The headline is miswritten. The rule doesn't require a relationship. Clergy can still be single. They just can't have more than one partners. It seems that clergy can have sequential sexual relationships — with no commitment at all — as long as they follow a one-at-a-time approach.
The Presbyterians on both sides of this controversy are relying on progressivism. Opponents tap into racial critique — that "lived realities" discourse.
Proponents deploy feminist critique. They're "arguing that the practice of polyamory or polygamy can create 'power imbalances, emotional harm, and spiritual confusion,' particularly for women, children, and historically marginalized persons."
It seems that no one wants to get caught invoking tradition. History is that place where persons were marginalized. It's something to be undone.
***
I love the stock photo the Post chose to illustrate this story. It's like an ad for fabric softener:
Which one is supposed to be the Presbyterian clergyperson?
Posts
69 comments:
Ann Althouse, “ It seems that no one wants to get caught invoking tradition. History is that place where persons were marginalized. It's something to be undone.”
Beautifully written.
I’ve been a member of PCUSA for forty years now and have learned to ignore anything beyond the local church level.
The clergyman is beneath the sheets, unseen. No wonder the others are smiling.
…not to derail so early but holy caterpillars- the eyebrows!
Marriage is a wonderful institution but who want’s to live in an institution?
…see the Groucho quote is for the eyebrows…
DDB, “how many Americans are members of the Presbyterian church?”
AI, “There are approximately 1.45 to 1.5 million formally registered members of Presbyterian denominations in the United States, though over 2 million American adults self-identify as Presbyterian. Because Presbyterianism in America is split into several different distinct denominations, the exact number depends on the specific branch.”
Nebraska’s population is a little over 2 million.
Thats a very selective crowd
Which one is supposed to be the Presbyterian clergyperson?
Definitely NOT the redhead!
History is that place where persons were marginalized.
It today will be tomorrow's history, then some persons will always be marginalized. Is this victim/victimizer view of the world really the best approach?
What remotely sane guy wants to deal with two or three women all saying "We need to talk about our relationship." ??
We already have a word or two for women with two or three simultaneous guys.
As a church musician (Methodist and Catholic), I have a front row seat watching the Protestant denominations committing institutional suicide. There seems to be no stopping. This kind of nonsense drives traditional families out the door, on the mistaken premise that gays, perverts and the sleep around crowd will storm the doors and occupy the pews. Doesn’t happen. Episcopal and Methodist churches have already cut their own throats with their “inclusivity.”
Which one is supposed to be the Presbyterian clergyperson?
Easy. The dude. The only person with visible clothing on. It’s a white collar.
What part of the Word are they missing (all of it)
A fabric hardener, maybe...
let's be CLEAR:
what EVERY ONE wants in a preist is someone that is:
promiscuous
preferably queer (and or) trans
pro abortion
pro moloch
ANTI-GOD
i mean, That is WHY people go to church.. isn't it?
ISN'T IT?
It seems that no one wants to get caught invoking tradition. History is that place where persons were marginalized. It's something to be undone.
History can support any side of this argument. It is only useful as a reference.
You have to decide what type of society you want. There are 2 choices:
1. Harem Dominant Male.
2. Pair Bonded relationships.
Option 2 has obviously better results for society as the United States demonstrated. We raised billions out of poverty.
But you have to understand WHY that worked and why pair bonding and monogamy forced by shame resulted in this massive expansion of wealth.
Previously in history most societies are Harem Dominant Male. Most of the men take all of the women and a large chunk of low status men have no stake in society or chance to raise children. They turn into criminals or soldiers.
If you force men and women into pair bonding and shame adulterers and divorce you get pairs of people who put their children first and you have the core of a responsible much more peaceful society. You have given most men a stake in the future of society and many many more men start contributing to the wealth generated.
Thus the US as a Christian Nation of White Men lifted the world out of poverty because you now had a majority of men contributing to the wealth generated in society and this wealth compounded.
In order to make this happen people have to put the welfare of their children and society over their own happiness, particularly women. Women are not biologically happy with "average" men. They are hardwired to look for Chad. Bob just does not get them wet.
But for a pair bonding society to work and to get Bob invested in the future of the society with children of their own Sally has to settle for Bob even though she wants Chad. This is the hard part.
serious question: what is the current membership of the Presbyterian Church ?
https://pcusa.org/news-storytelling/news/2023/5/1/pcusa-church-membership-still-decline
For 2022, the PC(USA) reports a loss of 53,105 members, nearly 2,000 more than reported the year before. Current membership still stands at just over 1.1 million. There was also a loss of 108 churches last year..
https://www.christianitydaily.com/news/report-indicates-pcusa-membership-could-fall-below-1-million.html
https://factually.co/fact-checks/religion/largest-us-christian-denomination-membership-declines-2024-2025-db6c76
The clearest, source-backed headline is that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recorded one of the largest single-year membership drops publicly reported for 2024 — a loss of 48,885 members — and faces the prospect of falling below one million members in 2025
None of them is supposed to be a church minister.
When you commit your life to tending your flock, behave yourself.
are there, in fact; More trans satanist bigamists in the USA than there are Presbyterians?
Shouting Thomas, that's been my experience too: the push for greater "tolerance," more "inclusion," in the Episcopal church at least (the only Protestant sect of which I have personal knowledge) doesn't seem to have added a single person - much less "pledging unit" - to the congregation. The church I attended before we headed out on the road was shrinking, the choir dwindled to three or four people, one of them a personal friend of the new organist rather than a congregant, the pews at the "big" service something like three-quarters empty, about half old people, a quarter Vestry members, and a quarter young parents trying to give their children something, anything, reserving a grounding in the faith.
In my former church in Pennsylvania, I myself tried to rebuild the Christian education program when it had shrunk to five children, three of them mine.
Meanwhile, my sister and brother-in-law's traditional Catholic Church (not Latin rite but, as far as I've seen, holding the line on Catholic teaching) is full and vibrant. Its choir is not large, but the congregation is enthusiastic and of all ages.
From having lived among progressive "Christians," I can guarantee neither the actual male nor female clergy in real life looks anything like any of those three models in the photo. I say this from someone formerly inside the "United" Methodist Church that is no longer "United" just because of this sort of anti-biblical nonsense/blasphemy/sin.
Immanuel Presbyterian Church at 1100 N Astor in Milwaukee is beautiful. It has four Tiffany stained glass windows that are gorgeous. Outside stonework is also impressive. It's in one of Milwaukee's wealthier neighborhoods close to the lake. I visited all the churches in the area during a September "Doors Open Milwaukee." I know this is off topic, but if you live in SE WI it is something to see.
I love the stock photo the Post chose to illustrate this story. It's like an ad for fabric softener
I haven't seen a fabric softener commercial featuring an obvious, sexual ménage à trois. Check out the dudes face. It's not the soft sheets that put that smile on his face.
All the Western religions appear to have been targeted and now successfully taken over by those committed to destroying them. It's really not even debatable, given how their leaders are openly espousing a growing number of practices and beliefs that are directly in opposition to those religions' written and traditionally followed beliefs.
In my own case, instead of fleeing and feeling repelled by the religion itself, I have instead begun to re-inspect the fundamental teachings not as dictates from a divine being or religious leader but as life-distilled cultural wisdom to consider and to guide my personal actions. I find it very liberating and reaffirming. Jesus the carpenter may or may not have been a divine being, but my own life experience tells me that his philosophy was a wise one. Living using his principles, marrying and raising my family under those principles, and living among other people who also follow his principles seems to result in a peaceful, prosperous, and generally fulfilled life.
Other leaders suggested life philosophies? YMMV..
There was Camille Paglia's essay, "The Joy of Presbyterian Sex"
Seems we are destined to relearn what 1st century Christians taught the pagan world, rife with abortion, pederasty, slavery, fornication and polyamory. Progressives are worse than the pagans, though, because they have been preached the Gospel and rejected it.
Theh should just rebrand as a coven
Marriage refers to a union of gametes, not persons, not even fetuses. This clearly excludes trans unions of couplets. You've come a long way, baby. Abort. Sequester. Progress no further.
Why is this even a controversy?
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - Does not really believe in the bible as the inerrant inspired word of God.
PCA - Does really believe in the bible as the inerrant inspired word of God.
This sort of thing is completely inline with PCUSA.
"I love the stock photo the Post chose to illustrate this story. It's like an ad for fabric softener:"
It looks to me like a poor bargain for the gals.
Here's a historical footnote about John Knox. He used to be very big in Presbyterian circles. He had the bad luck to be captured by a French raiding party and ended up as a galley slave. He was ransomed after nineteen months, but he did spend nineteen months as a galley slave. He apparently was willing to accept his fate as a galley slaves, but when the French asked him to venerate an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that was too much. He threw the image overboard. He said that if the lady was as powerful as they claimed her to be, she could swim for shore. He got a beating for his troubles......There you have it. In none of his writings or indeed his life experience did John Knox ever take a strong stand against slavery. But John Knox remained firmly against Marian worship and preached fire and brimstone against this unnatural practice that was so foreign to the will of God.
The guy in the picture has a nice shit eating grin.
What's the official Presbyterian line on predestination. From my reading, I understand that that used to be a big part of their religion. It's kind of a perverse belief. Why would God create humans in such a way and under such conditions that the majority of them would go on, after their unhappy lives, to suffer for all eternity in Hell?
Caroline said...
Seems we are destined to relearn what 1st century Christians taught the pagan world, rife with abortion, pederasty, slavery, fornication and polyamory. Progressives are worse than the pagans, though, because they have been preached the Gospel and rejected it.
The pendulum swings.
The progs after the 50's and rebelled and started pushing for their degenerate lifestyles. This was mostly Eve wanting to sleep with Adam instead of Bob. Eve missed Adam and was unhappy about having to marry an average man.
Now Bob has no woman being forced to settle for him and no attachment to society.
The results are predictable.
I don't expect a church to condone the sins I commit. Searching for redemption and forgiveness is a much different journey than seeking validation for destructive behavior.
In Ouroboros they trust.
This is dumb, but it's not Talarico dumb.
Talarico says God is non-binary. He's objecting to the way Jesus spoke about God. Jesus often used the term "Abba" which is a very familial term, like calling God "Dad." His most famous prayer, given at the Last Supper, starts "Our Father, who art in heaven..."
Jesus humanized God. He used a specific pronoun to refer to God. So what Talarico is doing is correcting Jesus. He's saying Jesus was wrong to call God "Dad" or "Father." In effect, Talarico is accusing Jesus of using the wrong pronoun.
Aside from that, I think it's an abomination to pretend the Bible says nothing about abortion. God clearly calls on us to recognize our children and to love our children. We are not to deny our children. And we damn well are not to pay a doctor to poison them or stab them. To say you are following Christ as you try to protect a billion dollar abortion industry is an abomination.
The call for polygamy in the Presbyterian church is small potatoes compared to their public support of infanticide. Their blather about "women and pregnant people" is just embarrassing.
Different shade of evil what does James say
A reading from the book of Road House.
"If I don't... the Presbyterians around here are likely to pray for my ruination."
"If it keeps you in the good graces of the church."
here's a fun* thought:
about 30 years ago, the Mainstream churchs were losing members to the newer hard line evangelist churchs..
So, the Mainstream churchs tried loosening their rules, no longer being again "sin" but instead being "welcoming to ALL".
The result was Larger losses of members to the mainstream.
So, the Mainstream churchs tried further loosening of their rules, no longer just being "welcoming to ALL", but now being:
Pro Abortion
Pro Lesbian
Pro Gay
Pro premarital sex
Pro divorce
Pro teen sex
The result was EVEN Larger losses of members to the mainstream.
So, NOW, the "mainstream" churchs are completely anti Christian, and COMPLETELY pro satan.. and the results?
rule #1 of hole digging is: Stop digging the hole
definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results
fun* as a Missouri Synod preacher preached:
"the 1st three letters in the word funeral"
I used to say that mainline Protestent denominations were just Christian themed clubs, lately they are just progressive clubs.
it seems that churchs can be devided into 2 groups:
growing, and NOT GROWING
it ALSO seems churchs can be devided into 2 other groups:
ones that embrace GOD, and ones that embrace sin.
actually, those are The Same Two Groups
"Proponents deploy feminist critique. They're "arguing that the practice of polyamory or polygamy can create 'power imbalances, emotional harm, and spiritual confusion,' particularly for women, children, and historically marginalized persons."
Tell that to The Mormons. This is well timed, as Senator Mike Lee is leading the pushback on X, after the DOD published their lists of recognized religions, but put the Latter Day Saints in their own category, and not under the Christian Umbrella.
If you've ever skimmed through Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon, it is quite entertaining. Even though interpreted in the 19th century, Smith translated the "reformed Egyptian" text into his best attempt at King James English. There's a lot of "and it came to pass."
I would guess at in 19th century America, the King James Version of the Bible was most common, so if you were going to add a story of the North America Lost Tribes of Israel to it, King James English would help you sell it. Sounds Biblical. But it's not.
I used to think that being a Presbyterian got harder every year. Now it’s pretty much daily.
"This chick is making us a Presbyterian pie"
https://youtu.be/YdnJqlm6XsM?si=taT5QHsRbPd4qzfm
The polyamory model usually consists of a nuclear family where the spouses each can go on “dates” outside of the marriage. The spouses get to feel the energy of flirting and the hunt. All the while ignoring their children.
The polygamy model is where 3 or more adults live together. How do people have the energy to converse each evening with two adults? One is hard enough. And with 3 “friends” there is always triangulation—that’s how we’re built. Again the children are left behind.
A few years ago I visited the town in Northern Ireland that my great grandparents had left in 1872. The graveyard of the Presbyterian church in the middle of town had a number of stones with my family name, but not the ones I was looking for. An old gentleman who haunted the place pointed out that my lot were in the low-rent Presbyterian church just outside of town. Which gave me a hint why they left.
RAATs with "benefits" is a redundant liberalism. #HateLovesAbortion
Wolves in sheep's clothing.
The photo is a man's dream. When his wife finally consents to a thruple it will have to be with a man she brings into the relationship.
Setting aside Gusty Wind's rather unknowledgeable attack on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, let us remember that it was official US state policy to persecute polygamists... and that was upheld multiple times by the Supreme Court in decisios that have as far as I know never been overturned.
So here's a legal question: To be admitted into the Union, Utah and at least Oklahoma, actually have written into their state constitutions that polygamy can never be legal. Utah's constitution even specifically says "The restriction against polygamy can never be amended out" without BOTH the US Congress and Utah's legislature agreeing. Which seems like a statement that the Court cannot wave a magic wand and legalize it.
So are we now going to start arresting Presbyrterians in Utah and Oklahoma? Oh, and if you look at the "Mormons" experiences with polygamy... it was a world apart from what these people are claiming, and also Islamic practice too. The Mormon church (Really the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) controlled the practice and would not permit just any random guy: you had to be able to support more than one spouse and family; and the first wife had to sign off on it too. No "Throuples" it was more of one man, one woman... just one man had one woman June, and also another marriage with April, and so forth. No "bed sharing." A world differnent.
Is this how - what should be - edge cases get pushed into the main stream with a design to divide people?
So that's what those "All are welcome" signs mean.
If I were the young man featured in that photo, I would feel that God is just and benign and that I was one of God's Elect. If I were the lesser loved woman in that relationship, I'd probably have more trouble accepting my fate as the will of God. Where you stand as to the will of God depends on where you lie and who you lie with and who you lie to.
“ I love the stock photo the Post chose to illustrate this story. It's like an ad for fabric softener”
It’s a recruiting poster. I assume the Presbys, like most religions, are having trouble attracting enough young men to the clergy. The poster is saying, “This could be you!”
Looking at their faces, that particular guy, with that hairstyle and facial hair, is thinking "they don't know I'm gay." The two women are thinking "Yes we do."
Talarico is PCUSA. He can't be pleased that they're fighting for acceptance of polyamorous clergy right when he's trying to get elected in Texas. I wonder if he'll get asked for his opinion.
""I love the stock photo the Post chose to illustrate this story. It's like an ad for fabric softener:" It looks to me like a poor bargain for the gals."
I just want to know how they keep their sheets so clean. Maybe that boy is really good at laundry.
…life’s hard enough with just the one…
The Bible actually addresses this issue in 1 Timothy 3:1-2:
“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer,* he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, ….” [ESV]
Of course, the chances of Presbyterian clergy reading the Bible is depressingly low.
*that is, a pastor.
Flip Wilson’s ‘The Church of What’s Happening Now’ in the 1970’s was prescient.
I would swear that photo was AI generated, but then I see the 2022 adobe.com stock photo mark in the lower left. But I still think that middle person's hair is faked. And who knows about the apparent two womb-having individuals?
I cannot worry about Presbyterians today. I'm too taken back by the Church of the Spiral Tree being removed from the officially recognized list.
Make that...taken aback.
“ I just want to know how they keep their sheets so clean. Maybe that boy is really good at laundry.”
I’m sure the girls are happy to do it. They know that boy needs his rest.
"...However, the proposal drew outrage from three official PC(USA) church advisory committees: the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, the Advocacy Committee for Women and Gender Justice, and the Advocacy Committee on LGBTQIA+ Equity...."
How could anybody belong to a spiritual organization that is this ridiculous? How could anybody take it seriously?
Is this the real backlash, or is it a false front so they don't have to confront infidelity? The preacher can have a spouse, or a side-piece, but not both.
Re: "Which one is supposed to be the Presbyterian clergyperson?" The guy in the middle. The two women are priestesses of Isis.
Fascinating that Western Civilisation is a "narrow culturally specific definition of family," and the second-place finisher is the actually patriarchal system of multiple wives, but the proposal is to "broaden" to include arrangements practiced by practically no one. How can 99% of historical practice be narrow?
Presbyterian Church USA is a non-biblical social club. The Presbyterian Church in America is a Bible believing branch of Presbyterianism.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.