# How long before the Gay vote goes the other way in PCUSA?



## DMcFadden (Jul 9, 2012)

> The U.S. Presbyterian Church on Friday narrowly rejected a proposal by same-sex marriage proponents for a constitutional change that would redefine marriage as a union between “two people,” rather than between a woman and a man.
> 
> The 338-308 vote followed nearly four hours of heated debate at the Church’s General Assembly in Pittsburgh, a biennial gathering to review policy.
> The Church, with around 2 million members, currently allows ministers to bless gay unions but prohibits them from solemnizing homosexual civil marriages.
> ...



Whew! That was amazingly close! How long do you mainline watchers think it will go before this church body goes the mainline way?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 9, 2012)

In 2014 in Detroit it will pass. 

There are a number of reasons why it failed this time starting with the fact the strongest "evangelical" presbyteries in the PC(USA) are concentrated in Western PA, so venue played a large part in this. Also according to my sources a decent number of the "No" vote this time was from folks who knew a "Yes" vote would split the denomination so they voted according to politics, not principle.


----------



## KMK (Jul 9, 2012)

DMcFadden said:


> Opponents of the change argued the move would alienate the Church from Presbyterian churches in other countries,



That's the best opposition they can muster?


----------



## hammondjones (Jul 9, 2012)

2 years

Here's a summary of the events from the Christian Science Monitor:



> The PCUSA, like other mainline denominations, has felt the sting of grappling with sexuality issues for decades. Last year, a new rule took effect allowing non-celibate, gay PCUSA clergy to serve openly. Church court cases and tense votes every two years have frayed nerves as believers, bound by a shared faith yet torn on an emotional issue, struggle to hang together as a spiritual community.
> 
> *“Lord of all graces … we don’t know what to do,” prayed General Assembly Moderator Neal Presa. “We keep voting and talking and listening. And yet we find ourselves divided.”*
> 
> ...



Presbyterian church rejects same-sex marriage - CSMonitor.com


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 9, 2012)

Take the same assembly and put it in California instead, and the vote goes the other way (as Ben implied). 

The PCUSA is certainly (In my humble opinion) going to be making these changes next time around... in fact I suspect that the 2014 vote will be strongly in favor of a change, in part because I suspect there will be a continued exodus of more conservative churches over the next couple of years (especially if no action is taken on the high profile cases - like the ex-vice-moderator - of pastors performing same sex marriages). I would be shocked if the vote isn't a 55-45 or 60-40 vote in 2014 for redefinition (and I would certainly think that it's pathologically quixotic for anyone who holds the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God to try to stay in the PCUSA to work for change... but I would also have said that 15 years ago). The mainline churches by and large are going in this direction...in the RCA General Synod this year, a woman 'elder' stood up and argued for their pro-homosexual overtures, basing her case on the fact that if they didn't change their position on homosexuals, fewer and fewer young people would consider attending an RCA church. The whole of her case (though I suspect there are more principled reasons she argued this way) rested on her concern that kids won't be able to hear the gospel because they won't cross the threshold of what they perceive as a bigoted denomination.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 9, 2012)

I know of almost no "evangelical" ministers in the PC(USA) that would hold to the kind of inerrency that we would require in a NAPARC denomination. In fact almost all my friends in the PC(USA) who would be called "evangelical" would deny Pauline authorship on the Pastorals and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. 

They are not biblical conservatives. They are liberals that deny many of the things we almost take for granted including parts of the substitutionary atonement and if you talked to them about the imputation debate they would have little understanding of the arguments we have on this.


----------



## caddy (Jul 9, 2012)

^
Sad indeed, Benjamin


----------



## Supersillymanable (Jul 9, 2012)

May I ask a somewhat provocative question? If this is how the PCUSA is going, and if indeed the best reason that they could muster at not redefining marriage being alienating other churches, do we think that the majority of these people are actually our brothers in Christ? Surely the sheep know His voice? Surely they would hold to biblical inerrancy? Are they really part of the true body of the Church?


----------



## A5pointer (Jul 9, 2012)

KMK said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Opponents of the change argued the move would alienate the Church from Presbyterian churches in other countries,
> ...



Probably is the most effective as the opposition does not see scripture as authoritative rendering scriptural argument a non factor. Very sad indeed. Our pastor was there.


----------



## A5pointer (Jul 9, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I know of almost no "evangelical" ministers in the PC(USA) that would hold to the kind of inerrency that we would require in a NAPARC denomination. In fact almost all my friends in the PC(USA) who would be called "evangelical" would deny Pauline authorship on the Pastorals and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
> 
> They are not biblical conservatives. They are liberals that deny many of the things we almost take for granted including parts of the substitutionary atonement and if you talked to them about the imputation debate they would have little understanding of the arguments we have on this.



A little too broad with that brush. Our pastor would certainly pass muster holding to the WCF and although a minority, there are more still in the denomination than you may think. There are many congregations who clearly understand the denomination is deplorable and an embarrassment. Most are always struggling with the decision to stay or leave. While staying they work to be a counter cultural influence to effect change although admittedly it seems a battle lost. We pray for God's intervention.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 9, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I know of almost no "evangelical" ministers in the PC(USA) that would hold to the kind of inerrency that we would require in a NAPARC denomination. In fact almost all my friends in the PC(USA) who would be called "evangelical" would deny Pauline authorship on the Pastorals and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
> 
> They are not biblical conservatives. They are liberals that deny many of the things we almost take for granted including parts of the substitutionary atonement and if you talked to them about the imputation debate they would have little understanding of the arguments we have on this.



Ben, most of my "evangelical" friends who were PCUSA (from my alma mater in Pasadena) would similarly deny inerrancy and view the NT critical issues you mentioned in a similar way to the one you suggested. Sad indeed.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 9, 2012)

I know a retired PC(USA) minister who is a biblical conservative. I asked him once why he didn't leave when most of the other conservatives were getting out. He responded with one word: "Stupidity."


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 9, 2012)

hammondjones said:


> > *“Lord of all graces … we don’t know what to do,” prayed General Assembly Moderator Neal Presa. “We keep voting and talking and listening. And yet we find ourselves divided.”*
> >
> > ...
> >
> ...


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jul 9, 2012)

As I have related elsewhere, I finally realized the battle was long lost and we were wasting our time and resources fighting to redeem the PCUSA. I told the few vocal folks in my church who wanted to "stay in and fight for change:" If you took your kids to the theatre and a fire broke out, would you remain rooted in your seats because it mattered to you how the movie turned out?? " Of the 14 folks out of 350 or so that voted to remain in the PCUSA when we joined the EPC, only one has left for another PCUSA church. What a relief to be out of the burning theatre.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Jack K (Jul 9, 2012)

toddpedlar said:


> in the RCA General Synod this year, a woman 'elder' stood up and argued for their pro-homosexual overtures, basing her case on the fact that if they didn't change their position on homosexuals, fewer and fewer young people would consider attending an RCA church.



Indeed, this is how the liberals think. But they have it all wrong. Sure, some young people won't attend a church that stands against homosexual practice. But very few at all will attend a church that stands for nothing. They drop out because such a church is irrelevant. These liberal churches have been losing young people to Bible believing churches for decades now, and they will continue to do so because the Bible believing churches actually have something to offer.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 9, 2012)

> “Lord of all graces … we don’t know what to do,” prayed General Assembly Moderator Neal Presa. “We keep voting and talking and listening. And yet we find ourselves divided.”



What I don't understand by this quote is, if they were to open a Bible and let it speak for itself, the people of God could be united on this. We can argue about infra and supra, pre-sup, paedo/credo baptism, etc., but this is about a 'church' blessing sin. That's a non-starter. Christ's church does not bless the darkness, it has no fellowship with it, it cannot.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 9, 2012)

> > in the RCA General Synod this year, a woman 'elder' stood up and argued for their pro-homosexual overtures, basing her case on the fact that if they didn't change their position on homosexuals, fewer and fewer young people would consider attending an RCA church.
> 
> 
> Indeed, this is how the liberals think. But they have it all wrong. Sure, some young people won't attend a church that stands against homosexual practice. But very few at all will attend a church that stands for nothing. They drop out because such a church is irrelevant. These liberal churches have been losing young people to Bible believing churches for decades now, and they will continue to do so because the Bible believing churches actually have something to offer.



And the other side of the coin is this: where do these young people get this worldview? They've been thrown headlong into the culture, either by parental neglect or by being put in a public school. I know lots of young people that know that homosexuality is wrong. They understand it and stay in the church, because they know it is the truth. That is what the church preaches - truth.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 10, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> They've been thrown headlong into the culture, either by parental neglect or by being put in a public school.



Kevin, 
In all due respect I am not seeing what you see. I have kids who went to the Public School System and I have contact with children and young adults who were definitely neglected by their parents. And the number of those who are accepting of the homosexual lifestyle are very minimal from these kids. They still know it is a righteousness and matter and that it is wrong. I know kids who were my age and grew up in the Church with caring parents and they ended up professing themselves to be gay. They knew it was wrong and tried justifying it. A few I knew did return to the faith even after practicing it for years. 

I do honestly believe that our media, social settings (even schools), and peer settings have a lot to do with influencing this generation. But there is something that is inside that keeps us from going to far or allowing us to delve into great sin.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 10, 2012)

> In all due respect I am not seeing what you see. I have kids who went to the Public School System and I have contact with children and young adults who were definitely neglected by their parents. And the number of those who are accepting of the homosexual lifestyle are very minimal from these kids. They still know it is a righteousness and matter and that it is wrong. I know kids who were my age and grew up in the Church with caring parents and they ended up professing themselves to be gay. They knew it was wrong and tried justifying it. A few I knew did return to the faith even after practicing it for years.
> 
> I do honestly believe that our media, social settings (even schools), and peer settings have a lot to do with influencing this generation. But there is something that is inside that keeps us from going to far or allowing us to delve into great sin.



Sorry Randy, perhaps I should expand on statements like that to clarify. I have indeed seen the other side of things, where the child is raised in a Christian household (Reformed, faithful, Bible-believing), but were put in public school at the university level without guidance, and it lead to truly bizarre worldviews, culminating in his profession to be agnostic, thankful for his 'moral compass' growing up, but definitely supportive of gay marriage, and on his way to being a lawyer specializing in environmental law. When I say neglectful, I am speaking of fathers and mothers who do not filter the filth of culture coming into their homes, perhaps condemning it through Bible reading during family devotions, but leaving it waist-deep in the home through everyday actions - in some cases completely ignorant of what it was really doing to their families. I am not saying that these kids were practising the gay lifestyle, but the bobble-head acceptance of it within these Christian homes was truly staggering.

In the end, I don't know if that made my statements any more palatable to you, but I just think that we as Christians devour too much of the world assuming that we can filter it efficiently, even when we allow it to wash over us unbridled. It leads to a skewed worldview and the sight of young, professing believers being at best ambivalent to the idea of gay marriage is fairly sickening to me.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 10, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> > “Lord of all graces … we don’t know what to do,” prayed General Assembly Moderator Neal Presa. “We keep voting and talking and listening. And yet we find ourselves divided.”
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand by this quote is, if they were to open a Bible and let it speak for itself, the people of God could be united on this. We can argue about infra and supra, pre-sup, paedo/credo baptism, etc., but this is about a 'church' blessing sin. That's a non-starter. Christ's church does not bless the darkness, it has no fellowship with it, it cannot.



When you come into the church meeting with an a priori commitment to the assumption that God stands on the side of something (e.g., egalitarianism, homosexuality, etc.) and then expect God to reveal his will in a clear way you have already started on the wrong foot. I'm reminded of the analog in Malachi 2 



> 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand.
> 14 But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
> 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.
> 16 "For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless."



The altar was flooded with tears, with weeping and groaning, filled with consternation at why the Lord no longer accepted their offerings. Perhaps their flagrant disregard for his word might have had a part to play in it, ya think (vs. 14)? Like the OT example, when you are committed to a position that opposes the Lord, you should not be surprised when he does not "show up" to reveal himself in a way that you desire. The GA Moderator can pray as long as he wants. But as long as they refuse to accept the authority of the Word as a regulating principle over their deliberations, it is unlikely that the outcome will be the unity the pray for so emotionally.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jul 10, 2012)

Some of the most vocal and supportive voices in our Church's move from PCUSA were the youth group kids, almost all of which go to public school. I was very impressed at their ability to articulate the issues. They wanted to vote to leave months before the adults. They were a great joy to me when I was taking fire from the vocal few folks towing the "no gay ordination, then no shellfish or mix-fabric clothing" fallacies. Often, I believe a bit too much blame is given "public schools" and not enough apportioned to "parents at home" and "visible church/covenant community" when a child/young adult goes off the rails for a time. Especially when I see a lot of homeschooled kids go off the rails, too. Homeschooling does not a "christian education" make, if the "Christian" portion is not likewise instilled by the parents. Often here, homeschooling is more a matter of "parent enforced segregation" rather than a "Christian educational alternative." It may be different in other places.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jul 10, 2012)

What happened at the GA had nothing to do with orthodoxy, as much as I would like to believe that it did. Having dealt with these folks, in my opinion, it was a business decision to buy a couple more years of evangelical Per Capita in exchange for 2 more years without forcing a schism. Once they think the "exodus" is over, it's Katie, bar the door.


----------

