Clear pastors wanted

With a classis meeting coming up to decide what to do about homosexuality and the RCA's response to it, and after talking with a friend from here about it last night, I thought I'd lay all my cards on the table ahead of time, even if it gets some of my pastor friends hopping mad. Here's what I think, perhaps not going quite as far as this author does on the end point of all this...


  1. I agree with you, Steve, and had the same feelings when I read McClaren's piece just yesterday.

    Please update me on your classis meeting, either here or via email.

    Blessiings, RogueMonk

  2. I am with you on this one Steve. I have felt this way since the whole formula with the UCC, and have become more staunch in my views with the current events in the denomination. I also would like to hear an update on your classis meeting.

  3. After having many conversations with people on both sides of this issue, I have come to the conclusion that to be even in discussion over this is sinful. If the Bible has nothing to say to us on sexuality, because it has inadequate knowledge of "orientation," then the Bible has really nothing to say to us at all. It is a complete denial of 2 Timothy 3:16.

    I too have decided to make some "hopping mad," but I prefer to have God's approval more. I hope your classis does too. God bless

  4. Thanks for the comments, guys.

    The meeting isn't for 2 weeks yet, but I'll keep you posted.

    Of course you're right about seeking God's approval before trying to make people mad, Scott. The latter is never a goal of mine, but sometimes it must be done...

    I'm curious: if so much of the denomination is deciding it's sinful to have this dialogue, as I'm hearing, where the process is going to go? Is there a way out of it before the three years are up? Or will any overture get shot down because we can't mess with the dialogue?

  5. I think that for many, especially the higher-ups, dialogue is sacred, and propositional truth is abhorrent. Dialogue is also being used to forestall division. They are hoping that after a few years, we will just get used to having non-traditional clergy, just as we got used to women in ministry. They might just be right.

    What may result is that a "fringe" group within the RCA, which objects to gay ministry (& female presbyters) will splinter off, while the majority of congregations, preferring unity over strife, stay put. What some fear is that the majority will hold together in opposition to homosexuality, resulting in the looney left heading for the UCC. After all, in 2009, isn't a definitive statement to be included in the BCO?