The Presbyterian Church (USA): Where God Loves Abortion and Hates Israel
The Presbyterian Church (USA)s long and boring shuffle out of Christendom
T he Presbyterian Church (USA) is the Radio Shack of church denominations. Its been in freefall for so long that its sometimes difficult to believe the church is still around. It makes news only when it makes bad news.
This is a church that has long embraced a culture of death by accepting abortion on demand. Indeed, church materials have declared that abortion can even be an act of faithfulness before God , and church policy states : The considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required, decision.
Indeed, the PCUSA has been on board with the sexual revolution from the beginning, with the church an early adopter of no-fault divorce and remarriage. Its embrace goes all the way back to 1952 .
It has covered itself in shame with an anti-Semitic boycott of Israeli settlement products and with its divestment from Caterpillar, Motorola, and Hewlett-Packard for allegedly promoting violence in the West Bank and Gaza. (In reality, of course, these companies supply technology that helps Israel defend itself against Palestinian terrorism.)
The drift from biblical orthodoxy to spiritualized leftism has profound real-world consequences. The church isnt just shuffling out of Christianity, its shuffling out of existence. The church has lost 37 percent of its members since 1992 , and the trend is accelerating. According to Christianity Today , in 2013, membership declined by 5 percent as 148 congregations left for other denominations the largest annual membership loss in nearly 50 years.
So it should surprise exactly no one that the PCUSA has continued its slow-motion suicide by voting to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. The new definition now reads:
Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman, to love and support each other for the rest of their lives. The sacrificial love that unites the couple sustains them as faithful and responsible members of the church and the wider community.
Im trying not to stifle a yawn. Its all so predictable and familiar.
Moreover, its difficult to discern how the PCUSA sees marriage as a unique commitment given that its acceptance of no-fault divorce means that a marriage covenant is less binding than a refrigerator warranty. Yet this commitment now includes same-sex couples.
To read the churchs justifications for its embrace of same-sex marriage is to see the reason for its decline. Heres the Presbytery of the Cascades:
We believe that God created each of us with many differences, including sexual preferences, and that those differences are to be celebrated as part of the creative plan of God.
And my favorite quote, from the Presbytery of Maumee Valley:
We must continually be open to hearing the new things God is saying to us through the Word. It was this ever-renewed, ever-revealing light that led us away from the scriptural interpretations once used to keep slavery in place, to justify anti-Semitism, to limit the role of women in society and in our denomination, to justify the despoilment of the environment, to authorize physical punishment of children at home and school, and to rationalize homophobia.
These are not scriptural arguments. Instead, the church is offering little more than the spiritualized rhetoric of a university gender-studies department. In fact, universities spiritualized their rhetoric first . Here was the University of Michigan, opining in 2006 about biblical truth:
Some texts of the Old Testament are used to condemn homosexuality. Taken literally and out of context, Biblical passages can be used to justify slavery, prohibit the wearing of red dresses, and eating of shrimp and shellfish, and to reinforce the inferiority of women.
Not to be outdone, before its training program was struck down as violating the Establishment Clause, Georgia Tech featured its own brand of PCUSA theology:
Many religious traditions have taught, and some continue to teach, that homosexuality is immoral. These condemnations are based primarily on a few isolated passages from the Bible. Historically, Biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities.
Spiritualized leftism is little more than standard leftism with the disadvantage of asking you to get up early on Sunday morning. Is it any wonder that people abandon churches that give them little more wisdom than they can get from Starbucks ?
The current issue of the PCUSA publication Presbyterians Today features a picture of a person standing at a fork in the road, compass in hand. But the church isnt choosing a new path. Its walking the same path it has for years the broad road that leads straight out of Christianity.
This article first appeared here on National Review.
The Presbyterian Church (USA): Where God Loves Abortion and Hates Israel ,
by
theism to Wiccan... then you'll find lots of stuff here to interest you.
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
"Judge not lest you be judged" is a really, really tough commandment! All these idiots, and I'm not supposed to say "They're idiots!"
Do what you want churches don't last. There's no point to them.
Hi Sean.
Thank you for yet another beside-the-point Reply.
I would be disturbed, should you ever make a pertinent Reply. I would suspect that the Bodysnatchers had struck...
Hi Hal.
Thank you for yet another beside-the-point Reply.
I would be disturbed, should you ever make a pertinent Reply. I would suspect that the Bodysnatchers had struck...
Gentlemen, please stick to the subject and stop with the personal attacks. D
I know that, Hal... and if the seed were about abortion, your post would be pertinent. But since the seed is about gatekeeping...
But like I say... I would be very upset if you were to post something pertinent. It would be so unnatural. I would worry for your health...
I believe that those verses (Matt7:1-3) do not say not to judge,they dosay to be aware that when we judge, we accuse ourselves along the same line of judgment, and if we are indeed guilty will be judged accordingly. Iow, I must be going to the Presbyterians version of hell for believing that murdering innocents, as well as not supporting our ally Israel, is wrong.
I know how to cut and paste too! Directly from your seed even.
Gatekeeping.
You might have "guessed", seeing this:
I mean, Sean, that I wrote it out in clear:The present seed is "gatekeeping".
How can you then ask what the topic is?
Bob, if you want people to stay on topic, then ask for a redirect, instead of quips that you are complaining about? Just a new approach that might help.
I really can't say they are idiots because I believe each individual should have religious freedom. As an agnostic person it would be easy for me to say all religious people are idiots but I need to keep and open mind and realize that they all have the right to believe whatever they want even if they are satan worshippers.
Larry, please... The subject here is not abortion. It is gatekeeping.
Think a little longer, Sean... Where is there "judgement", here? Penalty?
If someone persistently does something wrong (such as gatekeeping), ther is nothing wrong with pointing it out.
Hal...
You are quoting an opinion. An opinion unsupported by any facts or any line of reasoning.
That's my point.
Mr French elevates his own personal opinion -- Jesus did not say a single word on the subject -- to Holy status. And then, on the basis of his own opinion, excommunicates those who disagree.
That is the topic. Taking the name of the Lord in vain. Pretending that one's own opinions are God's Word.
Anyone who does not accept the divine word of Mr French cannot be a Christian.
Perrie,
Does this mean, "The subject is abortion"?
Does this mean "The subject is the Presbyterian Church"?
C'mon, Perrie!
Is it too much to expect, that people actually read the seed? Must I repeat its contents after each completely-beside-the-point Reply? Really?
That's ok each individual is free to believe whatever they want in this country.
Yes.
You (and I) recognize that "faith" is not a domain where anyone has "The Truth". I may have "my" truth... but mine is no more certain than anyone else's.
I don't think Mr French is an idiot for his beliefs, whatever they may be.
I think he's an idiot because "inclusiveness" is absolutely central to Jesus's message, so whenever Mr French "excludes" anyone from the Christian family, he is demonstrating, gloriously demonstrating, a denial of one of the fundamentals of Christ's teaching.
Willfully ignoring a central tenet, while claiming the name... is idiocy...
If a Satan worshipper loves their fellows, they're cool!
Dean, you are unworthy of being an American.
In fact, I am going to write an entire NT article on the unAmerican-ness of Dean Moriarty!
... it's OK for me to write this because "each individual is free to believe whatever they want in this country."
Right?
Of course not.
But that is what Mr French is doing.
Is it too much to expect that your title reflect WTF your point is ? I guess so Bob .
Gee, Petey....
I am so-o-o-o-o sorry!I know it would be easier if you could read just the title... but I am afraid that that won't work...
Because, Petey... I disagree vehemently with the seed. I posted it as an example of gatekeeping.
And of course... Mr French chose his title, not I.
JR....
"Intelligent people should beable to stay on topic". You havegot to be kidding, right. Consider the forum, consider the commenters!
Thank God I'm a Methodist!
By whose definition? Could you give a quote, or a link?
Or are you -- just maybe -- conflating your own personal opinion with "the definition"? Kinda the way a fundie preacher conflate his own opinion with "God's word"?
Where is there "judgement", here? Penalty?
If you are narrowly defining judgment as as an act that inflicts a penalty, then their is no judgment when you publicly rebuke a sinner. Of course, then the article you linked is not a judgment either.
If you are using the term judgment more loosely, then the act of publicly rebuking someone for sinning is an act of judgment. I'm sure a survey of people on this site would overwhelmingly agree that the act of publicly shaming someone as a sinner involves "judging" of the sinner by the shamer.
In fact, if you want to invoke such a broad reading of the prohibition of judgment as to include the linked article, then its pretty clear you are guilty of the same sin. What else are you doing but judging and dismissing the no doubt sincere demonstration of the author's faith?
You are clearly "Gatekeeping" yourself. But I won't call you a lousy christian, even if you appear to be by your own professed standards.
Good Reply, Sean!
Thoughtful! You've made my day, Sean, and have my sincere thanks. And I plead guilty as charged! ... kinda...
You are absolutely right that this is skating on thin ice. A Christian is often on a straight-and-narrow, between conflicting imperatives.
I think that the word "persists" is key in this passage. If I permit myself to comment on everyone's behavior at every occasion, then clearly I am judging and should not. (And being a jerk... which is perhaps a synonym.
) )
If, however, a person "persists"... then at some point I become guilty of negligence if I do not react.
I think, too, that Timothy threads another needle, equally carefully. He says to "rebuke". He does not say to "condemn". There's a difference between "That's not a good thing to dot" and "You are evil to do that". The first formulation judges the action, the second judges the person.
Yes. I agree. This isthe thin ice, exactly! And I think you are right that far too often, we "shame the person", rather than "criticize the action".
This is a huge risk. When I present Mr French's article, and say that it is gatekeeping, and that gatekeeping is despicable... I am very nearly saying that Mr French's behavior is despicable, or that Mr French himself is despicable.
OTOH, if I read Mr French's article, and remain silent... am I not rendering myself a "passive accomplice"? In law, if I see a crime being committed, but do nothing, I am a passive accomplice. If I do not underscore the noxiousness of gatekeeping, and its incoherence with the most basic of Jesus's message, am I not in default?
Almost... kinda... sorta... You are right.
That's right Christian of you!
And again... thank you for your thoughtful Reply.
It didn't begin great, but it turned into a thought provoking discussion, which is all one could ask.
Yes. Enjoyable.
C'mon Hal!
You said "religious doctrines". It's dishonest to try to equate that to a book.
Oh wait... Hal... dishonest...
Never mind.
You don't know the difference between the Bible and doctrine? Catholic doctrine... Lutheran doctrine... Southern Baptist doctrine... Episcopal doctrine...
Israel is the only country in the Middle East, parts of Africa and even China where Christians are safe, so that's a good reason for the Presbyterians to hate them.
Off-topic, Buzz.
Please.
Why is that off-topic ?
Then please remove the words "and hates Israel" from your headline.
Buzz & Petey,
Please read more than the headline.
Thank you.
You really should qui digging, Hal.
I go mostly by titles and tags [which you didn't bother using ] . So I'm going to label this article with it's misleading headline as entrapment . Thanks for playing your silly-ass game .
Gee, Petey...
I'm so-o-o-o-o sorry that you need to read...
Oh, I see. You mean the headline is misleading.
Lol - okay. Nice graphic that you have selected for your seed, by the way. A picture of the Holy Bible ... hmmmm. What's the Holy Bible have to do with doctrines of Christian demonimations anyways?
Please read the article, Buzz. Then, if you still do not understand, I will explain.
Nope. Mr French selected that picture. You'd have to ask him about its pertinence.