PCUSA groups push back against proposed monogamy rule for pastors

2,494 Views | 36 Replies | Last: 6 days ago by Howdy, it is me!
Captain Pablo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:09p, 6/7/26
AG
I couldn't make this up if I tried

Basically, the PCUSA is proposing a rule that pastors in sexual relationships must be monogamous. Seems simple enough. But multiple progressive groups within the church ain't having it at all

Enjoy

https://nypost.com/2026/06/07/us-news/presbyterian-church-faces-revolt-after-proposing-clergy-must-be-in-monogamous-relationships/

"The measure has sparked fierce debate and outrage from three official progressive church committees and polyamorous church groups, according to Religion News Service"

"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."

More Light Presbyterians, a prominent progressive activist group within the denomination, has aggressively lobbied against the monogamy rule. The group released a statement last month saying the proposal reinforces "narrow and culturally bound definitions of relationships that have historically been used to exclude, police, and harm queer bodies and lives." "The group, which hosted a "Faithful Polyamory 101" training last month, said the rule would take the progressive denomination "backward" by centering on "a single model of relationship as the only faithful expression of Christian life."
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
FightinTexasAg15
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:36p, 6/7/26
AG
2 Timothy 4:3

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions
Reply Quote
13
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:43p, 6/8/26
Monogamy only makes sense in a heterosexual relationship. It stabilizes the family. If you allow homosexual relationships, there's no logical reason to require it to be monogamous since they can't have children.
Reply Quote
2
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 2:11p, 6/8/26
AG
Some have biological children from previous heterosexual relationships and others have adopted. Point is, children are still a part of the family even if not in a traditional sense.
Reply Quote
1 edit
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 2:25p, 6/8/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
Some have biological children from previous heterosexual relationships and others have adopted. Point is, children are still a part of the family even if not in a traditional sense.


Sounds like a lot of people who shouldn't be pastors or priests, considering they can't sort out their own personal lives.
Reply Quote
13
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 2:52p, 6/8/26
PabloSerna said:
Some have biological children from previous heterosexual relationships and others have adopted. Point is, children are still a part of the family even if not in a traditional sense.

Yes, the PCUSA should consider gay pastors who have biological children from when they were straight, divorced their wife, and have since entered into gay marriage. In those instances, they should insist on monogamy. So they don't flip back and produce more children outside of their gay wedlock. For the stability of the children.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
The Chicken Ranch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:18a, 6/9/26
AG
So glad I'm Presbyterian, ECO.

PCUSA is being led by a demon. And that demon is the worship of social justice and progressivism. That don't even know what a Bible is anymore.

I'm sure "pastor" James Talarico supports this movement.
Reply Quote
3
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FightinTexasAg15 • 8:55a, 6/9/26
AG
FightinTexasAg15 said:
2 Timothy 4:3

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions


Basically all Protestants…
Reply Quote
3
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Chicken Ranch • 9:21a, 6/9/26
The Chicken Ranch said:
So glad I'm Presbyterian, ECO.

PCUSA is being led by a demon. And that demon is the worship of social justice and progressivism. That don't even know what a Bible is anymore.

I'm sure "pastor" James Talarico supports this movement.

Isn't ECO just PCUSA without gay pastors? The slope was allowed to slip so far, but no further.
Reply Quote
The Chicken Ranch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 10:37a, 6/9/26
AG
Nope. We adhere to Westminster Confessional standards. We are Solo Scriptura in our beliefs. We value human life. We do not have any political operatives, and we do not have centralized ownership of church property. True, most of us broke off from PCUSA over ordination of homosexuals, but we barely even resemble that denomination any more, it has moved so far to the left.

My church, particularly, has moved much more Calvinistic than it probably was before the split. I'd say this is very common in most ECO churches now.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Chicken Ranch • 11:02a, 6/9/26
Do you have women ministers and elders?
Reply Quote
The Chicken Ranch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 11:43a, 6/9/26
AG
Yup. And go ahead and throw 1 Corinthians at me. I'll duck. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdeline, and told her to go and tell the others. He didn't tell her to keep silent. If Jesus didn't think that women could share the Word, he wouldn't have appeared MM. The Church in Corinth had women that were spreading blasphemy. It isn't the same.

And you aren't going to paint ECO with a PCUSA brush. They aren't remotely the same. So, don't try to set that trap. I'll spare you the time.
Reply Quote
2
Farmer1906
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 1:22p, 6/9/26
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
Do you have women ministers and elders?

Where should the line be for women in the church?
Reply Quote
1
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Chicken Ranch • 3:31p, 6/9/26
The Chicken Ranch said:
Yup. And go ahead and throw 1 Corinthians at me. I'll duck. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdeline, and told her to go and tell the others. He didn't tell her to keep silent. If Jesus didn't think that women could share the Word, he wouldn't have appeared MM. The Church in Corinth had women that were spreading blasphemy. It isn't the same.

And you aren't going to paint ECO with a PCUSA brush. They aren't remotely the same. So, don't try to set that trap. I'll spare you the time.

Going and telling others Christ is risen is evangelizing in a basic sense. It is not teaching. Women are called to evangelize today as well. We all are. This is very different than liturgical teaching.

Men are leaders of their family, both biological and spiritual. It is simply a fact. We can see this in the oft cited study that showed when dad takes his faith seriously, there is very small drop off in the adult faith of their children when compared to when both parents take it seriously. But when only mom is taking the children to church, the drop off in religious retention is severe.

Men are always the leaders. Always. When men choose not to lead, they are still leading. They're just leading their family to heartache and misery. This goes for non-religious behavior as well https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/.

Women/mother's are incredibly important. Their role should never be diminished. But their role is different.
Reply Quote
2
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Chicken Ranch • 3:49p, 6/9/26
The Chicken Ranch said:
Yup. And go ahead and throw 1 Corinthians at me. I'll duck. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdeline, and told her to go and tell the others. He didn't tell her to keep silent. If Jesus didn't think that women could share the Word, he wouldn't have appeared MM. The Church in Corinth had women that were spreading blasphemy. It isn't the same.

And you aren't going to paint ECO with a PCUSA brush. They aren't remotely the same. So, don't try to set that trap. I'll spare you the time.

ECO is the PCUSA, just without gay ministers. That's the whole reason the denomination was created. Woman ministers and elders is a historically liberal position.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 3:54p, 6/9/26
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
The Chicken Ranch said:
Yup. And go ahead and throw 1 Corinthians at me. I'll duck. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdeline, and told her to go and tell the others. He didn't tell her to keep silent. If Jesus didn't think that women could share the Word, he wouldn't have appeared MM. The Church in Corinth had women that were spreading blasphemy. It isn't the same.

And you aren't going to paint ECO with a PCUSA brush. They aren't remotely the same. So, don't try to set that trap. I'll spare you the time.

ECO is the PCUSA, just without gay ministers. That's the whole reason the denomination was created. Woman ministers and elders is a historically liberal position.


It's likely going to spit acna in the next 10 years, if not sooner.
Reply Quote
The Chicken Ranch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 4:44p, 6/9/26
AG
That is not true and it is insulting that you would say such. The split was and still is so much more than ordination of homosexuals. While that was certainly a catalyst, the list for the split is endless, from local control of property, rights of the unborn, sanctity of the Scripture…to the craziness that James Talarico preaches, and much more. You painting ECO as a PCUSA without gays is truly ignorant, misinformed, myopic and deeply dishonest. As I said, it is insulting.

But only if we could all be as pious and pure are you are, right?
Reply Quote
2
4 edits
The Chicken Ranch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 4:49p, 6/9/26
AG
Edited due to not understanding what ANCA stood for.
Reply Quote
1 edit
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Chicken Ranch • 4:53p, 6/9/26
AG
The Chicken Ranch said:
Do you have knowledge of that? ECO is growing, not splintering. If anything, ECO and EPC join closer in a covenant relationship. We already ordain each other's clergy.


Splitting ACNA? Yes, it was a serious issue in electing the last archbishop and is causing a split in another diocese where laity want the non-ordaining bishop and clergy want the pro-women's ordination bishop. MQB is Anglican last I checked.

Splitting your denomination? No, but I imagine it arrives sooner rather than later as there's always a next logical step, but I have no intent to argue that with you here.
Reply Quote
1
The Chicken Ranch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:55p, 6/9/26
AG
My bad, I didn't know what you meant by ACNA. I thought it was a typo!

I am simply not knowledgeable about the Anglican Church. Nothing to debate here…
Reply Quote
1 edit
Captain Pablo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Chicken Ranch • 5:30p, 6/9/26
AG
The Chicken Ranch said:
My bad, I didn't know what you meant by ACNA. I thought it was a typo!

I am simply not knowledgeable about the Anglican Church. Nothing to debate here…


It's Anglican Church of North America

They were founded as a traditional alternative to the Episcopal Church when TEC went wacko

They are not recognized or in communion with the Anglican Communion

And it sounds like the ACNA party is over barely after it got started
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 8:36p, 6/9/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
Some have biological children from previous heterosexual relationships and others have adopted. Point is, children are still a part of the family even if not in a traditional sense.


Two dudes is not a marriage and two dudes raising a child is not a family in any Christian sense of the word, I don't care how much you twist and shout.
Reply Quote
11
1 edit
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Captain Pablo • 9:32p, 6/9/26
AG
Captain Pablo said:
I couldn't make this up if I tried

Basically, the PCUSA is proposing a rule that pastors in sexual relationships must be monogamous. Seems simple enough. But multiple progressive groups within the church ain't having it at all

Enjoy

https://nypost.com/2026/06/07/us-news/presbyterian-church-faces-revolt-after-proposing-clergy-must-be-in-monogamous-relationships/

"The measure has sparked fierce debate and outrage from three official progressive church committees and polyamorous church groups, according to Religion News Service"

"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."

More Light Presbyterians, a prominent progressive activist group within the denomination, has aggressively lobbied against the monogamy rule. The group released a statement last month saying the proposal reinforces "narrow and culturally bound definitions of relationships that have historically been used to exclude, police, and harm queer bodies and lives." "The group, which hosted a "Faithful Polyamory 101" training last month, said the rule would take the progressive denomination "backward" by centering on "a single model of relationship as the only faithful expression of Christian life."

Sola Scriptura writ large.
Reply Quote
2
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 8:38a, 6/11/26
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
Captain Pablo said:
I couldn't make this up if I tried

Basically, the PCUSA is proposing a rule that pastors in sexual relationships must be monogamous. Seems simple enough. But multiple progressive groups within the church ain't having it at all

Enjoy

https://nypost.com/2026/06/07/us-news/presbyterian-church-faces-revolt-after-proposing-clergy-must-be-in-monogamous-relationships/

"The measure has sparked fierce debate and outrage from three official progressive church committees and polyamorous church groups, according to Religion News Service"

"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."

More Light Presbyterians, a prominent progressive activist group within the denomination, has aggressively lobbied against the monogamy rule. The group released a statement last month saying the proposal reinforces "narrow and culturally bound definitions of relationships that have historically been used to exclude, police, and harm queer bodies and lives." "The group, which hosted a "Faithful Polyamory 101" training last month, said the rule would take the progressive denomination "backward" by centering on "a single model of relationship as the only faithful expression of Christian life."

Sola Scriptura writ large.


nonsense. The Pope was the original OG in this particular area.
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 11:00a, 6/11/26
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
PabloSerna said:
Some have biological children from previous heterosexual relationships and others have adopted. Point is, children are still a part of the family even if not in a traditional sense.


Two dudes is not a marriage and two dudes raising a child is not a family in any Christian sense of the word, I don't care how much you twist and shout.


I still think a monogamous relationship is better than the alternative. Doesn't make sense to bury our heads in the sand when non-traditional families that seek to walk with Christ are now a reality.
Reply Quote
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 11:04a, 6/11/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
PabloSerna said:
Some have biological children from previous heterosexual relationships and others have adopted. Point is, children are still a part of the family even if not in a traditional sense.


Two dudes is not a marriage and two dudes raising a child is not a family in any Christian sense of the word, I don't care how much you twist and shout.


I still think a monogamous relationship is better than the alternative. Doesn't make sense to bury our heads in the sand when non-traditional families that seek to walk with Christ are now a reality.


Thank you for articulating the modernist perspective.
Reply Quote
9
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 11:14a, 6/11/26
AG
Salvation for all is not a modernist nor traditionalist tenant. Salvation for some-now that is diabolical.
Reply Quote
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 11:19a, 6/11/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
Salvation for all is not a modernist nor traditionalist tenant. Salvation for some-now that is diabolical.


Dude, you are the king of the non-sequitur. It's quite impressive actually.

If two dudes who call themselves "parents" are engaging in sodomy that's what is diabolical. But you do you.

That it is possible that some will be damned forever is the de fide teaching of the Church meaning the thesis that it is necessary that all will eventually be saved is heretical.

Catholic doctrine is clear that God creates all human beings in His own image and likeness. At the same time, Catholic doctrine holds that damnation is always a possibility because of free will. Through our choices, we can ultimately choose to reject God's offer of salvation.

The Church teaches that all who die in an unrepentant state of mortal sin go to hell for eternity.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
88Warrior
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 12:06p, 6/11/26
PabloSerna said:
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
PabloSerna said:
Some have biological children from previous heterosexual relationships and others have adopted. Point is, children are still a part of the family even if not in a traditional sense.


Two dudes is not a marriage and two dudes raising a child is not a family in any Christian sense of the word, I don't care how much you twist and shout.


I still think a monogamous relationship is better than the alternative. Doesn't make sense to bury our heads in the sand when non-traditional families that seek to walk with Christ are now a reality.


Sorry… they want to "walk with Christ" under their terms not the Lord's…that won't get them very far…
Reply Quote
10
TeddyAg0422
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 2:27p, 6/11/26
AG

Reply Quote
5
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:36p, 6/11/26
AG
Most, I imagine, sat outside in shock when Jesus went in to have dinner with a tax collector and his family/friends. It was the Pharisees who charged our Lord with what they perceived -sacrilege.

The point brought up at the top was about dismissing same sex couples raising children and monogamy simply because it did not fit into a doctrine. The reality is that many children are in the very situation and I still believe a stable home, which a loving, monogamous relationship can give - is important.

Going back to Christ's example for us, his disciples, we should be willing to welcome all and be willing to sit down with them. That's all.
Reply Quote
1 edit
DANManman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 7:10p, 6/13/26
AG
But Jesus warned the church in Pergamum (not to mention many other places in Scripture) not to follow the heretical teachings of the world.

We should welcome anyone to come in church. But we shouldn't give any impression that willful sin is acceptable. That's why we are repeatedly told to correct our brothers and sisters.
Jesus saves
Reply Quote
DANManman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CrackerJackAg • 7:11p, 6/13/26
AG
I'll bite.

In what ways do you believe all Protestants do not tolerate sound doctrine?
Jesus saves
Reply Quote
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DANManman • 7:26p, 6/13/26
AG
DANManman said:
I'll bite.

In what ways do you believe all Protestants do not tolerate sound doctrine?


Pass….

I have things to do. I just don't have that kind of time.

I'm pretty sure you're already aware, but you just choose to reject them so there will be no point in having that conversation.

Breaking the cognitive dissonance can take weeks.

In fact, I think it's technically a sin for me to push you into digging in your heels and defending your position.

Much like children we are supposed to be patient and understanding due to your ignorance.

I'm very good at this…

(I'm obviously mostly ****ing with you for kicks so don't take it too serious. Just messing with you. That's not really a short conversation for a web forum so I'm ****ing around.)
Reply Quote
4 edits
DANManman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CrackerJackAg • 11:43p, 6/13/26
AG
Well, I'm aware of some heretical teaching that SOME Protestants adhere to, but I for one am Protestant in part to avoid false doctrine, as well. I thought the point of "sola scriptura" as a mocking term was to highlight how Protestants adhere TOO MUCH to doctrine they can trace to the Bible.

If you don't want to get into it, that's fine. But we're called to correct in love, not…"mess" with others, so excuse me if I didn't find the humor in your earlier comment.
Jesus saves
Reply Quote
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.