Context!

Please forgive me for not responding to your comments more swiftly. I had some technical problems and life is full, as I expect it is for you. Thanks for your patience and for sharing your views here.

I see a few points on which we agree. First of all, we are yearning for the Holy Spirit to inspire us and to direct us into the future, which, I trust we agree, is fully known by God and in God’s hands. In this context, I would deeply appreciate your reflection on Gamaliel’s wisdom and its applicability in our time where there is the same kind of disagreement in the faith family. Then it was between the Pharisees and the followers of Jesus. Now, I suppose it is fair to say, it is between you and me.

Second, I certainly acknowledge that the human marriages in the Bible are all between a man and a woman (though there are scholars who recognize the qualities of marriage in the story of David and Jonathan). One response to your thought that comes to my mind is the way Scripture is clear that God can do a new thing that goes beyond what was conceived of when the Bible was inspired (Isaiah 42:9, Isaiah 43:19). Though I expect that there were same gender couples in Biblical times, it is in out time that God has opened out eyes to see them for what they are–covenantal relationships with all the qualities we recognize as marriage.

I would also agree that the PCUSA does not have a king because a fundamental conviction of our Reformed faith is that God alone is Lord of the conscience. In other words, Christ is King for each of us in the church according to our study of Scripture and inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Christ is then King of the church by the discernment of the members as we share what we see. In this sense, our Reformed church is more like the community in Judges which, I know, is severely judged by the writers who valued a king. But, as we know, that did not turn our very well. I am interested in whether you see any truth in Judges as the way in which God relates to us best in the end.

I hope what I have shared makes sense to you and I thank you in advance for your response.

Peace, Janet

Find one reference in Scripture of marriage being between people of the same gender. Find it please. Oh, yes Scripture in every instance when talking of marriage is talking of people of opposite genders. Every time.

OK, look in the confessions. Find one reference in that group of documents that refer to marriage as being between people of the same gender. Find it please…..

You are being untruthful here.

This blog is a prime example of this passage. Rev. Edwards and now much of the PCUSA have no king, they have eliminated Christ. So they do whatever they feel is right in their own eyes. A spirit of deception has engulfed them, and they revel in their rebellion. Have your fun, but the denomination is dead.

I think a better analogy would be a peace treaty where parties agree to stipulations resulting in peaceful behavior. A bridge connotes that populations on both sides of the river want it and wish to cross it.

Donna

You seem to be thinking along the same lines as I am for you raised that exact question that came to me as I thought about my response to you: is unity more important than integrity for me?

What I thought about is the fact that the official policy of the PCUSA for 30+ years with regard to the full equality of LGBT members has been different from my firmly held view on this. And research has shown that the present generation of young people, including evangelicals, see the church as anti-gay and this contributes to their walking away from us.

What I am getting at is: I could say that my integrity, or the integrity of my theological position on God’s love for LGBT people, has been compromised by the church I am part of and with serious damaging consequences. And I stay. Perhaps you could say that I have given unity priority over my integrity.

The way I see it, I have maintained my integrity by working within the rules of the church, year after year, to change the stand of the church. And this is certainly available now to those who think differently from me as an alternative to leaving.

I cannot speak for the Reformers of the past. Choices were made back then and we inherited them. I know they did try to work within the rules of the church. Also many were kicked out of the church so that separation was not their choice but the choice of the hierarchy. That is not a consideration at this moment.

So those are my thoughts, Silva. THANKS for provoking them and I cherish your response.

Peace, Janet

When you say you want us to do better than settle for division because being together is difficult or even impugns our integrity, it feels like you are saying unity is more important than integrity. What, if any, are the limits of that? Was the Reformation a bad idea? :-)