“One item that I might contend with you about: I don’t agree that the issue of homosexuality is any more explicit in Scripture than Abortion. That’s one of the reasons I lifted it up in my post.”

As you said, I’m pretty sure we disagree about this, but I would be interested in hearing your rationale.

I think all four of the above are likely a part of a complex issue, particularly the communication issues. Traditionalist Presbyterians are harnessing communication to a great advantage for their processing and their work, in particular.

One item that I might contend with you about: I don’t agree that the issue of homosexuality is any more explicit in Scripture than Abortion. That’s one of the reasons I lifted it up in my post.

Thanks again, Will, Peace be with you.

I realize that we will rather strongly disagree about a number of things, but I’d like to clarify one. The use of the words “evil” and “harmful” was not so much intended as a statement about what traditional or conservative Presbyterians believe about any particular action as it was to say that that is the way many view sin. While we will dispute what qualifies as sin, it seems to me self-evident that if you believed that about any particular action and found your church seemingly endorsing it, you’d have a problem.

“But what is it about this that causes the internal struggle now?”

You ask a very fair question. Personally I am very concerned (not particularly happy) that this is such a struggle now. I can think of four reasons — I say this by way of observation, not endorsement.

The first is exactly what progressives often say it is: there is a kind of bigotry at work among some traditional Presbyterians that seems to regard sexual sin (particularly GLBT issues) as somehow “more wrong” than other types of sins. The drive is in no way biblically based, but is a visceral negative reaction. That is unexcusable — but it can’t be ignored as a factor.

The second is that, from the traditionalist point of view, this is but one in a long series of issues — kind of the “straw that broke the camel’s back” effect. To some extent all of the indignation being expressed is indignation at decades of perceived disconnect between traditional beliefs and official church stands. If the Presbyterian Panel is to be believed, then this disconnect also exists between majorities of members and elders and church stands — suggesting that it is an issue for moderates as well. (Though I grant, few moderates complain about it.)

Third – abortion, and several other issues of contention are not explicit in Scripture. Yes, the early church opposed the practice, but that is not the same as finding a clear biblical mandate.

Fourth – the times allow for far wider dissemination of information than has been customary. You mention a pro-choice position, for example, and the Washington Office certainly shares your interpretation — but many Presbyterians were unaware of this, reading the position as one of neutrality rather than activism. Similarly, only minorities every heard about or noticed many issues. This time, the issues are being widely reported in the news, online, etc. Traditional Presbyterians are far more aware of them.

I do not know to what degree each of these affects the current reaction. But all strike me as factors, and I’m sure there are probably others.