Verse of the Day

Saturday, March 4

Angela Davis all over again

So the Redwoods Presbytery has decided that Rev. [I use the title loosely] Spahr acted in accord with her conscience when she participated in two marriages involving gay couples. That's fantastic!*
Let me get this straight…if a pastor feels that in hers/his conscience it's okay to do something that is contrary to the Book of Order and the Confession? Gee whiz, that's great news. Not only can liberals ordain gays and boycott McDonald's, but the evangelical's can refuse to ordain women or baptize infants.
Isn't it wonderful how our denomination has become more and more like those we regard as less enlightened than us, like the Southern Baptist? (Just kidding Mike, and Cork).
I think it's fair to say that this decision, if it stands and it probably will, has paved the way for pastoral choices that go far beyond anything ever thought of. I hope you read the comment by Redwoods Presbytery's attorney, "You have a situation where any minister anywhere can claim, 'My conscience tells me I can sleep with a 16-year old girl outside my marriage vows,' and who's to question his conscience?" Of course, the correct response to this would be "child abuse". I can hear a pastor arguing that it's not even "sexual harassment" after all the Book of Order doesn't say I can't sleep with adults other than my spouse does it?
But, the church has dwelt too long on sex as the deciding issue. Perhaps a session merely needs to decide that G-8.02091 *violates their conscience and that the building into which their families had poured their life was not owned by the Presbytery.
Perhaps I've even found my way out of the financial quagmire that the medical aspect of the Board of Pensions has forced our church. I can simply, and with all honesty declare that G-14.0506b* violates my conscience because of its unfair and unequal application to all ordained clergy of the PC (USA). Hope they're ready for this
Red Cleric

6 comments:

  1. It's "conscience" not "conscious".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the correction. Spell check didn't catch it as you can imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wouldn't automatically assume that the GAPJC will uphold this decision.

    I do concur that liberals don't like the rules unless it's applying them against officers that are orthodox in the Reformed conception.

    The lunacy that's contained in this decision will be furthered if the Task Force Report is adopted particularly recommendation 5.

    God help his church!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi,

    Your comments are interesting. However it seems to me you are focused on the BoO and Confessions as if that is something to put upon a pedestal. The fact is the BoO and the Confessions affirm Jesus Christ as head of the church just as we who are believers do.

    My recommendation is that you focus on Christ in answering such questions as whether it is appropriate to have relations with a teen or other questionable behavior. That is a standard that does not fail. That is the whole point of the decision in the Sphar case. Jesus is the answer. It's that simple.

    Yours in Christ,

    Earl C. Apel
    Member, Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church
    Cincinnati, OH

    ReplyDelete
  5. So spell check is "un" conscious?

    On the other matter, I find myself very discouraged by the whole thing. I just taught a class for new members and trotted out the Bible, the Confessions, and the Book of Order as our standards and how we govern overselves. Today I don't know if any of that is true.

    The gap between our de jure goverment (what exists on paper) and the de facto goverment (what is actually practiced) is becoming wider and wider.

    Sigh,

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love the blog entry Pastor Alan. This is Justen by the way.

    God Bless,
    Justen

    ReplyDelete