It’s a slippy road people. If ordaining gblt peopole in the church simply because they are in a loving, committed relationship to one another is okay, then what should be done with a married male minister with two children who is openly in a loving relationship with another married woman? You cannot deny his love for this other woman–it is genuine and she feels love for the minister. Please don’t take this senario lightly or view it as frivolous. What if that situaton arose? Would you simply look the other way. Would you encourage this “loving” relationship further? How would you handle it from a biblical approach? If we are to ordain practicing homosexuals, who or what’s to say this minister cannot enjoy his extra-marital affair? Don’t tell me the bible forbids it. If you don’t believe scripture forbids homosexuality, you certainly cannot find scripture to support your argument against this minister’s extra-marital relationship. They “love” each other. Isn’t that enough? Who are we to denounce that lifestyle.

Now before you run me off as some narrow-minded, fundi, let it be known that I strongly believe the church should open it’s doors to EVERYONE. That’s what the church is for; bringing sinners to Christ. And yes, everyone is a sinner, so obviously every church leader is sinner. But I hope and believe they are also repentant of their sin and daily strive to resist sin and move towards living a sinless life. But ordaining openly gay people to positions of church leadership is not the same as inviting them in the church to be renewed to the creation Christ is calling them.

Ordaining practicing gay people is no different than ordaining a married man sexually and openingly involved with other women not his wife. And believe you me, we can take these scenarios to even more ridiculous and outrageous levels, but I think I have made my point.

If ordaining practicing homosexuals is okay, please give me a scenario of who would NOT be qualified to be an ordained minister of the church.

I really get tired of reading all the supposed biblical definitions of sin. If my colleagues living in a committed relationship, caring for each other, raising two children with love, caring for them and each other, ministering to a congregation in sickness and health, spiritually and materially, leading them in worship of God, inspiring them to work against societal injustice, provide merciful aid to many, are sinning because they express their mutual love without benefit of a penis, are too sinful for the Presbyterian church, then only God’s steadfastness holds any hope for that denomination. (Thank our compassionate God that my friends minister in a UCC congregation, but that is our loss.)

I am praying for the Church.

This does not mean I think the bible is “wrong”, it is just put into terms that the people of the time could understand, because if you look at the parameters of the story and not what it literally says, the creation story lines up with the current scientific thought. A finite universe beginning with God creating the heavens and the Earth (big bang), the separations of the ground and sky (gravity forming the planet). Life being created from the clay (primordial soup)…. So on an so forth

I was at the above Presbytery meeting, so I have heard all of the arguments pertaining to the question of “is it a sin?” The questions of does it only pertain to pedophilia and sexual promiscuity, or does it include monogamous homosexual relationships. Now I am not a literalist when it comes to the creation story because up until very recently did we have the scientific tools. But when it comes to personal relationships, their understanding is probably far deeper then anyone running around here in the 21st century.

We will always fall short, but that is suppose to motivate us to keep going, not quit. As ordained leaders, part of their responsibility is to lead by example.

To respond ever-so-briefly to your quick spiel….I disagree with the claim, “it is clearly stated homosexuality is a sexual sin” and I’m uncomfortable with the implications that one can be completely freed from sin. I don’t think that’s where Paul was going with it, but you don’t quite go there either so I don’t want to mis-read you. But the sin discussion is a red herring for me, actually, since I don’t believe being gay and acting out that love in an appropriate relationship is sinful.

At the 111th stated meeting of Palo Duro Presbytery. The amendment altering the ordination standards failed by a 29 for, 47 against.

Even though it was in Texas, the make-up of the voting body in this Presbytery is very mixed and the majority are moderates (with just a few far left and right). When it comes to the political make-up of the voting body, this issue had a real shot.

Lets hope this ball keeps rolling.

I am a 21 y/o Presbyterian who is against the altering of the ordination standards

(this is a very quick version of a very long spiel)
For me it is not about the question of homosexuality, its about leadership. As Christians in order to grow etc, we must run the race (to use that allegory). That includes freeing ourselves from the bondage of sin. Now it is clearly stated that homosexuality is a sexual sin. I question the leadership of anyone who twists a sin into a “blessing from God”. Strait or Gay, that person should not be ordained into leadership. On the flip side of that coin, ANYONE who is truly battling sin, there isn’t any question about their qualifications on this front, and they should be ordained.