1. PCA churches don’t use lectionary or Christian year. They have a Puritan attitude toward worship. PCUSA has one of the most broadly inclusive approaches to Christian worship I’ve experienced.

2. PCUSA could put me to work. Severe shortage of pastors for smaller churches. PCA has very few churches in Ky at all.

3. PCA is going to be fighting about small stuff for years and years to come. PCUSA has fought over big stuff and seems to have bottomed out.

4. PCUSA pastors like Todd Bolsinger and Mark Roberts really impress me as seriously approaching the work of the pastor in a way that I can affirm. The PCA is dealing with the whole “pastor as Calvinistic theologian” thing. Nada.

5. The PCUSA will hire an old fat guy. PCA churches overwhelmingly want young men and they have plenty.

6. PCUSA is confessional in a much broader way. (See their book of Confessions) rather than in the narrow er Westminister only approach of the PCA.

7. PCA really is serious about Calvinism. PCUSA is much more tolerant of theological differences.

8. I’m supportive of women as pastors.

Just curious, no problem if you don’t know answer. Thanks.

To Michael,
I will agree with you that the issues of Slavery, women’s ordination, and homosexual ordination need to be taken seperately at certain levels. But I do believe that the issue of women’s ordination, and homosexual ordination are to a greater degree entwined than the issue of slaver is with either of them.
Paul did not ban women’s ordination for cultural reasons. And he was no longer a Pharisee when he did so. He was an apostle to the gentiles, who tried to become all things to all people in order to save some. He contested heatedly with the circumcision party, so he was not afraid of offending the Jews, who were the only ones at the time who would have had a problem with women’s ordination. In fact the culture of that day in many ways mirrored the culture of our day. Free women had as many rights if not more than women do today. The pagan religions, to whom Paul evangelized, had no problem, indeed in some cases insisted, on having women priests. It was expected and normal, which is why it developed in the Corinthian church. But Paul spoke out against that practice as an apostle, meaning the Holy Spirit spoke out against that practice.
You have to adopt a hermeneutic that ignores this to allow for women’s ordination, that same hermeneutic opens the door for homosexual ordination. If it was just a cultural opinion that banned women from the office of ministry, than why not homosexual ordination today. In fact homosexual activity is just as much accepted as normal behavior today as it was when Paul visited Corinth, which is to say it was accepted by the culture at large then, and is accepted in the culture at large today also. It is for the most part only us Christians that see that behavior as sinful behavior that should be restrained.

Reference: http://www.lutheranquarterly.com/Articles/2006/Special-Issue-20-Years/02-lq_forde.pdf

The church is expected to enable every personal desire - regardless of where that may ultimately lead. Decadent pietism has infected conservative and liberal churches alike in different ways. Perhaps it hasn’t touched as many sensitive nerves in conservative churches as it has in more liberal ones…yet. No one denomination is in a position to throw stones.

In the preface to his book “On being a Theologian of the Cross”, Forde records the following haunting, prophetic quote from Alan Jones: “We live in an age in which everything is permitted and nothing is forgiven”. The Gospel is not necessarily about what we personally want but what we desperately need.

Mega kudos to the PCUSA. Christ is still building his church. May we be his willing instruments.

May we also pray for each other.

Many American Episcopalians in the pews (in contrast to the leadership) are also against gay ordination and unions, and have left Episcopal churches in which they were brought up, to join some of the “continuing” Anglican churches which side with the African wing.

The Anglican Church in England has pretty much drawn a line in the sand, siding with the anti-gay proponents and challenging the American Church to repent of having ordained and married gay people, and to promise not to do it any more. Either that, or the American church will have to “walk apart” — a condition which, in good Anglican fashion, is left quite vague for now.

I don’t have the theology to argue this stuff, and I don’t have a stake in the outcome, but I do feel sad to see the split. On a personal level, it is painful. There are two gay men in our small rural congregation, and a gay man is the organist at another church in our cluster. I don’t think I or most others in our little church would say “Oh, good news!” to a decision that hurt these men, our fellow-worshippers whatever else they may be.

Michael, it’s like your friend’s blog, the Gospel-Driven Church, put it in the entry called “The Hard Stuff of Real Lives.” While doctrinally correct, perhaps, this sort of decision is hard on real people.

You made some excellent arguments as to why we shouldn’t consider some behavior “sin” anymore.

And I do think that we still disagree. I, in no way would ever tell someone (or believe) that because they don’t believe what I believe they are not Christian. As you said, in not so many words, we are not saved by our doctrine or our ability to keep the law….but by the grace of God.

My only concern is that we not undermine the law as to negate the work of the law in creating repentant hearts.

When it comes to sinning, I take a back seat to no one. But I think I do need to be called on it (in the hard preaching of God’s law), so the law can do it’s number on me (then the gospel can do it’s work).

Reasonable people will disagree on what Christ meant when He said to Peter, “…upon this rock I will build my Church.”
I believe He meant that Peter’s confession of faith was the rock upon which He will build His Church.
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” I believe that is the rock (Christ Himself).

Thanks Joe!

- Steve

Thanks for this post. You’ve reminded me that I need to ensure my name’s been taken off the SBC’s role! After we left our church in Pensacola to move to San Diego, the Spirit led us to a BGC church; interestingly, we never became members despite our active involvment in the life of the church. (We were too busy to think about it! I was even asked to think about becoming a deacon. Imagine the shock when they discovered I wasn’t even on the membership role!) Unfortunately, we ended up leaving that church due to the political infighting and increasing spiritual malaise.

Then we ended up attending a PCUSA church which, despite my personal opposition to female ordination and infant baptism, felt much more at home there doctrinally (e.g., open to theistic evolution, preterist to a degree, etc.) … and the Spirit thrived there! The church was so much more intimately involved in the life of the community, so much more than I had experienced at either SBC or BGC church. Is this typical of PCUSA churches? I’d love to know!

I will not be allowing posts that want to debate the subject of homosexuality. If you want to discuss the PCUSA’s decision or similar issues in other denominations, good. But a wide open debate on whether homosexual behavior is allowed or prohibited isn’t on the menu. Nor will I allow disparaging remarks about any person of any sexual preference.

I’ve written a lot on the basis of acceptance of those struggling, like all of us, with sexual sin. You can use the search function.