Presbyterian

DATE OF PUBLICATION: OCTOBER 1999

# The Presbyterian Church Crisis

THE GAY AGENDA. IT’S COMING TO US SOON.

HERE IS WHAT THEY WANT. WILL WE LET THEM HAVE IT?

CONTENTS

Reason for the Study 1

The Two Preceding Assemblies 2

Earnest Preparations for the 1999 Assembly 2

Warnings of Schism 2

Definition of Terms 3

Introduction to Issues Confronting the 1999 General Assembly 5

A New Moderator Elected 5

The Annual Women of Faith Awards 6

In-fighting within the Covenant Network 6

Overture 99-46: Teaching Materials to be Scriptural 7

Overture 99-24: Inclusive Language Requirement 8

Overture 99-74: Same-Sex Benefits Required 8

Overture 99-2: The “Fidelity and Chastity” Clause 9

Overture 99-36: Banning Gay Conversions 10

Resolution: Taking over Church Properties 11

NNPCW Funding 12

Conclusion of the Fort Worth General Assembly 13

Voices of Sophia Celebration 13

Meeting of More Light Presbyterians 13

Lowered Church Morality Brings Legal Dangers 14

Lesbian Beliefs, in boxes 14-15

Because Presbyterianism reflects its Calvinist roots, a primary doctrine is a belief in predestination. But throughout this study we will primarily deal with an organizational crisis, occasioned by an attempt of homosexuals to subvert that denomination.

A brief review of the governing structure in the Presbyterian Church (USA) would be helpful:

The term, “Presbyterianism,” is used for the principle of church organization in which the primary ministry is under the control of regional presbyters. The word applies to all branches of the Reformed Church in which this presbyterian pattern of ministry is followed.

The Reformers, Zwingli and Calvin (in accord with Jerome and Erasmus) held that bishops were elected from the presbyterate and did not constitute a superior order. This, of course, placed the presbyters—not the bishops—in control. In America, these presbyters are spoken of as “ruling elders” and “deacons.” The Scriptural word, “presbyter,” is commonly used of both pastors and elders when they meet in gatherings, called presbyteries.

The general structure of Presbyterian churches is that of an ascending order of court judicatory, composed of pastors and elders in equal numbers. These are representative ruling bodies, each having powers which are constitutionally defined.

The result, here in America, is that each local group of Presbyterian churches has the authority to submit resolutions, called “overtures,” to the yearly General Assembly.

In September 1997, we began releasing the first of a 13-tract study on the Concordia Crisis [WM–788], an attempted liberal takeover which shook the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod to its foundations and reached its climax in January and February of 1974.

The LCMS battle was waged on whether or not the church needed to believe what the Bible said. That crisis was a mirror of our own, which came strongly to the surface in the early 1980s, and has deepened ever since.

The conservative-liberal war in Christendom is being fought in many denominations and over many issues; ours is not the only one.

As we consider what is taking place in other churches, we learn what is soon to occur in our own. It is for this reason that we will now present you with a battle which, as I write these opening words, is taking place just now in Texas.

In order to prepare this present study, the present writer gathered 55 articles and documents. A sizeable number came from the Presbyterian Layman. This is an outstanding publication of godly Presbyterian believers who have staunchly defended Biblical standards in that denomination for years, and continue to do so.

It is because of a strongly conservative reporting agency, which is independent of leadership control, that the apostasy does not overwhelm that church. The members must be told what is happening!

There was a question whether a digest of this data should be arranged chronologically or topically. Because all these Presbyterian departments and organizations are unfamiliar to us, the decision was made to present the material topically. In this way, you will see most clearly the implications of the threatened liberal takeover.

—But remember throughout what you are about to read: The methods used by liberals to overrun the Presbyterian Church are increasingly being used in our own!

Share this with others. An ignorant laity is already defeated. —vf

REASON FOR THE STUDY

On June 19, 1999, the Presbyterian Church (USA) (referred to as PCUSA) convened its 211th General Assembly (GA) in Fort Worth. Tomorrow, the 26th, its final session will end.

Understanding the heated warfare taking place in Texas will help you better understand what is ahead of our own denomination. All that is required is for leadership to continually appease the liberals—and eventually they take over the church!

That is what has brought PCUSA to its present crisis; and, year after year, it is taking our own denomination down the same path.

THE TWO PRECEDING ASSEMBLIES

The 209th General Assembly convened in June 1997 in Syracuse, New York. It was notable for a major theological shift. Principal speakers exalted relationships over theology. Presbyterians for Gay and Lesbian Concerns (PGLC) and other pro-homosexual activists conducted demonstrations in hallways, entrances, and exhibit areas. An amendment was introduced, which prohibited the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.

It is of interest that, at that Assembly, the delegates voted to oppose partial birth abortions on moral grounds—the first Protestant denomination in America to do so. (Down to the present day, not one of our own official bodies, in assembly, has ever gone on record as opposing abortion in any form.)

The 1997 statistical report showed that, in the previous year, the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) had lost 33,810 members. Since 1983, the PCUSA membership had been reduced by 529,584 members. Conservatives believe that formalism and liberal appeasement has been responsible for much of this loss.

The 210th General Assembly convened in June 1998 in Charlotte, North Carolina. All went well until near the end, when several reductions of church doctrine had been averted.

After hearing citations from literature, published by the National Network of Presbyterian College Women (NNPCW), the commissioners had voted nearly 2-1 to end sponsorship and funding of the Network.

But, as later events revealed, newly elected Moderator, Douglas W. Oldenburg, personally favored the liberals. On the eve of adjournment, he permitted a late-night demonstration by Network members and advocates. They tearfully sang, “This Little Light of Mine,”—and the tender-hearted commissioners voted to rescind their previous action and give the Network one more chance. A task force was appointed, to investigate their writings and bring a report to the 1999 Assembly.

Oldenburg and his vice moderator, James Mead, then arranged that funding for NNPCW be fully restored.

Due to the ongoing penetration by liberals, over 21,000 members had left the previous year.

EARNEST PREPARATIONS FOR THE 1999 ASSEMBLY

In preparation for the 1999 Assembly, there was fervent activity by both sides. The faithful were intent on maintaining Christian principles, and the feminists and homosexuals were determined to take control of the church.

On October 9, 1998, a “National Coming Out Day” service was held in the chapel of Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, GA, one of 10 Presbyterian theological schools. The homosexuals at the seminary were publicly celebrating their glorious state. Reading through the service was not a pleasant task. I will not describe it here.

As the months passed, presbyteries all across the nation submitted overtures (resolutions) which they wanted considered at the forthcoming 1999 General Assembly. We will consider the most important of them.

WARNINGS OF SCHISM

An important article appeared in the June 16, 1999, issue of the Presbyterian Layman. Written by Robert P. Mills, it darkly warned of an approaching schism in the denomination—if the homosexuals and feminists were given even a part of what they wanted.

“Schism” is a word which church historians use. It means split. Mills was warning the denomination that it would shatter right down the middle, if the members did not resolutely stand in defense of Scriptural teachings.

Does the following statement by Mills sound familiar? Such things are happening in our church right now:

“Today, with a congregation voting to install an elder in defiance of the denomination’s constitution, a presbytery telling one of its congregations that it need not obey the Book of Order, another presbytery taking under care [hired as a ministerial intern] a candidate who defiantly does not meet our ordination standards, and a denominational award being given to a woman who told her presbytery that she would no longer work within the PCUSA’s polity because she wants to spend her energy subverting it,—it is understandable that these same topics weigh heavily on the minds of commissioners preparing to gather in Fort Worth.”—R.P. Mills, Unity, “Diversity and Schism,” Presbyterian Layman, June 16, 1999.

But consider his next paragraph:

“The Fort Worth Assembly will be voting on nominations and proposals that could not only shape the future of the PCUSA, but in fact determine whether the PCUSA has a future as a single denomination.”—Ibid.

Mills then quoted from a paper, approved by PCUSA in 1983, entitled Historic Principles, Conscience and Church Government:

“Divisiveness and schism are most likely to occur when the church does not follow its own procedures carefully . . When the presbytery neglects its role by failing to exercise one of its constitutional functions, the other parts suffer.”—Historic Principles, quoted in ibid.

(In our church, a “presbytery” would be equivalent to a local conference which is rather small in size.) Do you see the point? When one local congregation or conference goes in one direction while others proceed in another—the entire denomination will eventually split in two. The underlying problem is that not all are determined to stand true to the bedrock document of the church: the Word of God.

Some think church problems would be solved if we would all obey the leaders. But it is not a matter of me obeying you or you obeying me. What is needed is for all of us to obey God’s Inspired Writings!

Mills then elaborates on an earlier quoted comment:

“Less than two decades after reunion, Northern New England Presbytery has told one of its congregations that it need not obey a portion of the constitution that it finds troubling. First Presbyterian Church of Stamford, CN, has voted to install an elder in flagrant violation of specific Book of Order language forbidding such an installation. And West Jersey Presbytery has taken under care [hired] as a candidate for the Ministry of Word and Sacrament an individual whose ordination would violate the constitution. In coming under care, the individual declared that the denomination must change to suit his lifestyle preferences.

“Technically, such actions constitute schism, a breaking away of one part of the denomination from another . .

“Unless the [forthcoming] Fort Worth General Assembly takes decisive action to end such divisive activities, more and more congregations and presbyteries are likely to declare their functional autonomy from the PCUSA. As the number of autonomous governing bodies grows, the possibility of denominational unity will quickly recede to the vanishing point.”—Ibid.

Liberals in our own church are doing exactly as Mills describes: They persist in removing local churches and conferences from Biblical standards,—when they should get out of the denomination entirely.

“They are insisting on retaining all the rights and privileges of PCUSA membership, while simultaneously demanding the freedom to violate any constitutional standards they choose.

“Freedom of conscience is the rationalization the schismatics offer for their actions. However, the reality is that the PCUSA cannot bind any individual’s conscience. The schismatics are free to leave at any time. They freely choose not to do so.”—Ibid.

Such decisive and clear statements of the crisis you will not find in our own church periodicals, even though the liberal attack within our denomination is not far behind PCUSA. In our denomination, everyone is quiet. They say it becomes very quiet just before a tornado. I can believe it.

“With presbyteries and congregations boldly defying a constitutional provision affirmed by two-thirds of the presbyteries, ‘seriously divisive conflict’ hardly does justice to the state in which the PCUSA now finds itself. Various governing bodies have effectively declared themselves to be in schism from the PCUSA. Their actions are not in dispute. [That is, neither side denies the reality of those actions.] The question, ‘Are we two denominations?’ can only be answered in the affirmative. —The real question has become ‘Are we two different religions?’ ”—Ibid.

Mills then cites an example of the deceptive principles on which the other side operates:

“The relevance of that question is evident in an address by Barbara Wheeler, president of Auburn Seminary, published by the Covenant Network, an organization formed to promote the ordination of gays and lesbians, in which Wheeler outlined a strategy by which liberal revisionists could seize control of the PCUSA.

“In her opening paragraph, Wheeler eschews obeying the denomination’s constitution in favor of ‘countenancing actions that are wrong and possibly also making statements that are untrue.’

“Not content to disavow one denomination’s constitution, the Wheeler Doctrine subordinates Scripture to ecclesiastical politics. If lying is required to achieve the desired political objective, the Wheeler Doctrine calls for the ninth commandment to be set aside.”—Ibid.

On May 13, 1999, another pivotal article appeared in the Presbyterian Layman. Written by John H. Adams, it summarized the approaching conflict at Fort Worth.

“Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people have turned to the courts and parliamentary bodies of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to try to accomplish what they could not gain in two national referendums [the 1997 and 1998 General Assemblies].

“In the preliminaries, they are winning. Two court rulings and two presbytery votes have (1) authorized Presbyterian ministers to perform so-called ‘holy unions’ of same-gender couples; (2) given the green light to a congregation to install an openly gay elder; (3) allowed a presbytery to take under care [hire] a gay seminary graduate who declared that the church must change to accommodate his sexuality, and (4) overtured the General Assembly to direct its agencies and ‘strongly encourage’ other governing bodies and educational institutions ‘to refrain from supporting, implementing, or sponsoring therapies or ministries which attempt to alter a person’s sexual orientation.’

“The gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered (GLBT) coalition also hopes to deliver a knockout punch to G-6.0106b, the constitution’s standard that requires candidates for ordination ‘to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage . . or chastity in singleness.’ ”—“Judicial Crisis Threatens to Split PCUSA,” Presbyterian Layman, May 13, 1999.

The gays are gleeful that they are going to win.

“Those efforts are accompanied by predictions that the Presbyterian ordination standard will crumble under the crush. For instance, Chris Glaser, a gay activist who believes ‘coming out’ should be a sacrament on a par with baptism and communion, told a gay magazine recently that ‘the time will come’ when the PCUSA and other mainstream denominations will ‘adjust and change their laws to allow for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people.’ ”—Ibid.

Think not that the homosexuals are only trying to subvert the Presbyterians! They intend to take over every Christian denomination in America!

“The Presbyterian Church (USA) is not the only denomination under siege. Methodists recently tried and convicted a pastor for conducting ‘holy unions,’ or same-sex marriages, and other cases are pending.

“In the Episcopal Church, a 300-family Brockton, MA, congregation and its pastor have been evicted from church premises because they opposed (by withholding the diocesan assessment) ordination of active homosexuals and diocesan approval for ministers conducting ‘holy unions.’

“Other mainline denominations are being targeted as well by proselytizers from the United Church of Christ and, especially, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, which is in effect a denomination of, to use their own words, ‘gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual communities.’ The Universal Fellowship lists 300 congregations, including two with 2,000-plus members, but its full acceptability by the mainline denominations depends on the mainliners accepting a theology compatible with its unbiblical sexual ethic.”—Ibid.

Adams then mentions Erin Swenson, an ordained “postoperative male to female transsexual” minister, who was approved and ordained by the Greater Atlanta Presbytery, and spends his/her spare time traveling around the country encouraging other Presbyterians to do what he did.

A third position paper appeared in the May 18, 1999, issue of the Presbyterian Layman, and was also penned by Robert Mills.

“Several years ago, Philip Johnson, a presbyterian, prominent author and law professor at Berkeley, wrote an article outlining specific goals of gay, lesbian and radical feminist activists. Drawing his acronym from these constituencies, he dubbed this the GLARF agenda.”—Robert P. Mills, “Overtures Attack Evangelicals’ Motives, Intelligence, and Integrity,” Presbyterian Layman, May 18, 1999.

The remainder of the article discussed the GLARF agenda, which we will not here take space to quote, since we will overview the battle in this study.

INTRODUCTION TO ISSUES CONFRONTING THE 1999 GENERAL ASSEMBLY

As stated earlier, we will topically consider a number of issues, even though reports on each one may span from its inception in late 1998 on through to the end of the June General Assembly.

As the approach of the 1999 Assembly neared, it was understood that a number of old issues (including ordination standards) would be reviewed and a wide variety of new ones would be discussed during the June 19-26 session in Fort Worth.

More than 60 overtures (proposals) were docketed for the 1999 General Assembly. Several of them, if passed, would water down or eliminate the “fidelity/chastity” standard required for candidates for minister, elder, and deacon in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Can you imagine a motion that church leaders, on all levels, need not adhere to any sexual standards? Yet those proposing these overtures are treated with great sympathy; why? lest a number of local churches leave the denomination. —This is the same situation that is occurring in our own church! They hesitate to consider the concerns of the conservatives while quickly placating the liberals. Instead of a pure church, some of our leaders instead want a big church.

A NEW MODERATOR ELECTED

The “moderator” in PCUSA is equivalent to the General Conference president in our own denomination. Each is elected for a one-year term. At the 1998 General Assembly, Douglas W. Oldenburg was elected to the position of General Assembly moderator.

Throughout his year in office, he remained quietly steadfast in his support of both theological diversities—a strongly pro-gay Presbyterian women’s organization and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Some believe he was elected in 1997 as a fig leaf to appease the liberals and gays who did not get their way in that year’s General Assembly.

At the 1999 General Assembly, the commissioners (delegates) would have to select a new moderator. They elect one on the first night of the Assembly. There were four candidates: Frank Diaz, Freda A. Gardner, Charles Kim, and Walter J. Ungerer. Of the four, one, Freda Gardner, is openly pro-gay in her sentiments.

On June 19, the commissioners elected Gardner as the moderator for the coming year—in spite of her strongly pro-homosexual comments. She was elected on the second ballot, receiving 270 of the 526 total votes. Once again, the liberals were being appeased.

At a press conference following her election, in response to a question whether there was something she said that the commissioners especially liked, she commented, “I would like to think they heard me speaking my truth and that they felt they could live with that and could be led by it.”

As they had done the previous year, once again the delegates had elected a pro-gay leader.

THE ANNUAL WOMEN OF FAITH AWARDS

This is an award that PCUSA gives to three women each year at the General Assembly. The decision as to who will receive it is made in the spring of each year by the Executive Committee of the General Assembly Council.

This year, they shocked the conservatives, in the denomination, by a 9-2 vote to give one of the awards to Jane Spahr, a very outspoken “lesbian evangelist.” —So that tells you that 9 of the 11 members of the Executive Committee are pro-gay.

Spahr is employed by Downtown Presbyterian Church in Rochester, NY. Her job assignment is “lesbian evangelist” for an organization by the name of That All May Freely Serve, which is devoted to the ordination of gay and lesbian Presbyterians as well as other church officers.

Spahr was selected for the award, in spite of strong opposition from the steering committee of the National Ministries Division. Following three unsuccessful conference calls, the NMD decided to overturn Spahr’s selection because “the award would make it appear that an entity of the General Assembly was endorsing a position that runs counter to existing General Assembly policy.”

The steering committee’s vote resulted in an internet outrage by homosexual activists. They also sent a list of GAC executive committee voting members, as well as their home addresses and phone numbers to various homosexual organizations across the nation. Along with the list, the message went out to send “a deluge of letters, e-mails, and phone calls” to leaders on all levels.

Gene Huff, a pro-gay activist of San Francisco said significantly, “This episode could well be a watershed moment.” He was right; for immediately afterward, the GAC executive committee voted by 9-2 to override the NMD decision and “let stand the selections of the Women of Faith awards.”

But think not that Jane Spahr, the “lesbian evangelist,” was the only gay of the three selected. Letty Russell, a professor at Yale Divinity School, was another equally blatant lesbian.

Russell was the keynote speaker at the fourth (1996) Re-Imagining Conference, where she was quoted as saying, “In my local presbytery last year, I went to the ministerial relations committee and told them . . I was retiring from the presbytery because of the church’s position on the ordination of homosexuals . . As a lesbian, I had decided to use my energy on subversion and not on church committees . . I’ve decided to be in, but not of, the church.

(The Re-Imagining God Conferences are dedicated to proclaiming that the Deity is a woman goddess.)

Russell was also a keynote speaker at the Covenant Network’s organization meeting in 1996. She told the audience that ordaining persons who engage in homosexual behavior is consistent with the Reformed tradition, even though she admitted the Reformers universally condemned such behavior.”

In protest of the awards decision, on June 8, 1999, the local Presbyterian church in Pearland, Texas, voted to no longer send any more funds to the General Assembly. They said they would henceforth send their offerings to independent Presbyterian organizations which were resisting the efforts of the denomination to move toward more liberal positions. While other local churches just wrung their hands, the church in Pearland decided to actively support the right side.

On June 20, at a General Assembly breakfast, the awards were presented. An estimated 400 people were present, including many top-ranking PCUSA staff members and elected officials.

The new moderator, pro-gay Freda Gardener, said, “I am so proud to be sharing this place with the other two recipients of this award.”

Interestingly enough, the third person to receive the award, Jan Douglass, said she fully approved of the giving of the award to two lesbians.

As soon as the awards were given, the Highland Presbyterian Church in New Castle, PA, voted to cut off all per capita and mission funds to the General Assembly. “We’re certain other sessions will follow our lead,” Pastor Tim McQuade said. He added that, in giving those awards, the GAC had virtually said “We know we made people angry with this award, tough; but we’re not going to do anything about it!”

IN-FIGHTING WITHIN THE COVENANT NETWORK

The Covenant Network of Presbyterians (CNP) is one of the homosexual groups actively working to subvert the denomination. They had earlier published abroad an executive committee members’ plan for a liberal takeover of the church.

But, during an Open Forum on Wednesday, June 24, 1999, at the Fort Worth Assembly, the members were angry because their CNP leaders had agreed to a “sabbatical” (a waiting period) instead of actively lobbying the 211th General Assembly for overtures to end the PCUSA’s earlier constitutional prohibition against ordaining homosexuals as deacons, elders, and ministers.

Jane Spahr, who earlier in the week had received a “Woman of Faith” award, received intense applause as she stridently said, “Don’t wait for the church to act. I’m going to storm this country until you collapse and say yes! . . [the sabbatical] is killing us. You cannot take a sabbatical on truth or justice. Everybody wants to be on a sabbatical, but Jesus has said, ‘If you are lukewarm, honey, you aren’t Mine.’ ”

The crowd applauded as another speaker declared that, by excluding homosexuals from ordination, the PCUSA had been “out of order for more than 20 years.” He also lamented that the Presbyterian Church was not solacing him enough in his grief; for, as a member of the West Hollywood Presbyterian Church, over the last few years he had attended the funerals of 120 West Hollywood members who had died of AIDS.

OVERTURE 99-46

TEACHING MATERIALS TO BE SCRIPTURAL

Overture 99-46 would require all PCUSA teaching materials, which dealt with or referred to human sexuality, to be in conformity with Scripture and Presbyterian theology.

One would assume that it would be quite easy for such a resolution to be enacted. But, on June 23, 1999, after a lot of discussion and wrangling over the matter, the Christian Education Committee of the 211th General Assembly provided a watered-down version of this overture by a vote of 28-16-1 (28 to 16, with 1 abstaining).

During the deliberations, the meeting hall was packed and many had to sit on the floor.

James Curtis, the one who presented the overture to the committee, spoke urgently about the many deviations from Scripture and church doctrine in the current material, including recognition of sex outside marriage as something which should not be condemned.

Curtis admitted that it would cost about $250,000 to make the needed changes, but said it must be done because the teaching materials tell the young people of the church that, while abstinence is preferred, if teenagers choose to engage in sexual relations, they should use contraception.

He said that all Presbyterian materials should stress abstinence and purity instead of the many misleading statements currently in the textbooks.

Public debate and committee discussion lasted for hours.

Several teenage girls said they believed abstinence until marriage was not only God’s command, but His blessing. Each declared the current materials to be “deplorable.”

Former GA moderator, Patricia Brown, said the materials were fine as they stood and should not be modified.

Suzanne Citron, pastor of the Presbytery of the Grand Canyon, apparently was determined to have full audience attention as she spoke; so she began slowly to undress! Stopping before she crossed the bounds of modesty, she said that no justification existed for using these unbiblical materials in the first place, and that they were wholly inappropriate for the youth of the church.

Ultimately, an amendment was offered which reversed the meaning of the overture; and, in vague language, it called on the Congregational Ministries Division to continue to use the present materials, but “someday” to revise and rewrite the materials in accordance with “biblical, confessional, and Reformed traditions.” By appeasing the liberals, once again they had won.

Supporters of the amendment said there were so many out-of-wedlock births, that the teaching materials in their present form might help young people avoid disease and pregnancy when they had sex.

The amendment was finally voted and approved by the Christian Education Committee. The vote was 26-17-1 (26 to 17, with 1 abstaining). In their view, someday the Presbyterian Church would obey God’s Word, but not now.

The next step was for the entire General Assembly to consider and vote on the matter. On Thursday, June 24, the matter was discussed.

Elder Nancy Cross said the world does a good job teaching about premarital sex, contraception, and promiscuity; and that the present materials do the same—when, instead, they should call our youth to sexual purity.

“We hear about sex everywhere; these materials are too explicit,” declared Ellen Larson, a youth advisory delegate. “There are only five sentences in the entire present curriculum materials that deal with sex in the Christian way.”

Former General Assembly Moderator, Patricia Brown, urged the Assembly to let the materials stand as they were, declaring that they helped the young people.

Responding to her, Katherine Goyett said, “These curriculum materials lack biblical integrity. We must teach the joy of sexual purity . . Do not conform any more to the standards of the world!”

The General Assembly then voted on Overture 99-46. By a vote of 330-201-4, the GA ordered that the sexual education curriculum, published by the denomination, be brought into conformity with church and biblical standards within two years. Before distribution, the new materials “must be approved by the General Assembly.”

This would, hopefully, eliminate the errors, in print, for more than a decade in the Presbyterian Church.

The liberals failed on this overture; but, as we shall see, they won on others.

The following quotation, from Overture 99-46, is of interest:

“Scripture plainly teaches and warns that sexual immorality is not to be found among the people of God (Ex 20:14; Jude 3-8; Heb 13:4; Rom 13:12-13; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Cor 6:18-20, 1 Cor 5:1-13; Gal 5:16-24; Eph 5:1-17; Col 3:1-10; 1 Thess 4:1-8; Heb 12:14-29; Matt 15:17-20; Matt 19:4-6; Mark 7:18-23; Rev 21:1-8; Rev 22:10-20).”

OVERTURE 99-24

INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT

Overture 99-24, introduced by the Western New York Presbytery, would require Presbyterian worship leaders to use inclusive language for the name of God. All ministers in the denomination would henceforth have to use male and female references to God.

This overture would amend W-1.2006b of the Book of Order to read, “In its worship the church shall use language about God which is intentionally as diverse and varied as the Bible and our theological traditions.”

The mandatory “shall,” coupled with the plural “our theological traditions” (which includes the Re-Imagining God movement), would make it possible for charges to be filed against any Presbyterian minister who baptizes “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” or an elder leading worship who began the Lord’s Prayer as “Our Father.” Instead, they must say “our Father/Mother” or “our Father and Mother.”

Judicial proceedings would be required against pastors and worship leaders who failed to use non-biblical names when speaking or referring to God.

Overture 99-60, a companion resolution submitted by the Palisades Presbytery, would add teeth to the inclusive language requirement—by requiring that each presbytery send a report to next year’s Assembly, “disclosing in narrative and/or statistical form about how inclusive language is used and/or studied in that presbytery’s churches.” This would implement active in-church policing.

Penalties are not specified by either overture, but punishments for Book of Order violations range up to “removal from office,” which is described as “the highest degree of censure” (D-12.0105).

According to the overture, the masculine-feminine linking (“Father/Mother”) need not be paired each time; but every Presbyterian minister must say each an equal number of times in each sermon (one time “Father God” and the next “Mother God”).

Because the “current traditions” of the Presbyterian Church must be mingled with earlier ones, the minister can say “Christ,” but must also say “Sophia” (or “Christa,” another lesbian goddess) the same number of times.

Quite an active Department of Inquisition could be started, if this overture had been enacted; but, on Thursday, June 25, by a margin of more than 3 to 1, the Fort Worth General Assembly rejected the overture.

CONTINUE PART 2

Top of page

BOOKSTORE Updates Search links Home

### PILGRIMS REST

### 1288 Myerstown Rd.

### BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN. 37305