Two points I like best. 1. they believe the Bible, "but only in the places that reinforce their already held biases." 2.It's the death throes of the fundamentalists in PCUSA, not PCUSA itself.
Thanks, Mark, for a great article!

ps I just looked through some of the posts on the Layman, and I can tell you I would not stay in the congregation of several of those mean-spirited, angry pastors.

I am reading this on vacation and sadly, WITHOUT, my guitar, but reading this made me wanna break in to a heartfelt rendition of the title track from my 2007 CD - "All That Matters".

http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_176095

Love is all that matters!

Why is that SO HARD to see/feel/say/believe/share?

Sounds just like what they said about the Episcopal Church... wrong!

Actually this article is incorrect on many points: It is possible to read the Bible and understand it. The Lord is not wanton--giving us His Word then making it so oblique that it is impossible to follow.

Let me restate this--the Lord is NOT WANTON. He is not going to be so cruel as to give us rules then make them unclear. He is not going to be so useless as to babble for verses, chapters, and books but not say anything at all. If we can understand His love verses (which are mighty indeed), then we can ALSO understand His obedience verses.

I know that when the Bible "confuses" me, it is because it is a verse I do not WANT to follow. I am never EVER confused about, say, not stealing--it is not something that tempts me, thank the Lord. However, I HAVE balked at other verses that dig right to the heart of what I WANT to do, what I LIKE to do, what I ENJOY doing. Sexual sin (be it homosexuality, adultery, pornography, or any other) is very very pleasant to the one who is doing it, and to be told that it is against the Bible puts the flesh (for what sin is more fleshly than a sexual sin) and the Word of God at odds. Then one must make a painful decision--obey the Lord or obey what feels REALLY good and REALLY natural.

Let us go back, though to the part where the author equates the stance on homosexuality with stoning disobedient children. First of all, the stoning of ADULT children (most kids are not drunkards as far as I know) is in the Old Testament, the Old covenant, which is full of rules we do not follow today at all. Likewise the marrying of the brother's wife, not mixing fibers, not eating certain meat, and the sacrifice of animals. (all of which could have been used as examples, but I admit would not have had the same "zing" as "the Bible tells you to stone your kids!").

The New Testament is what Christians are under (though there is overlap). In the New Testament, no mention is made of stoning drunkards, however mention IS made of homosexual behavior. At least twice. And it is NOT good. Fundamentalists did not pull this out of their hat--it is spoken of at least TWICE in the New Covenant, the New Testament as something that is a sin.

Now, we all sin, yes. But is that an excuse for any of us to keep doing any sin that feels good to us? Shall I continue to feed my vanity and pride (two of the sins i struggle with)? Shall the deacon stealing from the offering plate continue to because "none of us get it right"? Shall those who hate, who mock, who kill, who molest, who swindle, who practice witchcraft all just say "Well, the thing is we cant KNOW what the Bible says...and we all sin...."? No. We are to admonish each other in love because the frustration we feel at not obeying our flesh is much less than the pain of judgement that we will have to endure.

Saying "no" is not mean. Sometimes saying "no" is the most loving thing you can do for someone. Those who do not see that do not understand that love and discipline are not mutually exclusive, and that the Lord has both for all of us. He loves us, but disciplines us as His children as well for our GOOD.

Now, I agree that the conservatives of all denominations seem to forget love so they can follow rules. But the liberals forget rules that were given to us in love by the Lord.

Now, in broader social context, we cannot possibly expect the unsaved to follow our rules--that is like France trying to make someone in Alabama follow France's speed limit.

However, we ARE very much to admonish our own brethren, those who claim Christ, regarding behaviors that the Lord was really clear about in the Bible. In fact, we are encouraged to interact with the unsaved, showing them the Love of God. However, those who are brethren and who sin openly and unashamedly we are not even to eat with or greet on the street! This is because those brethren are a poor example of righteousness (that thing we are all supposed to be trying to achieve).

I would offer as well that the Lord specifies that we are not to belong to denominations (I follow Cephas, I follow Apollos, I follow John Calvin....). We are one body in Christ, so there is a problem with a denomination to begin with, when we start claiming man and his ideals (as the author did) instead of claiming Christ as the author and perfecter of our faith.

I have read many blog/posts on the issue of homosexuality and the church/bible, and have responded to a few. There is pattern. The fundamentalists, who are always, btw, anti-gay right, use 9,000 words to say what could be said in 9 (or 90) at the most. LOL

Methinks the dying church may be what God calls us to -- if love kills us, then we should embrace all the way through the grave......

While I rejected the Christian faith several years ago, this post gives me hope for those who remain in The Church to bear witness to agape love.

Leanne...taking many words is just the way I am. Surely that is not evil?

I do the same thing with any topic, any time. I do this to present the point in many ways in order to relate to however people might think (visually, auditory, conceptually, metaphorically)

Do not let the fact that I tend to be wordy detract from the Word as it is stated. Ignore every word I state and go back to the REAL Word of God--what does HE say, not me. He says that sexual sin (including adultery, homosexuality, promiscuity, etc) is wrong.

Ignore my words, go to His Word.

FWIW, I've been looking for a new church for several months after finally giving up on a fairly conservative UMC church I'd belonged to for years.

FWIW, because of the recent vote, I've added Presby churches to my search list - having grown up in the 50s in the First Presbyterian Church of Ridgewood and having belonged to the Community Presbyterian Church of Ben Avon in the 90s

My apologies for hitting the return key too soon above. I applaud the author for this article. I read some of the wordy response of SDR. The one thing that I did read in his response was that of stoning being from the Old Testament, It was in the New Testament that Jesus said that "ye who is without sin, cast the first stone" . Did not Jesus say Love God with all your heart..and to Love one another in this same way. Where does excluding and hatred of those that believe different come in under those 2 simple suggestions/commandments? I have also read that it is whatever God convicts us of in our hearts..not for us to convict/condemn one another. Show love, compassion, and understanding to the ability you possess, and you will go along way with fellow man, and with God.

SDR, you make an extensive point centering on the main theme that "his Word is sound. The New Testament is fully valid", which I agree with, but if you really believe that yourself, aren't you going to obey Jesus' own words to you (and all of us): "first take the plank out of your own eye"? (And if any of us ever assumes that "I have it right, I have no plank", that's the biggest plank of all; it's the whole lumberyard.) You assert the infallible authority of God's Word --- yet you don't make a single mention of the vast, sometimes centuries-long, oftentimes repeated conflicts over various important points of Scripture, and over whose interpretation is "best" or "really right". For example, the Protestant sects in general take serious exception to a great many teachings of the Roman Catholic branch of the church, and not just over the idea of papal infallibility, but over things like salvation itself. Yet each branch will, of course, say, “WE’RE right, and they’re not.”

So in effect, you aren't really declaring "the Word of God is true"; you're asserting, "MY interpretation of the Word of God is true." Big difference. That's what every branch of the church does in their conflicts over all sorts of doctrines, and that stance is tantamount to asserting to be equal to God --- not that I think that, on your part, you consciously meant that, of course. But humility --- not to mention, obedience to Jesus' instruction to start by recognizing, then extracting, the planks from our own eyes --- would temper anyone's words, at least to get us to offer contrasting questions (like, "But isn't it true that ...?" or "On the other hand, have you considered that ...?"), instead of just claiming, "You are wrong, and God's Word is right, and [here's the critical part] THIS is what his Word says about it ...."

With all that in mind, though of course you're very right in wanting to emphasize the texts of the New Covenant over the canceled Old, still the New Testament passages on homosexuality that you're referring to (though I notice you didn't actually quote them, so how do you know your readers even know what you're referring to?) aren't, as a matter of factual examination of the Scriptural texts, as clearcut or hardline on the matter as you may imagine.

One of the more famous (and often-cited) passages is Romans 1.18-32 (to give it its full context --- though actually, of course the passage continues right through the artificial chapter break into ch. 2, as we'll see in a moment). I won't quote the whole thing here, to save space, but anyone who doesn't have a Bible at hand can easily find this passage at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%201&version=NIV (that's a great site for any passage, in any edition or language, for that matter). Briefly, that section launches into a description of a sort of cascading process of moral and spiritual decay on the part of "people who suppress the truth by their wickedness ... they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (vv 18, 21). Please notice that it starts not with people who are honestly seeking God, but who turn away from him; and then it goes downhill from there. They are described as degrading from knowing the transcendent God to directing their worship to created things, which opens the door to a casualness (to say the least) in their relations with one another as well, including sexually (vv 22-25). Then, the next turn in the spiral is described as a further abandonment, in what is the critical passage in this case: what looks to be a straightforward description of both male and female same-sex behavior (vv 26-27). It doesn't stop there, though; the chapter concludes by describing a wholesale breakdown of ethics and morality across society, from family to violent crime to (what ought to be noted as) the real and ultimate breakdown, from God's perspective here: "they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy" (v 31). God is love: so a breakdown in love seems to be, from his point of view, the ultimate in breakdown of ethics, morals, or society.

Well, so again please notice what Scripture is actually describing in that whole context (after all, I'm sure you and all readers here, as well as I, want to do our best also to obey the command of Scripture, "test everything; hold on to the good", 1 Thes 5.21, which if anything describes thorough and thoughtful research and examination): the context is, from its start, about people who turn away from God --- "although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (v 21). One of the classic maxims of biblical interpretation is "let Scripture interpret Scripture" (which just describes looking at the whole context, not taking anything out of context, as of course you'd do with any other research); so go

(part 3)

Of course not; what it does mean is that we can't know what God was getting at, in moving Paul to construct that really carefully-crafted essay, unless, again, we take it in the context it was put in. The scenario of depraved humankind (as I’ve described) was meant as a setup, to catch the self-righteous in their own arrogance; so unless we want to go clonking one other with that same plank that they had in their eyes, we ought to check to see what the "depraved" portrait, itself, is describing.

And the question to ask is this: does it describe the whole world of those who don't believe in Jesus Christ? That ought to be a question that any Christian would laugh at; cultures and peoples around the world, through all time, are replete with wonderful people who display what can only be called the love of God, his image displayed wonderfully in their hearts and lives. Some version of what we call the Golden Rule appears in pre-Christian belief systems as diverse as from Judaism to Confucianism, and beyond (to my mind, that speaks of the one God who creates all people in his image, so you’d actually expect a reflection of that to show up around the world, through all time --- as it happens that it does). When people pitch in to help one another out, as for example in a disaster such as Katrina or deadly tornadoes or 9/11, nobody’s checking to see who’s a Christian; the common humanity and love for neighbors that God put into those who are created in his image simply comes to the fore, and we see what we call “the best of humanity” in such moments.

Does that sound like people who are in that cascading death spiral of depravity that Romans 1 describes, resulting even in a loss of concern for humankind, “no fidelity, no love, no mercy”? Obviously not. And, while people are pitching in to love their neighbors by sometimes risking life and limb --- whether in a disaster situation, or in the work of law enforcement or emergency rescue, or for troopmates in combat --- not only does no one stop to ask what faith those people may follow, but does anyone at those moments wonder what sexual orientation any of those people are? And even if they did, would anyone actually stop, say, to debate that no gay/bisexual people could actually be loving their neighbors, because Romans 1 describes them as depraved and not caring about other humans?

In other words, if someone were to stick to the strict reading of Scripture there, would anyone make a serious argument that, just because someone may be gay or bisexual, therefore they match the same portrait of depraved, ethics-less society that Romans gives?

The reason I went on at such length making such a point about context is that God does not let us take things OUT of context (in fact, responsible and intellectually honest thinking or research of any kind won’t let us do that at any time, anyway). James, of course, made a big point about just that (again, to those who wanted selectively to appeal to sections of Old Testament law --- most especially, while ignoring the law to love one’s neighbor --- but of course the principle applies to what we understand as Scripture overall): “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘You shall not murder’” (see 2.8-10). That is, in this case, none of us gets to select out the vivid descriptions of same-sex behavior and claim, “Aha! see, God clearly condemns that”, but we have to keep it in the context of everything else God was saying there.

Romans 1 describes the depravity of those who turn away from even seeking anything like God, and who turn instead only to things of this life or world: of course there’s no foundation for anything like morality or ethics there, and anyone who consistently keeps to that mindset could be expected to risk the kind of spiritual decay described in Romans. But when people do exactly the opposite --- when they consciously aim to be good, decent people, and especially when they aim to know and follow God, as the Bible portrays him in Christ --- and yet are same-sex oriented, how does that match up with the picture of depravity?

It doesn’t, of course. And there are countless gay, bisexual, or other GLBT people whose lives are characterized by, often even dedicated in their professions or callings (say, law enforcement or medicine), to doing good in the world --- living the truth of God’s command to love their neighbors --- and many of whom are also sincere, devout Christians, and have been since their youth.

then somehow I --- and every other GLBT person --- would have to come to terms with living alone, in celibate lives, always attracted to certain people whom we must accept that God does not want us to “do anything” with, certainly not to enter into any committed, lifetime relationships of love in the way that male-female couples often do. We would have to accept always being alone, even though one of the earliest descriptions of humankind in the Bible notes that “it is not good for the man [or, presumably, the woman either] to be alone” (Gen 2.18).

So we would have to come to terms with this scenario: (1) God created us this way, same-sex (or bisexual) oriented; (2) but he still says it’s sinful ever to act on that attraction (in fact, Romans 1 seems to describe that it’s unnatural even to have that attraction, so the very orientation itself must be wrong --- which would not explain how anyone gets that way without choosing to be that way or “rejecting God”); (3) even if we live with same-sex orientation, because we can never act on it, we are consigned to live alone all our lives, never having the love, commitment, companionship, or security of marriage and family that male-female couples can have.

Can you picture living a life like that? At this point, it would be no use to simply appeal to, “Well, none of that matters, because God’s Word says it’s sinful; and God said it, that settles it,” since God’s Word itself requires us to keep everything in context, without cherry-picking anything out, as we’ve seen. So the questions remain: (1) Do you really think that all gay/bi people are that way because they rejected God? I never did; all my life, I’ve tried increasingly to follow Christ, and in fact have increasingly seen his love, grace, and faithfulness see me through thick and thin, through loss of family and home, always bringing grace in the midst of seeming disaster. He has never failed nor forsaken me, just as in fact his Word promises us; so since I never turned from him and he has never left me, where did this sexual orientation come from, unless he created me that way? If he did create me (and others) that way, and it’s not a result of “rejecting God”, then how do you explain how it fits into the description in Romans 1, which ONLY describes people who are turning away from God? In other words, how can same-sex behavior (or orientation) be seemingly described in Romans as a fate that God abandons people to as repayment for turning from him, when the exact same orientation is found in plenty of other people who have not only never turned from God, but have always turned toward him and followed Christ? (2) And if he did create us that way, how could it be consistent for God to create some people a certain way, yet still tell them it’s sinful for them to be that way in the first place, and that they must never act on those inclinations? How does that fit with a single other attribute of God’s heart or character, as we see in Scripture, and especially as shown us in the person, life, and words of Christ? and (3) If God really does insist that we never act on the inclinations that he designed into us (and that we can never change), most of all how does that fit with the God who designed people to live in loving, committed relationships (it’s “not good” not to live your life in one), and to build loving families --- yet who, apparently, must be condemning this segment of humanity forever to be denied that? Can you picture how you would endure life, if God told you that you must leave your loved ones, always to remain single without them? Would you knowingly want to condemn people to a life that you yourself would never want to experience? (And Jesus requires you to treat others “in everything ... as you would have them do for you”, Mt 7.12.) Putting together the whole context, the whole picture, of what we know of God, of Christ, what do you really think he would do? WWJD? Does that line up with the strict doctrine that you have been certain Romans 1 is supporting?

I’m just asking questions, and trying to look at God’s Word as thoroughly as you said that you wanted to; I have to assume that you really do want to look at it thoroughly and consistently, as Scripture itself also instructs us to do. I didn’t go into the other brief mentions of same-sex behavior in the New Testament (for space reasons, obviously); but if you look into them honestly and humbly, researching and examining what Scripture --- not what a reading on the surface of it --- actually says, you will find that it doesn’t really support the unilateral denunciation of same-sex orientation or behavior as conservative Christianity has historically thought it did. That is, the questions that have been grappled with by the PCUSA (or any other Christians) aren’t re

"After all, it IS the authority of Scripture that counts; our responsibility is to seriously examine it, so we can be sure we understand what it is really saying, not just what we think it says, or want it to say."

Roger, how do you know this IS what its all about? Jesus seems to make central the tenant of compassion over vehement religious zealotry to documents. Just curious?

"It's part of the brilliance of the centrality of love, forgiveness, acceptance and grace within the texts themselves. Without those four pieces the Bible becomes a weapon rather than a balm as those who wish to marginalize and judge a specific segment of society (be they women, slaves, or homosexuals) cherry pick the texts without consideration of larger contexts with the sole purpose of Bible-thumping a specific group into soul-sapping submission"

My favorite passage of that piece. I am a first time visitor to this blog, and I won't be the last. In fact I'll be linking this site to my own, if you don't mind.

The author of this article is on drugs. God will not bless what his word clearly says is an abomination.

truth said in few words....

I liked your last sentence about the biblical realities of love, acceptance and grace, but it lacked an important word, "truth". I observed that in your categories the word truth is also missing. "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Maybe like that famous Roman judge you have concluded the matter with the question "What is truth? Or perhaps like Christopher Robin you have found the North Pole and planted it.

I may not have included forgiveness in the list but it does seem a bit redundant because forgiveness is at the core of grace. Your response is polemic not substantive. You need to address the issue of truth, as in Jesus Christ. You eventually will.

Fundamentalism is a boogey man that you obviously flaunt while intellectually eschewing the essence of truth in Jesus Christ and its personal application.

When Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery he told her to go and sin no more. Put another way, "go and live your live in submission to God's truth".

Two points: 1) What happened to the term 'fundamentalist'? In the beginning it meant 7 agreed upon basic principles and agreement to disagree on all other interpretive disputes. A truce pact. It has no morfed into the 'fighting fundies'(a 1950s term that still applies). 2) What has happened to the integrety of Bible publishers? The many bible translations that put in print the word homosexual and violate all standards of interpretation for the cause of social engineering.

I am a proud member of a large, strong, and vibrant PCUSA congregation. We have over 300 members and continue to grow, largely because we are a refuge from the craziness that passes for Christianity. We are growing because we are open and accepting. We have gay members, mixed-race families, single parents, and we welcome anyone who chooses to walk through the door. Churches around us reject all of this and moan that they can't attract new members as their congregations dwindle. If you can find it in your hearts to be as accepting as Jesus, you won't have that problem.

Loved this post. Why do people spend so much time worrying about someone else's sex life? Is it really the fundamentalist point of view that God will punish them for someone else's gayness? My reading of the Bible tells me that God is a lot more concerned about our lack of love for our fellow human beings.

Well, that was fun...sorry. To finish...Are the accusations my father told me against the PCUS during the formation of the PCA in 1973 rising again now, to further split the PCA? Heavens, its fundamentalist enough as it is, what would a further distillation create? What do you remember or know of that historic split in the 70's? I no longer believe the poison I was told back then actually really existed. I think that the split did occur due to disagreements regarding the things that have always divided the church along the fundamentalist vs progressive fault line. Social justice, change, passive resistance (it should come as no surprise to you that Martin Luther King Jr. was vilified in my childhood church) etc. But the new rumors so like the old rumors of 39 years ago are so eerily similar that I wonder how organized and deliberate they may have been, and if so, what is their future goal. I grieve for my old church, which has grown harsher and more cold with every decade, every change of minister, ever more judgmental and pitiless. What must its future be?