I hesitated writing this, as I don’t want to influence people away from Christianity as a whole, and I certainly am NOT looking for a debate, but I also am not ashamed of my decision, nor do I see the need for it to be a secret. This is a hot-button topic, so I could be dubbed “old-fashioned”, “intolerant”, or many other things, but my conscience is clear on this issue. You may agree or disagree, and you’re entitled to your own opinion. I’m not looking for a debate (trust me, I’ve already done that with my former pastor), I’m just sharing my thoughts on the issue.
Earlier this month, the Presbyterian Church (USA) made a change in the ordination requirements. Where the 1996 amendment declared that those who were seeking ordination must live in “chastity in singleness” or “fidelity in marriage between one man and one woman”, those words have now been replaced with “joyfully submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ”.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the new stipulation, but I also agree with the old one, and I think it was removed for the wrong reasons. Many homosexual groups and organizations are rejoicing over the change because they say that it frees homosexuals to be ordained. (More info here.) I believe that that was the motivation for the change, and I do not agree with it. I firmly believe, as the Bible states, that homosexuality is a sin. (Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22, and Romans 1:18-32 ) I would not be comfortable having a gay person in a position of authority in the church any more than I would be comfortable having a fornicator, adulterer, or liar in a position of authority in the church.
We all sin, but as Christians, we’re supposed to confess our sin and turn from it. We’re not supposed to glorify it, rationalize it, or influence others to copy it.
What can I say, I have high standards for someone in a position of influencing my family.
At first, I didn’t believe the news of the change. Then, after my former preacher confirmed it, I was shocked, sad, nauseated, and left feeling quite lost. I prayed about it, and the passage that came to my mind was the one of Jesus warning us to “Beware the yeast of the pharisees”. Yes, sin spreads like yeast. It can permeate a whole loaf of bread, or in this case, a whole church. I had my answer. I couldn’t in good conscience remain a member of the Presbyterian church. Below is the way I tried to explain my view of the situation to my former preacher. He disagreed, even though he said he knew that churches would use the new stipulation to ordain homosexuals, but I maintain my position.
“I’ve prayed about it, and I keep having the “yeast of the Pharisees” brought to my mind. This just doesn’t sit right with my spirit.
Just to share with you though, in addition to the “beware of the yeast of the Pharisees” answer I’ve had to prayer, these are my thoughts at this time. They’re a little long, and may jump around a bit, but it’s the best way I found to explain it thus far.
You have a rebellious teenager who keeps speeding. Since you see the potential for danger to himself and others in his speeding, you institute the stipulation that he can only drive your car if he obeys the speed limit. You did this because even though he thinks it’s no big deal, you as a parent or driving instructor have insight that he doesn’t have. He fights against it, tries to find ways around it, and complains about it, but ultimately, with the specific rule in place, he just accepts it.
Of course, you also expect him to obey all of the other driving-related laws, but you don’t perceive him breaking one like driving through red lights or drinking and driving. That’s not to say that it can’t happen, but you need to focus on the immediate danger, speeding, since it is the most clear and present threat to his safety and the safety of others.
After hearing the teenager’s arguments about you not being fair and not trusting him enough, you finally get worn down and remove the “no speeding” stipulation and replace it with “don’t do anything a cop could pull you over for”. Of course breaking driving-related laws would constitute something that cops could pull you over for, but at what point would a cop actually pull you over? If you’re driving 56 mph when the speed limit is 55 mph, you’re technically breaking the law, but most likely, a cop would not pull you over for it. Depending on which area of the country you’re in, you might be able to go 5, 10, or even 15 miles over the speed limit before a cop would warrant your speeding worthy of needing to be pulled over.
So, the new rule may include the old rule, but without it being specifically stated, there may be wiggle room – wiggle room that a rebellious teenager is bound to try to use to his advantage because he doesn’t think it’s dangerous at all and views it as being perfectly fine because so many other people do it. Bbut by using that wiggle room, he has put himself in a dangerous situation that is bound to end badly for himself and others . When that time comes, you wonder why you didn’t stick to the rule that you had perceived as being needed, but by then, the damage has already been done.
We as the church are the rebellious teenager. Clearly we were leaning toward danger. The wiser members perceived the threat, and instituted the heterosexual marriage or chastity clause to protect us from ourselves. Replacing it with a more general clause leaves too much wiggle room and makes it seem as though we no longer believe in the aforementioned clause, which also makes it seem like we condone the opposite of the clause that was removed.
I am now the older parent/driving instructor, and hopefully a little wiser, with children of my own to raise. I can’t condone letting them in the same driver’s ed class (so to speak) as the rebellious speeding teenager. It’s my job to keep them as free as possible of seeds that I don’t want to sprout. Of course they’ll know that other people live that way, but I can’t bring them into participation (even if in name only) with those other people without expecting at least some of their examples to rub off onto my kids, some of their bad seeds to sprout in my young impressionable children.”
As I said earlier, I don’t want to start a debate. Those are just my thoughts. I did what I felt was right, what I believe was best. I understand if people stay Presbyterian, I understand if they don’t. I still remain Christian, just not Presbyterian. I think I’d just like to be non-denominational, as I now just see denominations as division. This past Sunday, I took my children to a local Baptist church, and we all really like it there. Maybe it’s where God wants us to be for now. If not, we trust Him to lead us to wherever it is that He decides is best.
