´óÏó´«Ã½

What do you really expect from presbyterians in Northern Ireland? Every church denomination finds its most extreme version in Northern Ireland. The presbys are no different: small-minded, backward-looking, theologically-illiterate. And that's just the ministers.

Scathing, Augustine!

Augustine:

Don't you know that Northern Ireland is God's own country and the acme of all morality? We stand alone, pure as the driven snow, while the rest of the world falls deeper into its den of iniquity. We are God's chosen children, who alone keep his Commandments. Gay clerics? They only exist in the Catholic Church!!!

"the Irish Presbyterian Church is 'more conservative "

"Women Ministers" eh....

Not exactly the last bastion of calvinistic conservatism. They will soon follow suit. Whatever the congregation wants the congregation will get.

righteousHolyknight, I dont know what point you are making. as far as i can see, PCI certainly is the last bastion of calvinistic conservatism.

"Whatever the congregation wants the congregation will get."

Just wait until PCI Congregation declares it's want for a Gay minister (as is the fashion at the moment)and see what happens. They will follow. How many PCI ministers protested at the Civil Partnerships affair? How many Protest at Gay Pride Parades? Not many if any? Only Free Ps spring to mind.

Just wait for it.

I am not presbyterian, but I would expect that Bible-believing ministers within the denomination would be urging the General Assembly to remain faithful to God and His Word. They will see the blatant contradiction of preaching that people should repent and trust in Christ for forgiveness, while at the same time living in open immorality!


Paul wrote: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?........certainly not!" Romans 6:1&2)

The Christian Church preaches the Gospel to any and all sinners, but membership and leadership is for one variety only - repentant ones.

When asked if this situation could happen within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, did I hear right when the moderator responded by referring to the the examination of candidates as they enter ministry. Does that not (1) amount to somewhere on the scale of vetting....discrimination; and (2) preclude the case of someone entering ministry married, and then later choosing a same sex partner - as in the current case in Scotland?

Pastor P

The prophet Micah

"This is what Yahweh asks of you, only this - to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with God."

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#7 - pastorphilip - "They will see the blatant contradiction of preaching that people should repent and trust in Christ for forgiveness, while at the same time living in open immorality!"

I am very interested in this phrase "open immorality". What does it mean exactly, especially in the context of the debate about homosexuality in the Kirk?

It is true that Rev Scott Rennie has openly identified himself as gay. As far as I am aware - and please correct me on this if I am wrong - he has not displayed openly how exactly he expresses his homosexual orientation. That is, presumably, a private matter between him and his partner.

How do you know what Rev Rennie gets up to in the privacy of his bedroom? You can guess. You can assume. BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW. Have you personally caught Rev Rennie "in the act", as it were?

So therefore, the only "open immorality" that Rev Rennie could conceivably be guilty of is the mere fact that he acknowledges that he has a homosexual orientation. Is that in itself a sin, biblically speaking?

Please could you quote a verse that proves conclusively from the Bible that the mere possession of a homosexual orientation is a sin. Please note that I am speaking about an "orientation", not an action related to or expressing that orientation.

Now you may call me naive in saying this, as you may argue that it must be obvious what Rev Rennie and his partner get up to. But I am basing my comments on what we know, not what we assume. There is a moral difference. You cannot make serious moral judgements on the basis of assumptions.

So, unless you actually know (and not just assume) what goes on behind closed doors you have no moral right to declare that someone like Rev Rennie is living in "OPEN immorality"!

And furthermore, if you do know what particular sexual acts Rev Rennie performs behind closed doors, is it not true that heterosexuals are also capable of performing those same acts with each other (need I be more explicit than that?). And so, according to your logic, many married heterosexual couples - even Christian couples - could be living in "open immorality" by what they do to each other in secret!!

The reader must note, of course, that I am assuming that the Bible condemns certain particular sexual acts associated with homosexuality. I am conceding that point just for the sake of the argument. That is of course another topic for debate. But even with this concession pastorphilip's argument is flawed.

An openly gay minister in the PCI - I can think of one. I wonder if any other of the bloggers have had the pleasure of knowing the late Revd Dr Liam Barbour? He was, quite without a doubt, the funniest man I have ever met: he had a scathing wit, was gloriously vulgar, erudite, by his own account wildly promiscuous, devoid of pomposity, and incredibly kind and generous.

I still vividly remember the first time I met him when he bounced in the room and introduced himself with a joke beginning "Well boys did you ever hear the one about the girl got herself *!?@ed on a tombstone?"

The PCI could do with more of his ilk...

LSV, did you actually believe what you wrote, or is it just supposed to be facetious?

The logical conclusion of a man leaving his wife and child, moving in with his gay partner and telling the press and others that the bible doesn't condemn homosexual sex is that he is having sex with his partner.

The burden of proof has to be with you to show that, against the preponderance of evidence (or even reasonable doubt, if it were in the courts) the man is chaste.

I do believe homosexual practice is wrong, though I think (based on studies) that homosexual tendency is, at least sometimes, built in the womb, and am not sure that gay sex in a committed relationship is as bad as drunken meaningless shags between opposite sexes, but would have a problem if a minister was doing that and justifying it to himself or others too. Or cheating on his wife, or having sex with a woman outside of marriage. Or watching porn. Or allowing himself to fantasize about parishioners.

But one of the things most condemned in scripture is when someone deliberately goes on in a sinful lifestyle, not just falling down as we all do - not sure how this applies when someone genuinely thinks what they're doing is OK. If a minister tried to justify ANY of the things above, I would say they should be disciplined - though if they did it and repented, it is a different issue entirely.

Mr Rennie, dismissing the (stronger, IMO) Pauline condemnations of homosexuality, says "Paul does not have a modern conception of what sexuality is, or of a long-term committed partnership between members of the same sex. He doesn't. You can't expect him to. He is living in the first century." That seems pretty weak, as it can be applied to ANY moral issue that's changed over the years. Not least because it assumes God didn't anticipate the 21st century when inspiring Paul. Also because there were committed homosexual relationships in Ancient Greece, Paul was a Roman citizen and much travelled, and if Mr Rennie doesn't know these things, he shouldn't be a Teaching Elder anyway.

Anyway, I'd rather not get too much into that debate, as I tend to find that bigoted idiots who use the bible to justify their hatred and disgust with a whole person over a single chosen sin want to think of me as an ally.