PCUSA Denies Scripture In Advancing Homosexual Marriage

http://leomcneil.net/2014/06/25/pcusa-denies-scripture-in-advancing-homosexual-marriage/ ^ | June 25, 2014 | Leo McNeil

[LeoMcNeil]

Last week the mainline Presbyterian USA Church decided to allow homosexual marriages. In doing so, PCUSA had to change its centuries old adherence to the Westminster Confession which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The Confession, which in theory members of PCUSA are required to believe, has been altered to read a marriage is between “two people.” Of course, to get to two people PCUSA had to ignore the Confession’s scripture proofs, which clearly show a marriage is between one man and one woman. (Gen 2:24, Matt 19:5) The big question at this point is whether the church is bound to scripture or to culture.

[humblegunner]

What caused you to excerpt your own blog, Leo?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, they won't ignore Scripture: they'll opt for "better" translations and their own, "more scholarly, up-to-date, relevant" interpretations.

The question seems to be whether they are bound to Scripture as they understand it now, or Scripture and the reasonable moral inferences therefrom, as these have been understood in continuity with the whole Christian tradition for 2,000 years.

[MeshugeMikey]

precisely the sort of position one expects from a church that glorifies child sacrifice

[MrB]

Probably just to irritate you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Perfect. Could you trace in some randy man affirming his intimate and committed spousal relationship to some other randy man in the foreground? Or perhaps in the background?

[MeshugeMikey]

ahahahahahaha some things are too tasteless for “even me....”

[Springfield Reformer]

No, I know something of the Presbyterian history in the US. The modernists staged a coup in the early 20th century. Many of the much more conservative splinter groups are a product of that cataclysm. Gary North has written an extensive history of this called “crossed fingers,” in which he chronicles how those who had adopted the modernist premises cheated by presenting themselves to the seminaries as faithful to the Westminster Confession, but who in fact engaged in the deceit of “mental reservation,” crossing their fingers behind their back, as it were, and not revealing their full rejection of Biblical authority until they were well established in the woodwork of American Presbyterianism.

This practice, BTW, is something every good Catholic should recognize as familiar, through their own beloved Cardinal Newman, whose Oxford Movement used it extensively to move surreptitiously among English Protestants until it became safe to reveal their true meanings toward Rome.

Bottom line, the current Presbyterian mainliners in America long ago ceased being Sola Scriptura fellowships, and rather have been following a long path toward ecumenical paganism. I’ve been in these churches. I know whereof I speak. If anything, their problem is their authority doctrine is rooted in the same man-centeredness as Rome. Present them with Biblical authority, and they don’t go off to some variant translation or interpretation. They just look at you cross-eyed for daring to question modern liberal orthodoxy with that old, irrelevant book. Seriously. One fellow my dad met in the modernist Methodist church ground a Bible under his knee in a pew to make the point clear to my dad, many years ago. That’s as anti-Sola Scriptura as it gets.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"This practice, BTW, is something every good Catholic should recognize as familiar, through their own beloved Cardinal Newman, whose Oxford Movement used it extensively to move surreptitiously among English Protestants until it became safe to reveal their true meanings toward Rome."

This is a misrepresentation of Newman and the Oxford Movement, as the written sources of the time demonstrate. When Newman became Catholic in 1845, we was not leading a mass Romeward exodus, but rather was deeply stricken by his sense of aloneness with his conscience. If this was a conspiracy, it was a peculiarly ineffective one.

It's curious that the Oxford Movement was attacked for being both secretive and of a flagrantly popularizing, what with their publication of, and open debate of, tracts dealing with ecclesial history and theology--- this even to the point of common pewsitters being drawn into open controversy.

In other words, they were being blamed for "egad, everything's secretive!" and "egad, everything's in print, in editions cheap enough for the pewsitters!"

Walsh's "The Secret History of the Oxford Movement shows this incoherence.

A real conspirator would have hung onto his institutional positions of power and influence above all, not resign them promptly as Newman did.

A real conspirator would at least have brought his whole flock of Tractarian "co-conspirators" with him through the exit doors, not leaving on grounds of personal conscience and then agonizing over broken relationships with colleagues, family and friends, as Newman did.

A real conspirator would have dumped "Tractarianism" after the "charade" was either victorious, or exposed: but Tractarian writings had increasing circulation even after Newman's conversion to Catholicism, and Tractarian clergy continued to be recruited into the Church of England.

So I think your notion of Newman and his Oxford Movement moving "surreptitiously" amongst the gullible English Protestants, is, historially speaking, unfounded.

[IrishBrigade]

So I think your notion of Newman and his Oxford Movement moving “surreptitiously” amongst the gullible English Protestants, is, historially speaking, unfounded.

...how dare you confuse the poor gullible fellow with such things as facts...

[lurk]

The pcusa likely don’t care about the opinions of outsiders.

[Springfield Reformer]

I respect both your opinions. I generally avoid commentary on history because a) I am admittedly not an expert, and b) historical events are generally as likely to be controversial as any question of Biblical interpretation, and if there must be controversy, I’d rather be talking about Scripture than the Oxford Movement.

However, as an attorney, I have also learned there are usually going to be compelling arguments on both sides of any longstanding controversy, I have no more wish to be gullible than anyone else, so when I first heard about the Oxford Movement, I did do some preliminary research. I am at work right now and cannot access that, but I do remember reading Newman’s treatise on lying, in which he does evaluate there can be some narrow cases in a just cause for passive silence that is in effect deceptive. At the time I also read a corollary piece by Augustine in which he takes the harder course and opts for honesty at all times, trusting to the providence of God for outcomes.

In any event, I am with Augustine on this. Newman’s work strikes me as a precursor to relativism. Not in full bloom, as in Joe Fletcher’s situational ethics, but certainly moving away from Augustine. In this context, and given the other sources I have seen, you can understand how someone might find his doctrine of “mental reservation” a credible link with some of the Protestant misgivings about the Oxford Movement.

Nevertheless, at your prodding, I will review my sources and conclusions to see if any revision might be in order. To that end, I would appreciate it if you would direct me to these primary sources you found useful in your own research.

Peace,

SR

[Mrs. Don-o]

SR, I want to thank you for your reasonable attitude and gracious words. I can't respond at length. I'm working on my parish newsletter which has been handed over to a "Review Committee" and so has naturally turned into an unappetizing can of worms --- not to say a "Diet of Worms" (weak haha).

1. Mental reservation: nothing wrong with that. Silence is not the same as lying. You are not morally obligated to say everything you know, all the time, to everyone.

When the Nazi says, "Where are the Jew?" you can say "I'm certain I saw them heading east," mentally reserving the detail "... toward the eastern corner of my hidden basement." --- you're not morally obliged to explain everything and become an outright accomplice to murder.

Jesus Himself didn't blurt out to everybody from the first that he was the Son of God. (Some term this the "Messianic Secret." He even said, "Why do you call Me holy?"

2. Walter Walsh's "The Secret History of the Oxford Movement": I have not read the book, I have just read about it. The little I read shows the incoherence of saying the Oxford Movement was secretive and at the same time "out there publishing and openly arguing everything." The Oxford Movement was held at fault for adamantly withholding thing from public scrutiny, and for never withholding things from public scrutiny.

It does seem that years, even decades after Dr. Newman's reception into the Catholic Church, there were various intrigues whereby some Anglicans tried to re-establish Apostolic Succession by being co-ordained or re-ordained by Melkite, Greek Orthodox, or Coptic Bishops, or all three, but this does not bear on Newman's activities at all, it was intra-Anglican pedigree-fixing.

I've already told you more than I know, so I'll wisely stop here!

I don't wish to be disputatious about things that frankly do not concern me, like the validity of Anglican Holy Orders.