Agreement on Theological Task Force Results
Is the proposed Authoritative Interpretation in Recommendation #5 of the Theological Task Force's report a big deal? The A.I. would provide a means for the ordination of persons determined to be in violation of ordination standards, such as G-6.0106b on "fidelity and chastity." Would it make any difference if the A.I. gets approved by General Assembly next summer?
We could look at it this way: If it wouldn't make a difference, why would it be proposed by the Task Force as their plan of action? If it would make virtually no change in our polity practices, what use would it serve? Why bother? Certainly the Task Force members believe it does introduce a real change, although their official line is that the change is almost no change at all.
People very familiar with the report believe big changes would be made. And here, both sides of the aisle are in rare agreement.
According to Tricia Dykers Koenig, the Covenant Network’s national organizer, the Authoritative Interpretaion's approval “would be a huge step forward, because a lot more ordinations [of practicing homosexual persons] would be happening.” She's speaking from the side advocating the reversal of our standards.
Speaking from the side of the majority of Presbyterians, who want us to uphold biblical standards, I said at the Presbyterian Coalition meeting in Orlando recently that "we would soon have a flood of elders, deacons, and pastors ordained contrary to the standards that Christians have always upheld."
Approval of the proposed Authoritative Interpretation next summer would undoubtably result in a sharp increase of sexually active homosexual persons ordained to office. Anyone opposed to that scenario will definitely want to help work for amendment, substitution, or outright disapproval of the Theological Task Force report.
We could look at it this way: If it wouldn't make a difference, why would it be proposed by the Task Force as their plan of action? If it would make virtually no change in our polity practices, what use would it serve? Why bother? Certainly the Task Force members believe it does introduce a real change, although their official line is that the change is almost no change at all.
People very familiar with the report believe big changes would be made. And here, both sides of the aisle are in rare agreement.
According to Tricia Dykers Koenig, the Covenant Network’s national organizer, the Authoritative Interpretaion's approval “would be a huge step forward, because a lot more ordinations [of practicing homosexual persons] would be happening.” She's speaking from the side advocating the reversal of our standards.
Speaking from the side of the majority of Presbyterians, who want us to uphold biblical standards, I said at the Presbyterian Coalition meeting in Orlando recently that "we would soon have a flood of elders, deacons, and pastors ordained contrary to the standards that Christians have always upheld."
Approval of the proposed Authoritative Interpretation next summer would undoubtably result in a sharp increase of sexually active homosexual persons ordained to office. Anyone opposed to that scenario will definitely want to help work for amendment, substitution, or outright disapproval of the Theological Task Force report.
posted by Jim at Wednesday, November 09, 2005
1 Comments:
Provocative question:
At what point will we say that the denomination has "crossed the line" and that we cannot go further?
Another: How many violations of the constitution are enough to constitute a breach of our covenant?
This PUP report, if approved in full begins the process of disintegration, does it not?
The reason I ask these questions is that no one in the "renewal community" (atleast with real clout) is asking them. When will we know what course of action can be taken by more than individual churches, i.e. going away one at a time?
Just asking. Thanks for your work and I look forward to the other comments posted here.
Post a Comment
<< Home