Taken from Toby

Couldn’t provide a link because, for whatever reason, I can only access his posts through Google Reader…but, anyway, this is from A Classical Presbyterian

The Grand Isle Statement

Stay, Fish, Lose

In this time of crisis in the life of the Presbyterian Church (USA), a new direction is desperately needed for those who hold to Biblical faith and evangelical Reformed convictions who remain within the denomination. Therefore, for all of the questions that evangelicals across the PC(USA) are asking in the wake of The Great GA Disaster of 2008 and the implementation of Local Option in the polity of our once great denomination, we the members of STATIC wish to issue the following denials:

1. We deny that voting against the proposed amendment to the constitution that will remove the Biblical standard for sexual conduct for all ordained officers in the PC(USA) will have a positive effect in our denomination.

2. We deny that having a constitutional standard for conduct means anything when Local Option is in force or effect.

3. We deny that the raising of funds and organizing of evangelicals in the PC(USA) for the purpose of this next series of votes in any way hampers or restrains the efforts of the revisionist agenda for the denomination.

4. We deny that defeating the removal/rewording of G-0601b will do anything to spread the gospel to lost sinners or strengthen our churches to accomplish this end.

5. We are in full agreement that all evangelicals should cease the fight, let happen what will happen and start fishing. (See Matthew 4:19, Mark 1:17 ESV)

Issued this 21st day of August, 2008.


A Classical Presbyterian


I absolutely agree with number 1. There’s no way that voting against full inclusion of homosexuals in the life of the church will ever have a positive effect on any denomination.

I can’t agree with number 2, but that’s because I’m just not the biggest fan of a centralized authority telling me what to do. I’d rather work it out with people I know and have relationships with. If that’s called “local option”, then that’s what I want, rather than the alternative, which seems to be “non-local option” or “distant option”.

Revisionist. Good to know what I am now. I assume that our denominational conflicts over slavery and women’s ordination were won by “revisionists” as well, so I see that I’m in good company at least.

Number 4 is absolutely true, just as number 1 was. Upholding Amendment B will never do anything to further the gospel or to reach out to the world or to make the Church stronger. Never ever ever.

I’m okay with number 5. I haven’t gone fishing in a long time, but I used to enjoy it, and I picture people who go fishing coming home pretty relaxed, whereas our fight over icky homos is making everyone pretty upset – especially when they lose. I’ve advocated this path in the past, and I do so again now.

3 thoughts on “Taken from Toby

  1. Hi Doug,I think Toby pulled this post.I never liked amendment B. The first sentence goes against the reformation and promotes idolatry. The second sentence has been used capriciously to single out and exclude gays and lesbians from serving the Church. And the third sentence has almost always been ignored completely, because to not ignore it is to exclude everyone from serving the Church. It’s a poorly worded and terribly applied piece of legislation. I like the replacement, but it essentially requires that all candidates for office (any office) be biblically literate and even have a knowledge of the confessions. Who is seriously going to hold candidates to that standard? Your point on revisionism is well put. The reformation was all about revisionism, as were the Gospel and Epistle writer’s re-interpretation of the Old Testament. It’s a biblical tradition. If the Holy Spirit still leads the Church, we should be comfortable with changing directions as the HS directs us. Humans are headstrong. We don’t change very easily. This struggle between God having us change directions and we resisting, sometimes in the name of religion, is also a biblical tradition.Jodie


  2. That could be true – I’m obviously not *really* talking to Toby, just using the opportunity.I think your points are excellent. Amendment B is crap legislation that, if enforced, discriminates against everyone. When we bend over backwards to unjustly exclude people, it often shows.And your later points are also excellent. We are deeply embedded in the Biblical tradition when we struggle and fall and are restored. What is deeply “un-Biblical” is uncritically adopting the past.That’s what people do when they worship a dead God.


  3. G-6.0106a, in and of itself, is sufficient for ordination standards. It held us in good stead long before 1996. We should be able to drop 0106b completely.However, there’s been so much attention paid to 0106b that it probably can’t be dropped without the cry that we’re giving up our standards. The amendment approved by the GA is a bridge to get us across the chasm of anxiety over standards.If the amendment passes, it will take about 5 or 10 years for things to settle. Then we’ll be able to remove 0106b completely. Imho.In Christ,Mark


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s