despite explicit "law" seen in God's Word, which applies to both issues, and (3) Many people apply reason and discernment to several other areas of Scripture, remarriage included, while claiming to be merely "standing by what Scripture says" while they condemn the relationship of the gay person. 

    He is a God of the heart, and He loves all of His children equally.  

  • Matt

    God’ s demonstration of love

    God's demonstration of Love towards all sinners also reveals His unsearchable wrath toward all sin. 

    If I crush a spider crawling on the floor, with my shoe, it doesn't necessarily reveal that I hate spiders.  But, if I crush a spider crawling on my new sports car, with a pipe, the revelation of my hatred for spiders becomes shockingly evident. 

    God demonstrates His hatred for all sin by crushing sin upon His beloved Son.  But this also reveals God's amazing love toward us.  When we are humble and accept what God clearly says about our sins then we can experience God's Amazing love through His forgiveness.  But if we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.  

    It's horrible to think that we might harbor sins, that God hates and crushed upon our Savior, and then claim that God approves of my behavior.  "Who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." Romans 1:32 

  • Lynn L.

    The context of Romans 1

    The context of Romans 1 reveals quite a different scene than what is being discussed today–it is all part of what Paul was seeing in the observation that he made about a godless people and their actions. What he described tells me that he did not have full knowledge of the issue as we know it today, because he is not talking about the issue in the context of the family of God, and the type of people, and relationships, which is very different from what we see in Scripture. It is not the same as the rebellion, violence, lust, and idolatry that was specifically being referred to in Scripture, which is deserving of death.

    Paul associated same-sex acts with the rebellion and godlessness that he was seeing, but it was not the full picture. If you believe that Paul possessed full knowledge, and that God has commanded us to follow all of his teachings, then by all means that is what you should do. Study Paul's words and live by all of them, if you believe that is what is right. Teachings that were based on cultural settings do not necessarily reveal inherent truth. Law, in itself, does not necessarily reveal inherent truth, which is a theme of God's Word. I will live by what I believe in, which is based on the essential and inherent truths of Scripture. Gender is biological–lifestyle is not, and those who do not walk in the Spirit, and live for the flesh, are living in sin. Forgiveness is for repentance of sin.       

  • Darrell L. Bock

    Romans 1 Context

    Lynn:

    The context of Romans 1 is so theologically fundamental to Paul's gospel that this dismissal of Paul's writing as culturally conditioned is not very persuasive in my view. Paul is not the only writer of the text. God inspired what was said here as illustrative of a serious flaw in the culture. Surely God knows about His creation. I am tempted to tell you that future posts on this topic, which goes back over ground we covered years ago will not be accepted, but I know you are responding to Matt. However, this will not go on endlessly, as you have made and defended your position fully here already.

  • Lynn L.

    Religion vs. Relationship

    What we see in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the words of Paul, would certainly be serious flaws of a culture. And a religious body that looks upon the lives of their brethren and their children, and says that their actions make them worthy of death, with a foundation for a statement that ignores the complete facts of what was written in Scripture about the topic, has serious flaws in their thinking.

    God knows about His creation, and obviously did not address all things there. Paul was a great apostle, but he is not God. Paul did not address this. He observed and addressed lust and rebellion. That is the context. Moses also spoke in a context, and this involves the distinction between the old and new covenants. Truth and love reign in the new, regardless of whether Paul was aware of this issue, the one I am speaking about that is, or not. It is a significant issue in God's family for a reason, and the greater picture of themes of Scripture, and the issues of the church, is conveniently swept under the carpet by many people. That is demonstrated by people who will speak boldly only about an isolated part of Scripture. God will not be condemning His children.

    I'll be done here, but I couldn't let it end on a note of condemning God's gay and lesbian children, many of whom are as filled with the Holy Spirit and faithful to our great God, as the heterosexual people who can be described as such, to death. The gospel of Jesus Christ does no such thing. (I don't want to hear about forgiveness for what is not turned away from.) I agree that this voice doesn't belong, and shouldn't go on, where a certain religious perspective is agreed upon. Truth–complete and discerning truth, on all subjects–will have its day.   

  • Claudio

    Sad Day for Presbyterian Church U. S. A.

    We can spend days blogging on this issue and most likely will get nowhere in the debate. I think the issue gets reduced to a single question: Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?  If your answer is NO then the human rights, equality, discrimination, etc, etc, arguments will widely be used to attack any opposition of the decision made by the PCUSA. If you answer YES, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, then you will see homosexuality as sin and will clearly understand the deep consquences made by these congregations. It is unfortunate to say it but may be it will be wise to stop using the word evangelical in our midsts since lately it seems the current use of the word is extremely misleading and does not usually mean an inerrant Bible believing person or church

  • ekerwin

    ROMANS 1 CONTEXT

    Thank you Dr. Bock for setting things straight.

    "Paul is not the only writer of the text. God inspired what was said here as illustrative of a serious flaw in the culture. Surely God knows about His creation."

    Paul was the instrument used by God to give us HIS WORD.

    Whether the 1st century or the 21st century sin is sin.  

  • Samuel Eldred

    It is a sad day for the

    It is a sad day for the church, but it's a decision that should be embraced nevertheless. Opening our arms for these people should be taken as a sign of peace and acceptance from both sides. The Lord can be served in many ways, and His people can be taught in a multitude of ways too.