wow, when you eliminate all the idolaters, drunkards, fornicators, and adulterers, that leaves a pretty small segment of the population to do the great work of ministry. it's a good thing that that old testament standard doesn't apply to our governors or presidents ! Vote for Newt, an adulterer with a vision for america !

I am a member of Yorkfield Presbyterian Church, and while my views differ from Pastor Mike's on this issue, I highly respect his feelings on the matter. My own opinion is that Christians have a responsibility to show love to all, and to pursue justice for all, including justice for gays and lesbians. Bob, I appreciate your comments, and Pastor Mike would be the first one to tell you that as humans, we are ALL broken people.

Congratulations to these fine churches for welcoming all of God's children. I personally don't think sexual orientation is relevant when talking about faith. It is like your hair color, your skin color or whether or not you like peanut butter. Lets get on with the business of loving, caring for and nurturing fellow human beings. I'm fairly sure God knew what He was doing when He created them. I don't mess with the boss! I know both of these pastors fairly well and they are outstanding men, motivational leaders and have hearts of gold. We are moving away from fear and moving toward acceptance. It's refreshing!

Seems like this move creates a lot more questions. Is there any standard to be observed by clergy related to sexual behavior? If so, why? On what basis is that determined? Legality? Community standards? You can agree or disagree with this decision, but I think those broader questions will have to be answered, because the new boundary they've established is completely arbitrary.

Mike, arbitrary, indeed!

With all due respect to the Elmhurst pastors quoted, this opens up Presbyterian pastors, ministers, and deacons to living and practicing single-sex sexual relationships out of wedlock, multiple single-sex partners, and practicing in homosexual relationships. While all legal, this doesn’t sound like standard moral or ethical Christian teaching to me. One might presume there is a shortage of clergy in the Presbyterian church based on this decision.

Even the Presbyterian general assembly’s open letter to the world-wide church is unclear: “Reactions to this change will span a wide spectrum. Some will rejoice, while others will weep. Those who rejoice will see the change as an action, long in coming, that makes the PC(USA) an inclusive church that recognizes and receives the gifts for ministry of all those who feel called to ordained office. Those who weep will consider this change one that compromises biblical authority and acquiesces to present culture. The feelings on both sides run deep.”

The problem may run so deep, I would add, that the assembly may have lost sight of which book they are reading: the bible or the book of public opinion. It is not matter of "inclusion" but rather what is right and wrong.

Good discussion so far!

Let's keep the comments coming. I'd really like to hear views on both sides of the fence.

I do like what Vince said about "It is not a matter of inclusion but rather what is right and what is wrong."

And I do agree with Renee's assesment of Pastor's Toburen and Lyda. They both offered very sincere and heartfelt comments which I deeply appreciated and which made this article possible.

I'd hoped to include comments from other clergy from other denominations, but as the article indicated, so many were reluctant to go on record publicly.

Jesus loved the sinner. However, although He loved them, even His presence demanded repentance. Jesus expected people to change their ways and align themselves to God's Word.

Here, I think, we come to the root of the problem. We're told that there is no absolute truth. The Bible is only the beliefs of Christians and it is no longer accepted as an absolute guide for morality or for life. When we lose this mooring of our belief system and morality, we have lost our moral anchor as a society.

The Bible clearly teaches us that sexual relations between unmarried people is a sin. Yes. I do dare to use the word, SIN! The includes pre-marital sex as well as extra-marital and same-sex relations. Nowhere in the Bible, do we find ANY sanction of marriage between people of the same gender. Therefore these relations are sinful. God created man and woman and said that it was good. Clearly, He intended that this relationship be between a man and a woman.

To accept anything else is to deny the authority of the Word of God. It is time for preachers to preach the WORD without fear. People "perish for lack of knowledge." Preacher, PREACH the Word, not what you're read on the internet, but what you heard from God in your prayer closet and read in your BIBLE in your PERSONAL devotions!

America, turn back to God and His Word and repent. When we do, God will smile on us again.

We must love the sinner as Jesus did. However, we must hate the sin. It is a very thin line and God must help us.

Possibly Vince, as you said some may hesitate to talk to a reporter for fear of beign misquoted, but that is why the Patch forum so unique.

Everyone - including those Elmhurst Catholic Pastors you mention, have the option to directly comment in these posts and share their views.

The more people who join the conversation, the better.

So please, encourage all those you know to share their views!

Reply to Steve:

First, homosexuals ARE accepted into the Catholic Church, but they are called to chastity just as married people are called to live in the fidelity of the covenant of marriage. No one is arguing whether homosexuals should be accepted; they are. Debbie’s article is about the clergy requirements that have changed to allow homosexuals, as clergy, to practice homosexual “acts”, acts of grave depravity, that are intrinsically disordered according to centuries of Christian tradition through divine and natural law.

You mention "this brings the PC-USA in line with the Episcopals, Evan. Lutheans, MCC, United churches of Christ, Quakers, Jewish reform and some Jewish conservatives..."

Getting a Christian denomination “in line” with an un-Christian “act” is, well, not-Christian. Getting a Christian denomination “in line” with Jewish reform is anti-Christian.

By the way, it’s OK not to be Christian. It’s just not OK to change Christianity’s teaching because you want to.

In the Old Testament, people were followers, even when deceived. It's the same today. The Word of God is the Word of God. It does not change, nor does God change.

+1 Renee! Why are we so quick to condemn love, no matter what shape or form it takes? The Bible is an interpretation by men. There are people of all orientations, of all faithes, that have lasting and true love, no matter what gender they are. Jesus was about love, not about judgment. I applaud these pastors and this decision. We should worry about our own selves and not judge others by their orientation, skin color, etc.

Mike, in my opinion, the Bible is a set of interpretations told and rewritten by many men and is not meant to be taken at its literal value. You may disagree with me on that, and that is your right. But Christians are about love and acceptance, not about judgment.

I agree Mike. The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the Bible as God's word to humans.

Just out of curiosity, Vincent, where in the Ten Commandments does it say homosexuality is a sin?

Good point Vince. I do believe in the infallible word of God and in God's Sovereignty. The scripture that comes to mind in regards to sacred traditions is Proverbs 22:28 which says "Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers has set."

"Lyda used to be in the camp that opposed ordaining homosexuals, "but I have come to understand things differently," he said.
Society has evolved, and being insistent on the literalness of the Bible is hypocritical, he said."

Once you throw out the Bible then you get all this muddled thinking. Society hasn't evolved, these sins have been around for centuries..their view of the Bible has evolved to accomodate societies sins. We don't hate anyone, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This isn't an arguement of hate but rather an arguement of credibility as pertains to scriptural authority.
pastor t. jason cox

The Bible also talks about slavery several times in its text. I think we'd agree that slavery is not right and an unChristian act, however there are several references to its regulated practice.

My point is this: there are many texts in the Bible that when taken literally, rather than contextually, we would not condone in the context of today's society.

And yes, incest, pedophilia - all sins not mentioned in the Ten Commandments. However, we are supposed to not hurt others and respect others - those are acts of violence and disrespect. If two consenting adults have a loving relationship, no matter what sex yhey are they are no hurting each other.

As one Catholic theologian said in a paper, we should take the Bible literarily in context, not literally. We are all free to believe our own beliefs, and I respect your opinion. But we should also offer the same courtesy to others.

Vincent --

Are you really lumping in homosexuality -- ie, love between consenting adults -- with pedophilia and incest?

Sincerely,
Person Who Doesn't Want To Argue But Felt Something Had To Be Said

Just because a lifestyle isn't illegal, based on our constitution, it shouldn't have jurisdiction over Biblical truths. The purpose of the position of the ministry is to teach and be an example of what is acceptable according to God's Word. This doesn't mean that the ministry is infallible. But to approve an individual for such a respected position, knowing they have voluntarily chosen a lifestyle of sin, is in my opinion, like the blind leading the blind.
Biblical principles should never change based on culturally adjusted convictions.
The Bible has never been politically correct. God loves the sinner but still hates the sin. We believe and teach that any sin can be overcome, and must be overcome to inherit heaven. 1Co 6:9-11 ...the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (10) nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (11) And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. ESV
Finally, I Tim Ch 3 lists the qualifications of the ministry:
CEV - Good reputation, self controlled, Hold firmly to God's Word, Well respected, Highly respected for his faith.
ESV - Husband of one wife, well thought of by outsiders, not double-tongued, hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

Emma and Leona

Praise the Lord for men of God who aren't afraid to stand for biblical truths

While we are so careful to point fingers at these brothers and sisters who sexuality we do not understand, we need to be aware of the dangerous ground upon which we stand. It is a literal minefield of arrogantly judgmental behavior.

“Though we may not all think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?”

To answer “yes” on this question of homosexuality may be difficult but the struggle is worth it. In the end, I think that we shall have succeeded in the proclamation of the gospel, not in terms of how many wrong people we have excluded – but in terms of how inclusive was our love.

We have to be very careful of the dichotomy of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible we take literally or not. We can't just use the Bible to justify our beliefs and then say not all of the Bible is to be taken literally. Vincent, you were quick to judge me as a not being a Christian, but then later mention the Bible isn't to be taken literally all the time. This is the same type of justification used in the past to condone slavery. Just because we may not personally feel comfortable with someone else's life choice doesn't mean that they should be demeaned as a person. Saying they are accepted to worship in the religion "with conditions" is still a way of excluding them and demeaning them as less of a person. Being a true Christian, which is to be Christ-like, in my opinion signifies that we must not throw stones at others and must learn to live and let live, as long as someone else isn't hurting anyone.

Yes, the procreation of family members, from a medical perspective, is harmful and could cause the potential child of this union issues. From a psychological perspective, a father would still have undue influence over a child no matter what his or her age. And polygamy is not the union of two people giving each other their full love.

Again, if two adult people who have full consensual abilities and neither is in a position of influence over the other are in love, committed to each other, and raise their children in love to be a good person, why wouldn't we want to encourage that? I am in a deeply committed marriage with my husband and have complete happiness and fulfillment from the base of support it gives me. I can only wish for others to be able to get that same happiness. In a world where we see marriages between two heterosexual people result in much infidelity and lies, I can only support strong, healthy and committed relationships.

Vincent, no worries! I know we are simply discussing something. All I'm saying is that I don't understand when people use the Bible literally to defend their belief, then say later it's not meant to all be taken literally. I know it can be difficult to defend something we may not be comfortable with or even necessarily agree with, but we have to be careful to not pick and choose when it suits our philosophy. The Bible is a very complex text that utilizes parables, metaphors, etc; theologians cannot even agree on its interpretaion. Much of what is written in literature depends on context of the times, the author's perspective and filters, etc. That is why I believe, as many other religions do, that the Bible cannot be taken literally at every single word and text. Otherwise we'd have to condone slavery, women would have to be subservient, etc.

Vincent, I know of several devout Christians who have chosen to not have children. Is this not against the procreative nature you indicated.
I also know of many homosexual and single parent families that adopt children who previously had no one to love them, children who were spawned by heterosexuals that either gave them up or were unfit to be parents. These children are now loved and secure, and flourishing within the supposedly unnatural relationship. Isn't that something we should encourage and applaud?

I am glad there is a healthy, respectful conversation going on here with a wide variety of opinions. That really is what sets PATCH apart from other news sites. We are not only interactive... but very local. There is a high likely hood that the commentors could see in other somewhere in town.

As to the conversation itself... I think ultimately what the Presbyterian USA church did was give their churches the right to choose whether they believe in the literalness of the Bible and whether they would allow gay clergy.

And much of the discussion so far is about each person 's choice to believe that the Bible is that absolute sovereign word of God or not.

Some choose yes. Some no. And some are in the middle.

I respect each person's right to choose. ...

I have lived my life believing in the total authenticity of the Holy Bible as God's word.... and will continue to do so.

I guess we'll find out who's right when each of us gets to the pearly gates.

Debbie, I completely agree with you. Healthy and respectful conversation is great and helps each of us to always questions our views, sometimes strengthening our beliefs and sometimes allowing us to change. There are way too many web forums where a truthful expression of your viewpoint can result in name calling and disrespect for your beliefs. It's great to discuss and debate - while I may not agree with someone's opinion, I'll defend their right to respectfully state it as that's what our country is based on.

Thanks Tina.... and yes it is what our country is based on...

The issue of Gay Clergy is not new, nor is the premise behind it. Although the focus here is whether or not practicing homosexual individuals are appropriate to lead a congregation, the real issue is that of relativism. Relativism is defined as "the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration" according to Wikipedia.org. Man lives with man through a set of principles for living called laws. These laws affect every area of our lives and were established so there could be a sense of order. For centuries, the Bible has been a primary source of absolute truths which God put forth so that His creation could know God. Without absolutes, man is either faced with anarchy or "might means right". History has borne out the fact that neither is good! If there are no absolutes, then laws are not important. A person can do whatever they FEEL is acceptable. So if I decide that my neighbor is annoying me, I could go over and tear up his property. Or maybe you don't see a need for traffic lights, so you decide it is acceptable to run them. The problem is who decides what is OK and what is not OK under a relativistic philosophy?

So how does all of this relate to the Gay Clergy issue? If an individual is willing to truly study the Bible contextually, they will find that there is no reference to approval for homosexual clergy.

In fact, God lays out some very specific qualifications for elder or bishop in 1st Timothy 3 and Titus 1. God also is specific in Romans 1 about the sin of homosexuality. God loves all men, but is outspoken about sin, whether it is gossip or gluttony or sex outside of marriage or homosexuality.

So if a church or a denomination decides that practicing homosexual clergy are acceptable, on what basis are they making that decision?

If the Bible is their source of truth and direction, what is the rationale for such a decision?

In relativism, God is left out of the equation because He has laid out very specific truths and absolutes. When those truths don't mesh with our philosophy, the tendency for man is to throw out the absolutes in favor of personal experience or feelings.

As a result, when it comes to God's church, there is no justification from God's own book, the Bible, that would substantiate any kind of Gay Clergy.

Robert and Jeff, and a few others making previous comments: If the Bible is the "infallible Word of God" (your words not mine), then that means you must support institutions such as slavery and the subjugation of women, among other injustices, as these are referenced as acceptable practices in many verses in the Old AND New Testaments as acceptable practices. There's even a reference in the Bible that anyone marrying someone from another country has committed a sin (which was used in the past to condemn interracial marriage). As such, take caution in your tone and humility in your rhetoric, as it reflects poorly on your values in particular and the Christian faith in general.

I agree, there are some Biblical subjects that require much research and study to understand. Even then, we may never fully understand every subject. However, just because we don't yet understand them, doesn't mean God hasn't provided the answer in His Word. Mark Twain made this comment, "it's not what I don't know about the Bible that bothers me. It's what I do know that bothers me". I don't claim to know everything about the Bible. However, the subject of this article is most definitely covered sufficiently to come to a Biblically responsible decision. Just because an individual may not understand the whole Bible, doesn't mean we shouldn't accept and obey the things we do understand.

Thanks for the book recommendation Mike. I think I will check it out...

Love the Twain quote Robert. Thanks for sharing your thoughts ....

thank you to Pastor Cox for reminding us all that "society hasn't evolved". does this mean that women will never (or should never) be able to become clergy in the catholic church ? does this also mean that societies like those in iran (where women are stoned for fornication/adultery) are really to be admired for their strict adherence to "scripture" ? and for mr. russell, who states, "it is wrong because it is unnatural", does this mean that when a happily married heterosexual couple cannot reproduce, they should still be able to use the same unnatural methods (in vitro, or surrogates) that the homosexuals use to create a loving family. And finally, one more question for Mr. Cox: do you think in the last 30 years that more or less young boys would have been molested by catholic clergy if homosexuals were allowed to be clergy ?