34K black churches (NBCI) cut ties with, denounce Presbyterian ‘c’hurch USA over same-sex “marriage”

Fr. Z kudos to the 34K.

From Lifesite with my emphases and comments:

34,000 black churches cut ties with the Presbyterian Church USA after it backed same-sex ‘marriage’

April 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The National Black Church Initiative (NBCI) – a coalition of 34,000 black churches from 15 denominations representing almost 16 million black Americans – has cut all ties with the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) [PC- USA… ironic] after the denomination voted to embrace same-sex “marriage.

The PCUSA voted last June to jettison the traditional definition of marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman. Instead, its Book of Order now defines marriage as a union “between two people,” with no mention of biological sex. At the same time, the PCUSA voted to allow its pastors to officiate at homosexual “weddings” in states where they have been made legal.

These controversial decisions came just three years after a 2011 vote allowing homosexuals who are openly sexually active to be ordained as PCUSA pastors.  [What a sham.]

The marriage votes were apparently the last straw for the NBCI, which released a prophetic statement, condemning the PCUSA and calling the denomination’s redefinition of marriage a “universal sin” that placed the church’s teachings well outside Christ’s message.

“NBCI and its membership base are simply standing on the Word of God within the mind of Christ,” said Rev. Anthony Evans, the president of NBCI. “We urge our brothers and sisters of the PCUSA to repent and be restored to fellowship.”

“PCUSA’s manipulation represents a universal sin against the entire church and its members,” Evans added. “With this action, PCUSA can no longer base its teachings on 2,000 years of Christian scripture and tradition, and call itself a Christian entity in the body of Christ. It has forsaken its right by this single wrong act.” [I like this language!]

“Apostle Paul warns us about this when he declared in Galatians 1:8 that there are those who will preach another Gospel,” Evans continued.

No church has the right to change the Word of God,” [Which is why I hope all these zealous people will soon become the Catholics they were intended to be!] Evans said. “By voting to redefine marriage PCUSA automatically forfeits Christ’s saving grace.”

“There is always redemption in the body of Christ through confession of faith and adhering to Holy Scripture,” he added. [And, I hope one day, formal membership in the Body of Christ, the Church that Christ founded.]

Still, Evans called on faithful Christians to show the PCUSA tough love by refusing to associate with the denomination until it changes its ways.

“In this case, PCUSA deliberately voted to change the Word of God and the interpretation of holy marriage between one man and one woman,” Evans said. “This is why we must break fellowship with them and urge the entire Christendom to do so as well.” [Well done!  Someone should send that letter to every member of the Synod on the Family coming up in October…. “holy marriage between one man and one woman”.  That’s it.]

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Sacred1 says:

    I wish our Catholic leadership showed this degree of courage. The point has been made by several commentators: the courageous and Christ-loving are the pizza shop owners and the florists, the cowardly and fame-seeking are many of our own religious leaders.

  2. John Grammaticus says:

    These guys are awesome………. now if they could just get used to Latin, Incense and Our Lady …

  3. Christ_opher says:

    It would be a sort of Saint John Bosco moment if these guys came and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

    Sacred1 agreed, Things will change because in truth the Roman Catholic Church belongs to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

  4. BillyT92679 says:

    2000 years of scripture AND TRADITION eh?

    They’re already one foot in the door

  5. gracie says:

    “Someone should send that letter to every member of the Synod on the Family coming up in October . . . ‘holy marriage between one man and one woman’. That’s it.”

    Not sure if the Synod is accepting “new” ideas, Father ;)

  6. Roguejim says:

    Well, it’s nice the 34k got this right, but they still have so many erroneous beliefs, that I’m not terribly hopeful that they’re truly any closer to becoming Catholic.

  7. donato2 says:

    John Grammaticus … you gave me a laugh out loud moment…I had been thinking the same thing but i had not put it so felicitously

  8. Kathleen10 says:

    Goats to the left, sheep to the right.

  9. Gail F says:

    It should be noted that this same group is for boycotting Florida. This is hardly a conservative group in many ways. But what a strong defense of Scripture! For Protestants and post-Protestants, supposedly, all begins and ends with Scripture. These folks MEAN it.

  10. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    This saddens me. Heretics with more backbone and love of our Lord than so many Catholic Cardinals. :((((((

  11. JuliaB says:

    Good for them. I hope that Pastor Evans and his 34 000 will become Catholics one day.

  12. DanielG says:

    Someone please let me know when any Democrat politician steps up to denounce this brave action by one of their main blocs of constituents. Go ahead, (D)’s, I dare ya!

  13. SKAY says:

    That was going to be my question DamialG. The activists are still ranting about
    the pizza owner.

    As we know, those screaming against intolerance are the most intolerant of all. Soon they will
    try to erase parts of the Bible in order to pretend they never existed just as they are trying to tell Priests and Pastors what parts of the Bible they cannot talk about-because it is hate speech.
    I am specifically thinking of the Mayor of Houston who did have to back down. Now that large companies are threatening states who are trying to protect religious freedom–things may change.
    I keep thinking about how the Jewish people in Germany thought it would be OK if they just said nothing about the hate that was swirling around them and continued life a usual. History shows us what will happen.

  14. SimonDodd says:

    On the one hand, you almost want to say “well done,” but on the other—what, I mean, were these guys asleep for the last century? Have they really been paying no attention to the trajectory of the PCUSA? Say what you want about the merits either way, but that vote was about as unpredictable as the C of E’s vote to ordain women bishops: It was an inevitable waypoint on the road they’ve been on.

    Am I the only one who doesn’t understand why people refuse to look at the road they’re on, deny where that road leads, and then act all dismayed and confused when—shock! Horror!—they arrive? (Ahem: #Synod.)

  15. Sounds like they need to join our team.

  16. Grumpy Beggar says:

    Personally, I might tend to move a little more cautiously just with with that word heretic – especially when, in the combox, there does appear to be reference made to the synod on the family and (one would infer) subsequently to the more Curious of the Curia .

    Formal heresy is not the same thing as material heresy . And without too much working of the imagination, one admits that formal heresy is pair of shoes which form a much more comfortable fit on the feet of those, um, happy-go-fluffy Catholics subscribing to the beat of a Camp Kasperesque mascot and dancing to its (looney) tune, than on the feet of conscientious Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, but who are definitely in full communion with their sense of conviction.

    As Father John Hardon S.J. explains , in his definition of a heretic : ” If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith.”

    Here’s the whole definition from Fr Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary

    HERESY. Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers.

    In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

    Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)

  17. Scott W. says:

    “PCUSA’s manipulation”

    I wonder does this mean they think there was cheating in the vote?

  18. benedictgal says:

    Maybe we need a Coetebus Presbyterium, or something like that, to welcome these folks.

  19. Pingback: Manual for Spiritual Warfare - BigPulpit.com

  20. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Cross-referencing Fr. Hardon (as quoted by Grumpy Beggar) and the Rev. Mr, Evans, “four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy” how and by whom; and how may, or must, that be related to “faithful Christians […] show[ing whomever] tough love by refusing to associate with” him/her/them? For example, as far as I can see, Bishop Bonny has publicly aligned himself with views approximating those of the successful voters in the PCUSA General Assembly 2014 and a majority of Presbyteries. What may – what ought – laity, religious, those in Orders – notably including other Bishops (including he who rejoices in the style ‘Bishop of Rome’) – do to show tough love to Bishop Bonny? What of his Diocese of Antwerp? Ought it, and all its parishes, priests, deacons, laity, be assumed to concur with him, unless they have explicitly indicated otherwise? Or ought they rather be assumed to disagree, unless they have explicitly expressed concurrence? Or what? What tough love is appropriate beyond Bishop Bonny himself?

Comments are closed.