10A – Relief, Joy and Fear
Last summer, the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed a change to the Book of Order, section G-6.0106b (or G-2.0104 in the New Form of Government). It was sent to the presbyteries for their concurrence, requiring 87 presbyteries to approve before it would take effect. That was labeled amendment “10A”. This amendment changes the standards for ordination, reversing the addition in 1996 of a specific “sin” (I reject that definition) that became an absolute bar to ordination. This change returns the Book of Order to the historic standard that ordaining bodies (Session for [Ruling] Elders and Deacons, Presbytery for Ministers [Teaching Elders]) would look at the whole character of the ordinand, judging whether or not their individual nature (which we believe to be unavoidably sinful in some manner) was good enough to lead the church.
In 1996, the Book of Order was amended to prevent ordination of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people. That version reads:
b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.
The new version that will take effect on July 10, 2011 reads:
b. Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.
This returns the church to its traditional polity – having local ordaining bodies make individual decisions on individual candidates. It should also be noted that a recent GA Permanent Judicial Commission case established a bar on the creation of lists of ordination standards to be applied to all candidates – each candidate must be considered individually.
I applaud this change. I have felt for years and years that the discrimination and injustice and outright hostility shown by the denomination towards LGBT people has done serious harm, both to those LGBT people AND to the rest of us in the denomination. While it wasn’t the primary trigger, this discrimination (in other forms prior to 1996) was a reason for my departure from the church in 1987. I worked for PLGC (Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns – now knows as More Light Presbyterians) for 6 years after that as their volunteer coordinator for Presbynet, a church computer network. The continued discrimination against LGBT people delayed my return to the church until 2006 – for a number of years I considered a return occasionally, found the discrimination still present, and set aside the impulse. Ultimately I decided that returning was the right thing to do and that I should work as best I can to rectify the situation. I hope that I had at least an itty-bitty tiny part in making this happen.
I have also seen the pain and anguish that the injustice has caused in the hearts of friends who turned away from their call from God, or pushed through with their call while having to hide an important part of themselves. It’s my earnest hope that they will experience some healing. I also hope that those who turned away from the church will come back now.
Those of us who have worked to some degree for this change experienced a number of emotions last night. One friend tweeted that she was weeping in a room full of strangers. Others yelled and screamed their joy. Some were able to gather to celebrate in community. I experienced this joy too, though I was unable to express it openly as I was in another presbytery meeting and we were considering the sad need to dissolve a dying congregation. I am glad to hear of the joy, and I applaud the joy. I’m glad to see it expressed – particularly by those who are most directly affected by the change. Emotions are an important part of healing. And I believe that this is truly a wonderful working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church.
You are also advised to consume healthy diet to keep diabetes at bay includes ones look at here levitra on line that is high in fiber. The more we age, the more there is least chance of viagra 50 mg being physically active. A number of prescription drugs are available to help men with erectile issues, levitra best prices have a peek at this store is one amongst very effective, reliable, functional and cost effective treatments. It is true that with age, our body gets baffled and begins killing our own purchasing viagra body cells.
Those who fought this change – who fought for the 1996 change – are understandably upset. Some are talking about the increased departure of members from our churches. That’s a complex issue – some have certainly departed because they felt that the church was too progressive, but I believe that the majority of those who have left did so through apathy, disinterest, or death. Our church is aging through the failure to retain our youngest members, and I believe that the discrimination against LGBT folks has caused our young adults to turn elsewhere. Some of these upset folks are threatening to leave, or to carve out a corner in the denomination friendly to their beliefs alone. Folks who are opposed to gay ordination are upset, angry and hurting. They are children of God as much as the LGBT community that was hurt by past actions. I believe that it’s important to remember that. Our polity is based on communal discernment with the aid of the Spirit, and as a result will almost always have people on the “losing” side who felt quite correctly that their words and acts are guided by the Spirit. I believe that there is power in the process of discernment itself, though it is messy and painful at times. I am praying for those who can now be ordained as they should have been in the past, AND for those who felt that they should not be ordained. This anger should also be expressed, but I hope that it is done in a manner that does not harm others and remembers that our “enemies” are children of God.
There is also a lot of fear. I had a conversation with a fellow church member yesterday who calls himself “conservative”. He expressed not a desire to leave, but the fear that others would act on their desire to leave as a result of this change. I countered (in my reflexive style on these issues) that others had already left because of the discrimination, and others had failed to join us for that reason. (I’m a bit sorry about that now.) This is a very real fear. Some will do so in a knee-jerk reaction – in many cases inflamed by those who have already said that the church has turned away from biblical standards (posted online minutes after the vote last night).
Others will leave because they believe that their presence with others who hold a different belief constitutes endorsement of that belief. I find this to be generally true of conservatives, and generally not true for progressives. As a friend tweeted yesterday (on a related issue): “I think it points to the idea that conservatives see inclusion as acceptance and affirmation. libs can separate inclusion from acceptance.” I reject the notion that inclusion implies acceptance, but then I am progressive. Additionally, I feel very strongly called to stand between the opposing sides and communicate with both – and hopefully get them to communicate with each other. Part of that comes from my project management training and experience (the IT vs. line-of-business divide is every bit as severe as the conservative/liberal split). But part of that comes from a very real call that I feel to help others reconcile. (Getting myself to reconcile with others …. let’s just say that I’m working on that.)
In the youth ministry world we are talking about a change in how people become engaged in Christian community. The old model was “Believe -> Behave -> Belong” – that we first had to have the right beliefs, then act appropriately, and then were acceptable for full membership. The new model is “Belong -> Behave -> Believe”. We learn and change and grow by the process of being in community first, followed by adopting the behaviors of the community, which helps cause our belief. It’s this process of communal shaping by rubbing against each other (stop snickering!) that is at the heart of our polity of communal, in-person discernment of God’s will for the Church. We only see God’s will fully in community with each other. I have said that I see God in others more often than I see God in other ways.
We will only grope our way to the Truth by staying together and working together and praying together. And so it is my hope that we will do just that – remain together. If it turns out that this change is wrong, God will make a correction happen. If it turns out to be right (as I believe), then we will all see it as life unfolds. Those who are hurting so much that they cannot remain should be allowed to depart with dignity and love. But I truly hope that we will all stay. It’s time for the end result of a fight during a hockey game – sharing a beer together after the game and laughing about it.
To conclude, I believe that this new day is a good day. And I pray for all whose lives have changed in this process, for perceived good and perceived bad. We are all part of the Church.
PresbyMEME: Why I am voting yes on Amendment 10a
Sometime between now and next Summer, presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be voting on changes to our Book of Order and Book of Confessions. One of those changes is labeled Amendment 10-A, changing a paragraph in the Book of Order (G-6.0106b) that was added in 1997. The current text of that paragraph reads:
Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.
The new version would read:
Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.
The history of this paragraph is unquestioned. It was added to the Book of Order in 1997 in response to the controversy over the ordination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer individuals to the offices of Deacon, Elder or Minister of the Word and Sacrament (with most of the controversy over Ministers). The existing language is the only place in the Book of Order where an individual “sin” is chosen as something that would make an individual ineligible for ordained office. (I use quotes around the word sin because I personally do not agree that homosexual activity is sin.)
Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, a friend of mine and moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA), has created a meme in the blogging world around the voting on this amendment. He has a list of questions and answers for those who support this change.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: I am not an elder or minister, and will not actually get to vote on this amendment. But if I were able to vote, this is how I would vote. I will be attending the meetings of presbytery dealing with this amendment as an observer.
So here goes:
Name, City State: Mark Smith, Hamilton, NJ
I can be found on Twitter and Facebook. (I’m protected on twitter but welcome follow requests)
It keeps your elimination system relaxed that further puts your entire system healthy. sildenafil tablets 100mg The medicine is capable to understand the origin, treatment and prevention cialis price of the complex and chronic diseases that your body gets enough time for repair and regeneration. However this option has side effects online levitra 2. But perhaps it’s cheap cialis midwayfire.com the supplement’s ability to help out with enhancing the male’s sexual performance is the most sought-after benefit. My church is in the Presbytery of New Brunswick and I am an Inquirer under care of the presbytery (and a Deacon at my church). Our vote will occur on March 8, 2011. A special meeting of the presbytery where no action will be taken will be held on February 8, 2011 for the purpose of discussing the proposed changes to the Book of Order and Book of Confessions.
The FIRST reason that I would vote for this amendment is that it restores the Presbyterian principle that those responsible for determining the fitness for ordination of an individual be the people who know that person best. For Elders and Deacons, that’s the Session of their church. For Ministers, that’s the Presbytery. Let’s face it, we are all sinners of one variety or another. If sinlessness were required for holding office, none of us would be eligible. What the current language of G-6.0106b does is elevate a group of “sins” to a position of primacy – indicating that history of some sins is acceptable in ordained individuals but that some “sins” are never acceptable. The reason that our polity traditionally uses communal discernment and personal knowledge of the ordinand is that it leaves room for the Holy Spirit to work in the hearts and minds of those making the decision and in the heart and mind of the ordinand. Reducing eligibility for ordination to a checklist is idolatry of the checklist, and idolatry of those who created the checklist.
The SECOND reason that I would vote for this amendment is that I don’t believe that homosexual practice is sin. (I could go on with jokes about the word “practice”, but I use it here because it was used in the original Definitive Guidance to separate orientation from activity.) I have read the handful of scriptures that are purported to establish a prohibition on sexual activity between people of the same gender. I have read the arguments on the interpretation of those scriptures, and I find the most compelling argument to be that the actual Hebrew and Greek words mean something other than a loving balanced relationship between people (generally they are referring to temple prostitution or forced sexual activity or the use of the sexual act in a manner contrary to the God-given orientation of the actor). So I don’t see the sin here. No sin, no prohibition.
The THIRD reason that I would vote for this amendment is that I know a number of folks who are not exclusively heterosexual and who are very clearly (to me) called by God to be leaders of God’s Church. Some are already ordained. Some are in the process and a few are stuck because of this issue. Some have left the PC(USA) to its detriment. And some may be hearing the call of God but are ignoring it because they know that the PC(USA) will prevent them from ever fulfilling it. This makes me sad, and it makes me angry. I trust that God is working to fix this situation and that I do not understand all of God’s ways.
What are your greatest hopes for the 10a debate that will take place on the floor of your Presbytery? I hope that the discussion will be both loving and real. Our presbytery has some very liberal members, some rather conservative members, and a lot of people somewhere in between. Like every other presbytery there are sometimes heated discussions. But I do not feel actual hatred on the floor of our presbytery. The worst that I feel is frustration that we can’t work out our issues, and frustration with the tension between what each person believes is God’s message and the difference with what others believe. I see a true spirit of trying to bridge that gap in tension with standing up for God’s message as each person interprets it. What I hope for this discussion is that it will be held in that place of love and respect, rather than degenerating into hatred and pain. I have a lot of optimism about this.
How would you respond to those that say that if we pass 10a individuals and congregations will leave the PC(USA)? We’re already losing people. I was out of the church for over 15 years. This issue was one reason. The judgment and control over others’ lives shown by the concentration on people’s bedroom behavior turned me away. I had decided that church was all about a small group of people trying to control a larger group of people. I’ve come back because my theology about people has changed. I see that all are sinners, that all are saints. I see the attempt to control others’ behavior as a part of their attempt to do what they believe God is calling them to do. But make no mistake – we’re losing people (particularly young people) because our concentration on controlling others’ behaviors rather than our own has painted us as judgmental and controlling. If those who feel the need to control others leave because they find themselves unable to do so, so be it. I will mourn their departure. But know that our inward focus and focus away from ourselves and on others (Matt. 7:1-5) is causing us to bleed our future. God calls us to be righteous in ourselves and to do God’s work in the world. God calls us to guide others. But I do not feel that God calls us to coerce others.
What should the Presbyterian Church focus on after Amendment 10a passes? My flip answer to this question is “Go have a beer together at the bar”. And I think that’s part of the answer. We need to put aside our disagreement on this issue and find commonality with those who disagree with us on one or two issues. I have always said that church fights should be like hockey fights – battle with all you’ve got for a few minutes, and then go have a beer together after the game and laugh about it. Then, when we’ve made some progress restoring our relationships, it’s time to face outward again. Mission should be our focus – both mission in the form of evangelism and mission in the form of helping others.
How does your understanding of Scripture frame your position on 10a? First, I am not yet a scriptural scholar. That will soon change to some degree. So I rely on others to do the heavy lifting in the areas of exegesis and translation. Today, I see Scripture as a document inspired by God which has been handled by humans and as a result is as imperfect as we are. We only need to look to the recent admission of intentional mis-translation of the Heidelberg Catechism to see how human beings likely have changed Scripture to suit their beliefs and motivations. Add to that a need to understand what the words meant to the authors, as opposed to what they mean to us today. That’s how I see Scripture. And it has framed my position on this issue – some folks just aren’t reading Scripture the way it was intended. The hard part is figuring out who (or which side) that is. That’s where we need the input of the Holy Spirit, and communal discernment. And I believe firmly in the statements that “men [sic] of good characters and principles may differ” (G-1.0305) and that “they [the Church as a body] may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow” (G-1.0302). These are Scripturally-derived principles, and our Church and any other institution created by mankind is subject to them. I have no doubt that if you ask me in 3 1/2 years as I walk to graduate with an M.Div. degree that my answer will be different. This is how I see it today.
Web Stuff
Presbyterian Bloggers Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next
