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.

National Coming Out Day 2010 – I Am a Straight Supporter

Today is National Coming Out Day.  It’s a rather bittersweet day this year, with a number of recent publicly announced suicides of teenage LGBT folks (and probably others we don’t know about).  A few LGBTQ friends are coming out publicly this year, and numerous straight friends are coming out as allies.

I’ve been out about this for quite a long time.  Over the past year my beliefs in this area have become more nuanced, but have not really changed.  What has changed is the risk to me for making this statement.  I’m now on the “becoming a minister” track in a denomination that doesn’t officially (or even clearly unofficially) support LGBTQ folks.  So what you’ll read below is not new.  It IS important for me to say, because while the risk to me is larger than it was a year ago, it’s tiny compared to what my LGBTQ friends risk in making their statements.  I salute them for their courage and love them as their friend.

I’m old enough to have come of age (my teen years) in the late 70’s and early 80’s.  Stereotypes about LGBTQ folks were rampant.  And I didn’t know anyone who fit that label (at least not that was open to me) except for one cousin of my mother’s, who was different in other ways as well (most notably drug addiction).  I was taught the stereotypes by my parents.  In fact, I can remember being told by my parents very clearly that gays were dirty, promiscuous, and drug users.  I remember it so clearly that I remember hearing it in the back of the station wagon, and even remember what intersection we were at.

Later I started getting involved in church work as a teen.  I went to our denomination’s regional meetings, and to the every-three-years youth conference.  At both I encountered Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (PLGC – the predecessor to More Light Presbyterians) at their exhibit booth.  I quickly learned that gay folks were just like everybody else.  This challenged and ultimately overturned my parents’ prejudices instilled in me.  This would never have happened if it weren’t for LGBTQ folks who were already out of the closet publicly.  At the same time, I was learning about how the church discriminated (and still discriminates) against them in ordination, marriage, and basic acceptance.

A few years later I had the opportunity to become the Presbynet (precursor to the Internet, roughly) Coordinator for PLGC.  I served in that role as a straight supportive person for about 6 years.  Unfortunately that relationship came to an end in tension.  My beliefs survived unchanged, but I am no longer a part of an organization around these issues.

Many straight folks who are supportive are using the term “straight ally” today to describe themselves.  A good friend has convinced me that the term “ally” is fraught with confusion and inaccuracy.  An alliance is an agreement between parties for mutual support.  Nobody can call themselves an ally unilaterally.  The LGBTQQI2S community has no central structure that could possibly bestow “ally” status on me.  So I use the term “supporter” instead.  Inside my head it’s more or less the same thing – I know what I believe, I feel the call to fix the problems that this division and discrimination cause, and I see my straight privilege (well, I see the privilege better than most and better than I used to).

So here it is:

I am a straight white married man
Kamagra Available at the Affordable Prices The generic drug and even after the drug being of lower cost, it gave better results than india online viagra the branded version and it was formally found that men after a certain age experience this kind of issue due to their age issues and other pressures and obviously the wear and tear during the process. Where the impotence that is the inability to have erection or penetration buy viagra where discover for more info relates to psychological reasons it can be treated, and recurrence can be prevented. It works best when combined viagra online canada with good exercises and sex foods such as eggs, bananas, milk, juicy fruits, ginger, garlic, onion, pepper, etc. It does not mean that the decision is always cut and dry, particularly in case you are cialis generic canada too apprehensive to do this, you may do so securely.
I am an Inquirer in the PC(USA), and I’m currently applying for admission to seminaries

I believe in fully equal civil rights for the LGBTQ community, including the right to marry

I believe in fully equal ordination rights for LGBTQ people within the PC(USA)

I believe in fully equal marriage rights for LGBTQ people within the PC(USA), for those who choose marriage

I reject the different treatment of anyone based on who they choose to love, so long as they are in right relationship to their beloveds.

In particular, I want anyone (particularly young people) who feels that they need to end their life to alleviate the pain caused by bullying or other poor treatment based on their sexuality to know that I am there for you.  Send me an e-mail.  If you have my number, call me day or night.  Or call 911 or the Gay and Lesbian National Hotline 1-888-THE-GLHN (1-888-843-4564).  You are worthy of our time and love.  Give us a chance to show you.

* I use the term LGBTQ because typing “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning and Two Spirit” repeatedly is really hard on the fingers.  Please assume the longer definition.

Letter to PCUSA Special Committee on Same-Sex Marriage

The last PC(USA) General Assembly created a committee to study the issues of civil union and same-sex marriage and to make a report and recommendations to the next General Assembly, which meets in June 2010.  They recently released a preliminary report without recommendations, and requested comments and recommendations from all parts of the denomination.   Information on how to submit comments is found in this press release.

I have written a letter to the committee and e-mailed it.  I present it below for you to read.  You are welcome to comment on it here, but I would also suggest sending your own opinion to the committee.

September 29, 2009

General Assembly Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage
Presbyterian Church (USA)
100 Witherspoon Street
Louisville, KY 40202

Dear Members of the Committee,

I would like to begin by thanking you for your service on this committee, with its very difficult charter and topic.  Your ability to work together amicably gives me hope for the resolution of troubles in our denomination.

I am a member and deacon at the Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville NJ.  I would like to make it clear that my words represent only myself, and not the opinions of my congregation.

I would also like to make my position on these issues clear before making the requested recommendations and comments on your document.  I am strongly in favor of the position that homosexuality is not a sin, and therefore believe that gay people (I use that term to include all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people) should be ordained in Presbyterian churches and should be able to fully participate in Christian Marriage in the PC(USA) as defined in your document.

I would like to add some on-the-ground information to your knowledge.  Here in New Jersey the law provides for civil unions for gay couples.  An analysis of the implementing statute shows that those civil unions were intended to be identical to civil marriage in all but name – the statute clearly shows an intent to define these relationships as equal to marriages in all parts of State Law.  Our experience has been that while these rights are often granted, there are cases where through ignorance or intentional acts those rights are denied.  This includes denial of visitation in hospitals and denial of medical benefits for civil union partners because those benefits are provided under the ERISA law.  The interim report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/downloads/1st-InterimReport-CURC.pdf details these issues.

I, too, believe that our denomination is not yet of one mind on this issue.  I do not believe that we will ever be unanimous on nearly any issue, but I do believe that we will someday – through a move to agree or through departures – form a concrete opinion on gay marriage that may be implemented throughout the denomination.  We are in that “middle time” that always accompanies the discernment of proper interpretation of Scripture in the face of new information and new revelations by the Holy Spirit.

One question before us is this:  Will we choose to inhibit those new ideas as being contrary to some people’s interpretation, or will we try them out as expressions of others’ interpretations before ultimately accepting or rejecting them?  At various times in our history we have done both and someone is always unhappy.
It is critical to keep up this hole before the affection making process since the solution needs some an opportunity to get dissolved in the circulatory system india online viagra before displaying its results. The viagra shipping single dose of the Tadalis is enough to cure the problem of erectile dysfunction have made the treatment equally easy and powerful. Since prostate cancer develops with age, the idea of being more testosterone = more amount commander cialis view over here of Muscle. Widely soft cialis mastercard praised for its effectiveness in treating erectile dysfunction.
Another problem that our current rules and policies create is the Catch-22 situation of both affirming the right of gay couples to civil unions (216^th General Assembly in 2004) and prohibiting them from exercising those rights in the church.  We have told them on the one hand that we WANT them to form life-long partnerships between two people and that they CAN’T do so inside the church.  In this we act to drive a wedge between the church and those couples.  Whether or not you support gay marriage in the church, I think that we can all agree that driving people farther away from the church and farther away from God is a bad idea.  Those who oppose homosexuality lose the ability to influence these men and women, and those who are in favor of gay rights lose the ability to support stable families.

Last, we have long affirmed the right of our members and leaders to differ and still be faithful.  We have also placed the decision-making power over individual marriages with Ministers of the Word and Sacrament (on whether or not to perform the ceremony for a given couple) and Sessions (on whether or not to allow the ceremony to take place within the building).

Therefore, I commend the following recommendation to the committee for action:

That the Committee recommend to the General Assembly an Authoritative Interpretation of the Book of Order as shown below:

1. That the definition of marriage in W-4.9001 is advisory and does not constitute a restriction on the performance of marriages or civil unions between members of the same gender in those states of the United States of America that permit them by anyone authorized by the Book of Order and the state to perform marriages (W-4.9002, G-14.0562d).
2. That the definition of marriage in W-4.9001 is advisory and does not constitute a restriction on the use of church property for marriages or civil unions between members of the same gender in those states of the United States of America that permit them as long as they are authorized by the Session using similar procedures as those used for heterosexual marriage (G-10.0102d,o).
3. That no Minister of the Word and Sacrament or Commissioned Lay Pastor is required to perform a marriage or civil union that the Minister or CLP feels is contrary to their conscience. (W-4.9002)
4. That no Session is required to allow the use of church property for a marriage or civil union that it feels is contrary to its conscience. (G-10.0102d,o)
5. That no Presbytery or Synod may pass a rule restricting the Ministers or Commissioned Lay Pastors or Sessions within its jurisdiction from performing or allowing the use of property for a marriage or civil union, due to the freedom of conscience protected by the Book of Order and our polity (G-1.0305, G-6.0108, Bush et al v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh – Remedial Case 218-10).
6. That any part of any prior Authoritative Interpretation or General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission opinion contrary to this Interpretation no longer has force or effect.

It is the intent of this Authoritative Interpretation to provide a compromise position.  This would expand the definition of Christian Marriage to include those between members of the same gender, but would not require any Minister or Session to be involved in such a ceremony.  Since marriage is not explicitly required for to perform any function in the church, it is not necessary for someone who does not support same-gender marriage to recognize such a marriage performed by another Minister or in another church.  There is a strong case that ordination requires a very specific type of marriage, but it is unlikely that a Session or Presbytery would find an officer-elect being examined to be acceptable due to their actual or presumed sexual practice if they were concerned about that party’s involvement in a same-gender marriage or civil union.

I thank you for your time and consideration and apologize for this letter exceeding the requested 1000 words.  I wish you well in the remainder of your work.

Yours in Christ,

Mark Smith

Amendment B fails – Where Do We Go From Here?

This article tries to answer the question “Amendment B failed, but it got closer than ever to passing.  What do we do now?”  This entire article is my personal opinion and not the opinion of any organization or group that I belong to.  This is also likely to upset folks – particularly those at the more extreme ends of the political/theological spectrum.

Let me also lay out my personal beliefs on the issue.  I believe that gay ordination should be allowed, and that gay marriage should be allowed both by civil authorities and by the Presbyterian Church (USA).  I do not believe that any congregation should be forced to meet some quota of gay officers, and I would like to see people work out a way to ordain called officers who happen to be homosexual without violating the conscience of those doing the ordination.  I believe that the biblical standard for a homosexual relationship is similar to that for heterosexual relationships – two people in a long-term committed relationship, with some outward sign to God and the community of their commitment (ie. a marriage).

The short version:  We need a pause.  Take the next General Assembly off from this issue.

I’ll address my remarks to three groups:  progressives, conservatives, and moderates.  My writing is a combination of what I believe to be the right thing to do, and what I believe is practical.

Progressives

While what I write here may upset you, I consider myself one of you on this issue.  My statement on the issue is posted above.

I believe that it’s time to pause on this issue.

We’ve changed lots of hearts and minds.  Some of those who were against us have retired, died, or left the denomination.  The combination of those two produced the “flips” in many presbyteries.  I also believe that there is a generational shift going on regarding this issue.  I work with a youth group.  On the rare occasions that homosexuality comes up, the youth mostly are confused about why we see a problem – homosexuality is for them something that is a trait and acceptable.  Admittedly I live on the East Coast in the NYC/Philadelphia corridor, and it might be different elsewhere.  But if we wait long enough, the tide will turn on its own.

A study of the votes on this issue in the presbyteries from 96/97, 97/98 and 01/02 show an increasing number of votes against our position.  I believe that this was due to issue-weariness – to the “do we have to vote on this again?” factor.  People got tired of talking about and voting about this issue that never seems to go away.  And they took out their anger and frustration on the people pushing for the change.

While all of this is going on in the church, it’s going on in society.  States are now voting to allow gay marriage (as opposed to judicial rulings).  There have been many times in the church where society was ahead of the church in getting to the scripturally correct place on an issue.  Slavery and women’s rights are just two of those.  Our polity is designed so that the ship turns very slowly intentionally – to prevent the “fad of the season” from taking over our theology.  Normally that’s a good thing.  Sometimes, particularly for justice, that’s a bad thing.

I believe that if we push this issue at the next General Assembly, it stands a fair chance of being sent to the presbyteries again.  I believe that if this were the case, it would fail again at the presbyteries and some of the flipped presbyteries would flip back.  The next General Assembly will be considering the Form of Government again, and that is going to create its own backlash (just look at how the conservatives are already arguing about single words).  I suspect that there will be a wholesale backlash against ANY Book of Order amendment then.

So here’s what I’d do.  Take the GA off.  Re-group.  Work on education.  Hold listening sessions in presbyteries again, but without any particular reason (like an upcoming vote).  Don’t push overtures now or any time before the next GA.  Let the waters get still, and let the clarity shine through.

Some of you will tell me that I do not feel your pain, and that you cannot stay silent against this injustice.  You’re right – I will never be able to feel this specific pain.  But I’m writing this out of practical concerns.  Pushing too hard now isn’t gonna work and will hurt the cause.  If you must, then you must, but realize that you will provoke a response and may end up delaying your goal.

A word on how we progressives deal with conservatives.  Conservatives are people.  Just like us.  For the most part, they have come to their understand of Scripture and God in the same way that we have – through prayer, study, personal experience, and other people.  They have come up with a different result than we have.  They are not evil.  They are not (mostly) living their lives to hurt us.  They are trying to speak the truth in love just like us.  Their definitions are different, but their goal is still the same – to bring people to God.  Please try to remember that.  I am amazed at how we can treat people of other denominations and religions with respect but we tear into those closer to us.
Some erectile levitra no prescription dysfunction as mentioned above (Kamagra and similar drugs) can be helpful to develop an erection. This can be obtained from the DMV at any office or by viagra effects women icks.org calling the DMV. There are a lot of ED drugs made by many levitra 60 mg icks.org companies or search for the cheap alternatives like Kamagra. You will become a capable lover to impregnate her and father a child naturally. order cialis online http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482460790_add_file_4.pdf
A word on how to deal with straight people.  I’m a very strong supporter of this cause.  In the past year I’ve been called a homophobe twice – once by someone from the GLBT community and once by a straight supporter.  I’ve been told that I have internalized homophobia no matter what I think.  The facts are this:  I find male-t0-male sexual activity icky.  That has never stopped me from supporting people’s rights.  I am VERY outspoken.  It seems, however, that if I don’t follow the “company line” on strategy or each iota of belief, I’m against you.  You may feel that way.  But here’s the thing I want to tell you – nothing turns supporters against you faster than telling them that they are against you already.  After each of those events I mentioned I took a lot of time off from supporting this cause.  I saw opportunities to correct inaccuracies and to state my opinion when presented with the opposite, and I remained silent.  The danger for you is not turning friends into enemies – it’s turning friends into bystanders.  Be careful – if you’re going to label someone be prepared for the result.

Conservatives

You’ve all read what I wrote above.  And you and I disagree on this issue.  I do have some thoughts and suggestions for you.

First, I believe that the Presbyterian system only works if there is mutual respect.  Too often we (both sides) use differences on specific issues to define the other person out.  It makes us feel better – we are IN, and they are OUT.  But I do not believe that God has called us to act like that.  God wants everybody IN.  There are limits to what beliefs we can tolerate and what behaviors we can tolerate in our worship places.  But I do not feel that this issue is enough to tear apart the community.  Why can we speak so respectfully to rabbis, Baptist preachers, Catholic priests, Methodist ministers, but we cannot speak respectfully with our own people?  What I said above about people coming to their beliefs honestly through the same methods applies here – progressives may be wrong in your eyes, but they are honestly wrong rather than wrong with an ulterior motive.

Second, do what you gotta do.  Stay, fight or not, leave – whichever God calls you to.  If you want to fight then please take the high road and fight fair even if your opponents do not.  If you want to leave, then outdo others in grace and openness and let God take care of the other side.  But PLEASE let each person make up their own mind.  It’s not your job to lead congregations out of the denomination.  If they want to go on their own, then please remind them that it’s also not their job to lead their fellows out.  We are an educated denomination.  We pride ourselves on individual study with collected discussion.  Let each member make their own decision.  And let the majority rule.  You are not personally responsible for the spiritual health of each member.  You ARE responsible for guiding them, but you are not expected to coerce them.  Let them be adults and make their own decisions.

Third, you’ve won this round.  As I said to progressives after the General Assembly meeting last June, please be a good winner.  There is no need to do a victory lap.  Doing that only causes the division to widen.  Let progressives lick their wounds.

Moderates

You are by far the most important group at this time in history.  You are the largest group, holding the center and the vast majority of the membership.  On some issues, I am one of you, but on this issue I’m not.

I have a few things that I’d like to ask you to do.

First – Take a stand.  Stand up and state your opinion.  Let others know where you are on this issue.  This issue is not going to go away all that soon.  If you feel that we need to leave it alone, then say so.  If you feel that one side or the other is right, say so (this is not the same as joining that side).  Most importantly – any compromise is going to have to come from the center.  If you have an idea, let us know, and don’t stop talking about it until it becomes reality.

Second, please help to heal those at the extremes.  There are people who are wounded out there.  Go to them, help them, make them realize that the church isn’t just them and their opponents.  Remind them that church is about much more than this issue.  Be honest about your beliefs, but respect theirs.  Show the people from each side that you want them to be with you.

Third, please be a conduit for reconciliation.  Sometimes it takes a neutral party to get two opposing parties to talk to each other and resolve things.  Be that enabler. We are called to work for reconciliation in the church – be the face of Christ to your more politically involved brethren.  “I don’t care what you think about X – I want you to be here” is a very powerful thing to say.

Fourth, be the voice of reason.  Curb the excesses of thought and speech from both extremes.  Name the truth as you see it.  Be a devil’s advocate (in a very Godly way).  The truth is somewhere between the extremes.  You live in most of that territory.  Help us find the truth.

In summary – I believe that we need to take 2 years off from this battle.  There are many other problems in the world today that need us more than this – the economy, war, health, etc.  Let’s concentrate on some of those and stop our internal bickering.

Amendment B fails – where does this leave us?

This past weekend, two presbyteries voted against Amendment B – the Book of Order amendment to G6.0106b that would have removed the fidelity/chastity rule – making it easier to ordain lesbian and gay people as deacons, elders or ministers in the Presbyterian Church (USA).  This time around the vote was much closer than in the past, indicating a shift in cultural and scriptural beliefs on the subject.

I’m going to write two articles on this – this one and one to come.  Today’s article is about where we are left (in my personal interpretation) by the combination of this amendment failing and the changes to Authoritative Interpretations made by the 218th General Assembly in 2008.  The next article will be on where we should go from here politically, with my recommendations for the progressive, conservative and moderate factions.

What happened?

The 218th General Assembly took three important actions related to ordination standards:

1.  Removal of all prior Authoritative Interpretations.

As part of the same resolution that sent Amendment B to the presbyteries, the General Assembly stated:

Interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof, have no further force or effect.

That has the net effect of throwing out all prohibitions on gay ordination other than G6-0106b.  It also throws out all PJC precedents that are not based on G6-0106b.  We are left with the Authoritative Interpretation on ordination standards that was part of the PUP report, stating that ordination standards are not defined nationally, but that each ordination decision is a local decision and individual to the person in question.  Plus, there is one new AI ….

2.  Authoritative Interpretation on ordination standards

The General Assembly passed a new Authoritative Interpretation:

That the 218th General Assembly (2008) to approve the following authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 of the Book of Order:

the requirements of G-6.0108 apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).

Some call this a codification of “local option”.  I think it’s simpler than that.  It’s a codification of “individual option” – the classical Presbyterian idea that each ordination decision is made based on the individual to be ordained.  Each of us is sinful – none of us are perfect.  The question that Sessions and Presbyteries face is this – can this person do the job, is there a call, and are this person’s particular sins so heinous as to preclude their ordination?

It’s important to remember that each presbytery or session gets to make this decision based on the candidate in front of them.  And it’s also important to remember that this is done in person – with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

In a GA PJC case from earlier this year, the PJC made it clear that G-6.0106b was a mandatory standard in the Book of Order.  The decision practically warned that any future cases involving a clear departure from this standard (should it survive, which it has) would preclude ordination.

It is my sincere hope that this AI will stop the “fly-over” disciplinary cases that have been filed by the most extreme conservative members of the denomination.  Some cases have been filed by people who do not know the candidate, did not attend the meeting, and are at most only peripherally affected by the ordination decision.

3.  Amendment B
You can read Kamagra reviews to know about the effectiveness of VigRx can read reviews of the users who post their opinions on the web generic levitra sale browse around this storefront page. These are the first thing that you notice when you find a stray capsule. sildenafil generic viagra But it is not true; men may feel tired and daily fluctuations in http://www.devensec.com/forms/Applic_-_LEVEL_2.pdf cialis cheap generic sex desire. Within months of continuous use, you can absolutely feel the great improvement http://www.devensec.com/sustain/eidis-updates/IndustrialSymbiosisupdateJune2012.pdf purchase viagra online of your lifeless thin hair, making it healthier, stronger and thicker.
The General Assembly sent to the presbyteries the following amendment to G-6.0106b:

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. Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

I’ve only included the G-6.0106b amendment – there were corresponding amendments to G-14 regarding instructing Candidates on the rules.

This is the amendment that failed.  It was closer than ever (at this point 69-89 with voting continuing) but it still did not pass.  In my second post, I will talk about the climate that exists today to cause this near-success, and what that means for the future.

So Where are we now?

At this point, we need to turn to case studies.

Case 1 – a straight candidate for an ordained position, who is married and faithful to the spouse but unchaste at some point in the past (before marriage, perhaps even with the current spouse).  It is highly unlikely that this candidate will be asked about prior sexual practice.  It is also highly unlikely that the candidate will self-acknowledge this sin, or even consider it a sin.  If the issue does not come up, this person is ordainable.  If the issue does come up in the examination, the examining body would be required to decide whether or not the sin is a sufficient departure from standards.  Other bodies/people could only challenge through a disciplinary case alleging continuing conduct or lack of repentance.

Case 2 – a straight candidate for an ordained position is either married and unfaithful or single and engaging in sex.  This is a continuing practice.  It is highly unlikely that this candidate will be asked about prior or current sexual practice, unless someone has first-hand or hearsay knowledge.  It is also highly unlikely that the candidate will self-acknowledge this sin, or even consider it a sin.  If the issue does come up, the person is not ordainable.  Other bodies/people could challenge this decision by a disciplinary case alleging conduct, or via a remedial case alleging insufficient examination.  As a practical matter, the remedial case could only be filed by a church member or other session against a session, or a member of presbytery or other presbytery against a presbytery.  The immediately higher governing body could also investigate and take administrative action.

Case 3 – a homosexual person who is celibate.  It doesn’t matter how it comes up, only that the celibacy is on the record of an examination.  This person is ordainable.  Other bodies/people could only challenge this decision by a disciplinary case alleging that the candidate lied about celibacy – if that were to happen it might be beyond the pale of what Presbyterians would accept from an investigation given that it would require proof of sex (people would be mad that privacy was invaded to the degree necessary to allege this).

Case 4 – a homosexual person who is not celibate, but who is not questioned about the issue during examination.  This person is ordainable, though there will be a disconnect between his/her personal beliefs or practices and the Book of Order.  Other bodies/people could challenge this decision by a disciplinary case alleging conduct (also very ugly), or via a remedial case alleging insufficient examination.  See above for who could file a remedial case.

Case 5 – a homosexual person who is not celibate, and who is questioned during examination and makes a statement as such.  This also fits the case where a homosexual candidate is self-affirming of practice.  This person is not ordainable.  Other bodies/people could challenge this decision by a disciplinary case (based on self-acknowledged conduct) or a remedial case alleging violation of G-6.0106b.  This is the biggie – and the likely test case.  I believe that no matter what the presbytery or synod do, the GA PJC will rule that the person is not ordainable – based on their early warning in a prior case.

Case 6 – a person who states that they refuse to abide by G-6.0106b when making ordination decisions for other people.  This person is ordainable or not, depending on the ordaining body’s decision.  Other bodies/people could challenge this decision by a remedial case alleging violation of G-6.0106b.  I believe that such a case would ultimately fail at the General Assembly level.

Case 7 – a person who states that they refuse to ordain others who are elected who would violate G-6.0106b.  This person is NOT ordainable normally as a solo pastor, based on the new Authoritative Interpretation, because the person is unable to perform the constitutional function of ordaining a local officer.  I believe that special arrangements could be made with a temporary leave from their position and a Stated Supply in the extremely unlikely case that a solo pastor with such convictions would be leading a congregation that chooses to elect such an officer.  However, it would show a serious problem between the church and pastor and should come to the Committee on Ministry’s attention.  There are many other roles that this person could perform in an ordained role (pastor or associate pastor on a multi-clergy staff, teaching, mission, etc) that would not cause this problem.  If this ever happens, it’s gonna be a mess.

It should be noted that nothing above REQUIRES that a governing body find that a person is ordainable.  I believe that case 3 would be an interesting case if an elder-elect were refused ordination solely on G-6.0106b grounds – I don’t know which way the GA PJC would rule but I believe it would rule that the person should be ordained.  In all of the other cases where the person is ordainable the ordaining body has sufficient latitude in their decision to decide to ordain or not without challenge.

I know of at least one very chilling case where a person was not voted ready for ordination by his Committee on  Ministry based solely on the fact that he wanted a gay preacher of another denomination to give the charge at his ordination.  This action, and others like it nationwide, make me very concerned for the ability of the church to remain together.

Lisa Larges Decision – Synod PJC half right

Yesterday, the Synod of the Pacific PJC released it’s decision in Remedial Case 08-01, Naegeli vs. Presbytery of San Francisco.

Here’s a quick summary for those not in the know on this case.  Lisa Larges is a lesbian.  She was ordained as a Presbyterian deacon some time ago.  She has also attended seminary, and for many years has been fighting to remove prohibitions against gay ordination in the PC(USA) – in part (though probably not the greatest part) so that she can fulfill her call to ministry.  At the time of the relevant events, she was enrolled as a Candidate with the Presbytery of San Francisco.

In December of 2007, the Committee on the Preparation for Ministry (CPM) of the presbytery voted to certify her as “ready for examination with a departure”.  The departure was her unwillingness to agree to abide by the G-6.0106b requirement for chastity or fidelity in a marriage between a man and a woman.  Others call this a “scruple”.  This process was apparently made possible by the Peace, Unity and Purity report received by the 2006 General Assembly.  A CPM minority report was made recommending that she be stripped of her Candidate status.  The presbytery voted in a close vote to choose the majority report, which was passed.  After that a large number of people requested a stay of enforcement and this remedial trial against the presbytery ensued.

The Synod PJC ruled the following (to the best of my ability to understand – it’s a bit confusing):

1. The vote to certify Lisa as “ready for examination, with a departure” was out of order, because departures are considered at the time of examination.
2. The Synod PJC denied a number of specifications related to the actions of the CPM, on the basis that it had no jurisdiction over a committee of a presbytery.  Most of those involved forcing the CPM to “uphold church-wide standards”.
3. The Synod PJC admonished the presbytery to “faithfully execute its constitutional obligations to the entire church to enforce mandatory churchwide ordination standards”.  It also admonished the CPM (through the presbytery) to meet it convenantal obligations to candidates who insist on departing from mandatory standards.
4. The Synod PJC did not remove Lisa from the roll of Candidates because it cannot do so – only the presbytery may.

I believe that the Synod PJC got it half-right and half-wrong.

First, they were half-right in that the action taken by the presbytery was out of order.  It is not correct to rule that a Candidate is acceptable with a departure (or scruple) when declaring the candidate ready for examination.  That is putting the cart before the horse.  The decision on a departure is properly part of the examination itself.  The PJC pointed out that the elements of an examination were not present – Lisa’s Statement of Faith was not presented, she was not questioned.
Struggling to perform and last longer in bed? Do you want to end this generic viagra cheap issue by using natural methods? If the question of “how to stop premature ejaculation? Exercises. Since, kamagra is not usually provided without prescription, order levitra your medical profile will be checked before delivery when ordered online. Always cialis price australia stick to the prescribed dosage and never combine it with other ED drugs, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, grape fruit or grape juice to allow these medicines work effectively. Thus, every detail is worked out and a soft viagra definite blueprint is on hand prior to the actual construction.
Second, they were half-wrong in their admonishment of the presbytery on mandatory standards.  The General Assembly PJC has recently ruled that examinations are made on an individual basis by the ordaining body.  The GA PJC hinted that G-6.0106b as it stands today (and likely will stand – I believe that Amendment B will fail, unfortunately) is a mandatory standard and not allowed for a departure.  However, there has yet to be a test case under the PUP rules and recent GA PJC ruling.  I don’t know what the PJC will rule when a real examination with a real departure from G-6.0106b comes before it.  But I don’t believe that the Synod PJC is right in issuing this warning as a blanket statement.  The General Assembly PJC was VERY clear that each examination is an individual case.

If I were the Presbytery of San Francisco, this is what I would do:

1. I would again hold a vote, but this time certify Lisa as “ready for examination” without mentioning the departure.  This action should be unchallengable under this ruling, as no examination takes place.  I don’t believe further CPM action is required as their recommendation would be properly before the body as a result of the vote being rescinded.
2. I would expect that the action described in #1 would again be the subject of a remedial case, and prepare to defend it.
3. I would expect that the General Assembly PJC would support the step of approving for examination.
4. When it comes time for an actual call and examination, that’s when the real fur will fly.  I suspect that the presbytery would approve the examination, and then be the subject of a remedial case.  I expect that the General Assembly PJC would rule that Lisa is not eligible for ordination, based on their previous rulings and comments regarding the mandatory nature of G-6.0106b.

Let me be clear – I am fully in support of ordination of gay or lesbian (or any of the other categories that they tack on to the list) people being ordained provided that they are in an equivalent relationship to an acceptable heterosexual person.  I just don’t think that the rules that we have today support it, and I don’t believe that Amendment B will pass this time (though it’s gonna be close).  I also believe that this issue will continue to harm the church until it is ultimately resolved in favor of gay ordination OR it causes a split.

A side issue – the PJC chose to “exclude all media from the trial, including all electronic devices, cameras, and recording devices.”  This caused more than a little consternation from the users of the Internet service Twitter, including our own GA Moderator.  I believe that the Synod PJC overstepped its bounds in taking this action, as it is not supported in the Book of Order’s Rules of Discipline (though it would have been for a Disciplinary Case).  I have seem a growing problem in the church surrounding the issues of authenticity and transparency, including all levels of the church from the congregation to GA committees.  This is another issue that has the potential to divide the church, as young people who demand authenticity and openness see the backroom, Old Boys’ (and Girls’) Club atmosphere that is so prevalent in our congregations, presbyteries and higher bodies.  There is a clear desire on the part of some to avoid “airing our dirty laundry”, but that actually has the potential to hurt the church.  I believe that Generation Y, the Millenials, and even parts of Generation X demand openness.  These younger folks would much rather see a dispute handled well than a dispute covered up.

We’ll see what the next steps are in this case.  I believe that the presbytery will again move forward with Lisa’s quest for ordination to her calling, but that the road will continue to be bumpy.  I respect her for choosing to be a test case.

PC(USA) – if we don’t divide, how do we stop fighting?

A few weeks ago, I wrote this post about the pre-requisites for an orderly schism in the PC(USA).  I personally don’t favor dividing, but I’m just as weary as most others with the fighting that goes on because we don’t divide.

I got 5 comments in response.  Four of them were against dividing and one was in favor.

So the question for today is this – if we don’t divide, how do we stop the disagreements from tearing apart the church, and losing whole generations?

There are two hot-button issues today:  homosexuality and property rights.  A case can be made that the latter follows the former – that churches only care who has title to their property because they are considering breaking away from the denomination.  But both cases really boil down to one issue – rules and whether or not to follow them.

I believe in rules.  Rules make it possible for our society to function without decaying into a battle of the strongest and triumph of our basest emotions.  For the most part, I try to follow the rules most of the time.  This has occasionally confused people, particularly in the area of interpersonal communication where by following the rules and NOT having a hidden agenda I confuse them because they expect a hidden agenda.  Rules are generally a good thing.

Sometimes rules are a bad thing.  Sometimes rules are created or enforced in a way that gives one person or a group of people special power over others, without their consent.  This is when breaking the rules makes sense.  However, at all times you must be prepared to suffer the consequences of breaking the rule.  The privilege of being able to determine when to break the rules comes with the responsibility to accept the consequences of failing to prevail.  From a Reformed (and particularly Presbyterian) point of view – because our conception of the rules is determined by a consensus of what the Holy Spirit is telling us (through Scripture, Jesus and the working of the Spirit today) – there will be cases where faithful people will end up on the wrong side of the determination of consensus.  Some of us will believe that the Spirit is calling us to discern rule Z, and others to discern rule not-Z.  We decide by the quasi-democratic process whether Z or not-Z is right.  Those who are on the “losing” side are expected to follow the rule, or peacefully and individually separate from the communion.

Our troubles today come because people at the extremes are not following the rules.  It’s a problem on both sides.

On the progressive side, the failure to follow the rules comes when a person makes a public statement that they are or intend to have sex outside of a marriage of a man and a woman and still expect to be ordained.  That’s the rule (today, it may not be in a few months).  Ordination is limited to those who are determined by their local governing body to not be in a state of unrepentant sin.  The whole sex thing is codified specifically.  If you fail, by self-acknowledging that you are having sex with somebody other than your opposite-gender spouse, then you are not eligible.  It’s there in black and white.  I disagree, I hate the rule, and I’ll do all in my power to overturn it but it is there.  If you (progressives) are going to have any credibility with others in the church, you need to stick with the rules.  Besides, there are many ways for a gay or lesbian person to be ordained.  You can keep your mouth shut, and therefore not self-acknowledge.  You can not be asked the question in the first place.  What you can’t do is make a statement that “I’m gay, and I’m now or in the future going to act on it” and expect to be ordained.  And making statements that you have no intention of following the rules isn’t kosher either.  As I’ll say in a minute, you do have the option of going elsewhere.

This could save you a significant amount of high-fat Products can adversely impact the health condition of a person. viagra 25 mg It quiets your brain which is exceptionally fundamental for viagra canadian sexual execution. Is This Method of Treatment Safe? When performed correctly by an experienced urologist, HIFU is considered safe. purchase generic cialis viagra order uk Most people that use Zicam don’t even realize that stress can affect our bodies on the inside. (Having said all of that, I’m with you today and I’ve been with you for over 20 years in the effort to change the rule.  Let’s see how the vote goes.)

On the conservative side, the failure to follow the rules comes when a minister or session chooses to lead their church out of the PC(USA) without first following the proper procedure of working with the presbytery and being patient.  That’s the rule, and it has been since reunion.  (Note – those churches who have voted not to accept the Chapter 8 property restrictions by voting annually since reunion ARE exempt.)  Almost all of you have been ordained since reunion.  Others of you have chosen to remain in the PC(USA) since reunion – you’ve had 25 years to decide to leave.  I understand that you are concerned with the people who are not following the sex rules.  I disagree that it gives you the right to leave, but if you are that uncomfortable then so be it.  We have adequate scripture to back up your right to individually leave.  What isn’t in scripture, or the Book of Order, or the Book of Confessions is the right to expect to take your property with you.  Chapter 8 is there.  It’s the rule.  If you really can’t stand being in the PC(USA) and aren’t willing to negotiate with your presbytery and pay whatever penalty they come up with (and presbyteries – some of you aren’t playing nice either), then your recourse is to leave the church and walk down the road to whatever space you can rent/borrow/own and start a new church.  That’s the rule.  If you follow the procedure, history shows that you will eventually get to keep your building (though you might have to pay something for it).  Otherwise you have a way out – leave without the property.  But filing civil cases in order to assert property rights isn’t Christian, and it isn’t right.  And it’s not following the rules that you agreed to when you became a part of this community (the denomination) that makes its rules by communally discerning God’s will.  Don’t like it?  Overture General Assembly to remove Chapter 8.  Until now, you’ve won every vote in the presbyteries related to sex and ordination – why do you think you’d lose now?

So both sides aren’t following the rules, and they are pointing fingers at EACH OTHER yelling “He’s breaking the rules!  He’s breaking the rules!”  This in turn is attracting the attention of not just those involved in clearing up the playground fight, but the kids in the circle around them, and the kids not in the circle at all.  We’re losing people because we can’t play nice.  We’re losing people because we can’t fight respectfully and they don’t want to associate with us.  The perception is that Christians (and again – Presbyterians) spend all of their time fighting and arguing about the rules, and that Christians are judgmental and discriminatory (at least when it comes to gay people).  That’s keeping people out of the church, and a large part of a generation or two are calling themselves “spiritual but not religious”* and opting out of the church.

So the question is this:  What can we, who do not want a division, do to stop the voices that are calling for a division?  How do we stop the fighting that creates the appearance of a need for division?

I think the place to start is for those who are in the middle, those who do not want a split, to start holding those who ARE fighting to a higher standard.  We need to point out when people don’t fight fair.  We need to do the fact-checking that was done during our recent Presidential election, and counter arguments (most often from our own side) that are false.  We need to require respect for the opponent as a pre-requisite for debate.  In short – we need to make taking the high road an expectation in others.

And we also need to model humility.  When WE are called out by someone for behaving badly, we need to agree, apologize, and move on.  When OUR facts are wrong and we are correctly refuted, we need to admit that and move on (though sometimes we will be correct and defending that is the right thing to do).  In short, we need to take the high road even when others are taking the low road.

Can we do that?  I don’t know.  It’s a very high standard – one that I admit that I don’t meet 100% of the time.  But I believe that it’s what God expects us to do and what we need to do.

* I disagree with Mercadante’s conclusion that this problem is not the church’s fault.  Failure to recognize a shift and move with it is fault.  Our job is to preach the Gospel to all people in all times, and we have to be flexible about how we do that so that it (the Gospel) is received.  One key principle of communication is to use the style of the listener rather than the speaker in order for the message to be received successfully with regularity.  We in the church have too long insisted on OUR way, sometimes calling it God’s way.  I think we’ve been in the wrong on that.  Otherwise we’d be speaking Greek or Latin.

General Assembly Reactions – it’s too early

Dear blog readers,

This past weekend, and even into this week, many bloggers will be writing about what happened at General Assembly.  A significant number will write or have written about how upset they are or how joyful they are about what happened.

I want to make one recommendation – wait.  Don’t take these first emotional reactions too seriously.  As they say on Battlestar Galactica, “this has all happened before; it will happen again.”  The dust has not even begun to settle.

Let me use a fellow blogger as an example.  (Toby – if you object let me know and I’ll delete this from this post.)

On Friday evening, an upset blogger wrote that he would suspend blogging.

On Sunday, he recanted and started blogging again.

Many others are posting the blog equivalent of tearing hair and rending garments.  Let’s be real – many people have been hurt by this sea change in the denomination.  Others will be hurt in the future by either the events now set in motion or the backlash against them.
Tease generic viagra without prescriptions him and torture him in a nice way. Pills are categorized as Men’s Health pills, Women’s Health Pills, Skin care pills, Antibiotic pills, Anti depressants pills, Heart & Cholesterol pills, Sleep Aid pills, canadian pharmacies cialis Hair loss pills, Heart & Cholesterol Pills, Anxiety Pills, Pain relief Pills, and all natural pills. There are some tests for this disease that you can consider using herbal supplements or cheap tadalafil overnight other penis enlargement methods. SwimmingIn another study it was you can check here cheap viagra sales found that a man may suffer from lack of libido due to unhealthy eating habit.
Still others are failing to be good winners, and are insulting their conservative opposition either before or after the emotional reaction of the folks on the losing side.  Come on, folks.  We don’t do this.

A few important reminders:

1. Most of the changes are simply a reminder of what our polity has traditionally been, and how it has worked.  For too many years we took the ordination decisions out of the hands of the presbytery or session, and put them in the hands of the text of a rule book.  These actions return us to the days when people made individual judgments about people.
2. The presbyteries have to approve the removal of G-6.0106b.  Some say that the removal of the old Authoritative Interpretations makes that clause moot – I don’t think so.  It seems to me that fidelity and chastity are STILL the law of the land.  Others say that the ability to scruple makes that clause moot – this idea may have more merit but will require a test case.
3. Nobody will be required to ordain a gay person against the will of the ordaining minister.  One quietly passed interpretation points out that a session moderator (pastor, or some temporary replacement or supply) is obligated to ordain whoever the congregation elects as long as the session approves their examination.  This interpretation ALSO points out the session’s requirement to understand the conscience of the moderator and to make arrangements for someone else to perform ordinations where necessary – ironically under the “outdo one another in honoring one another’s decisions” clause of the PUP report.  I find this situation unlikely in the extreme – I really can’t see a session forcing a minister to ordain a gay person against their will.  In that case, the church is ready for the COM to take a look at the whole congregation/pastor relationship – it’s probably broken in many ways.  Any session that cares about their pastor would make alternate arrangements in this situation, and any pastor would do well to reconsider their call if they are in a congregation that elects someone that they disapprove of to such a degree that they will not ordain them.

I urge my fellow progressives not to celebrate too loudly.  Your cheers and in some cases jeers are painful to conservatives.  Be a good winner.

I also urge my conservative peers not to give up.  You are doing what you believe to be the most faithful thing right now (as are the progressives).  Don’t take any hasty actions.  Take time to hear God’s call for you.  Then do what you need to do.

General Assembly – BREAKING NEWS

The General Assembly passed the following resolution just now:

Interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof, have no further force or
effect.

And earlier they passed:

The Presbytery of Boston respectfully overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) to do the following:

1. Direct the Stated Clerk to send the following proposed amendment to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes:

a. Strike the current text of G-6.0106b and insert new text to read as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“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. Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to
the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their
fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

b. Amend G-14.0240 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“Preparation and Examination for Office

“When persons have been elected to the office of elder or deacon, the session shall confer with them as to their willingness to undertake the office. The session shall provide for a period of study and preparation, after which the session shall examine the officers-elect
as to their personal faith; knowledge of the doctrine, government, and discipline contained in the Constitution of the church; and the duties of the office; and readiness to assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation. If the examination is approved, the session shall appoint a day for the service of ordination and installation (see W-4.4000). If the examination is not approved for one or more elected officers, the session shall report its action to the congregation’s nominating committee, which shall bring nomination(s) to a meeting of the congregation for any office(s) not filled.”

c. Amend G-14.0450 by inserting a new paragraph “b.” and by re-lettering current paragraphs “b.” through “d.” as “c.” through “f.” The text shall read as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“Final Assessment of Readiness to Begin Ordained Ministry

In other cases it can be cured levitra overnight delivery by some effective herbal remedies for heartburn and few preventions mention below. 1. There are multiple reasons that contribute to the problem in 2006, when over 1 million of Xbox consoles were stolen from a greyandgrey.com viagra prescription lorry near Hillards Cross. Before viagra generic discount going for all those enhancing pills and related products, you can try some natural process of curing impotence. viagra samples no prescription Saw palmetto and Maca are also popular herbs that provide relief to the problem of weak pelvic floor muscles. “In the final year of theological education or when a candidate has satisfied all of the requirements of this section, and before the candidate has received a call, the committee on preparation for ministry of the candidate’s presbytery shall conduct a final assessment of the candidate’s readiness to begin ordained ministry. A summary of this assessment shall be reported to the presbytery and shall be transmitted to a calling presbytery when requested. The committee on preparation for ministry shall report to the presbytery when it has certified a candidate ready for examination for ordination, pending a call. This consultation shall focus on the outcomes of inquiry and candidacy and shall include each of the following requirements of certification:

“a. demonstration of readiness to begin ministry of the Word and Sacrament as required to fulfill the candidacy phase of preparation;

“b. demonstration of readiness to assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation;

“b. c. presentation of a transcript showing satisfactory grades at a regionally accredited
college or university, together with a diploma;

“c. d. presentation of a transcript from a theological institution accredited by the Association of Theological Schools acceptable to the presbytery, the transcript showing satisfactory grades, and presentation of a plan to complete the theological degree including Hebrew and Greek and exegesis of the Old and New Testaments using Hebrew and Greek texts;

“d. e. presentation of satisfactory grades together with the examination papers in the five
areas covered by the Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates.”

2. Provide the following authoritative interpretation:

That the 218th General Assembly (2008) to approve the following authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 of the Book of Order:

“[The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112, interprets]the requirements of G-6.0108 [to] apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give  prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”

Here’s my reading.

1. Right this second, it is legal for a gay person who does not admit to sex to be ordained.  This was true before, but it’s bolstered a bit now.
2. If the Book of Order changes pass, gay ordination will be allowed, regardless of sexual practice.  It will be up to the presbyteries to determine whether an individual’s practice is a sin.
3. It is now more difficult to file a case against a body’s examination of an individual if you aren’t involved (“fly-over” judicial cases).

The real decision will happen between now and June 28, 2009 when the presbyteries are required to vote on these changes.  I suspect we’ll have an answer next March.

I predict that the progressives will party (particularly MLP and the pro-gay folks), the conservatives will make a lot of noise about lack of faithfulness, and a few conservatives will leave.  The news media will misinterpret this as allowing gay ordination today, and this will confuse many pew-sitters.

And we’ll all still be in worship someplace on Sunday.

Next Page »

• November 2024

  S	M	T	W	T	F	S
  					1	2
  3	4	5	6	7	8	9
  10	11	12	13	14	15	16
  17	18	19	20	21	22	23
  24	25	26	27	28	29	30

• Archives

  • April 2016
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • May 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • October 2012
  • September 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004

• Web Stuff

  
  

  Presbyterian Bloggers Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next Powered by RingSurf

  
  

  

  

  

• Search for:

• Categories

  • Admin
  • Books
  • Can't Make This Up
  • Candidate Process
  • Chaplaincy
  • Church New Member Process
  • Current Affairs
  • Dead Pool
  • Environment
  • Fancy Shmancy
  • Film
  • Flying
  • Food and Drink
  • Games
  • Ham Radio
  • Hospice
  • Job Search
  • Life
  • Miscellaneous
  • Music
  • Picture a Day
  • Princeton Seminary
  • Religion
  • Science
  • Seminary
  • Sermons
  • Shoot Yourself in the Foot
  • Sports
  • Television
  • Travel
  • Uncategorized
  • Web/Tech
  • Weblogs
  • Work
  • Young Adult
  • Youth

• Recent Posts

  • Things People Say to Hospice Chaplains
  • Open Letter regarding PCUSA 2015 One Great Hour of Sharing materials
  • A Holy Moment
  • RIP Isaac the Cat (1996-2014)
  • Capital Health Systems Pastoral Care Newsletter, October 2014

• Recent Comments

  • Laurie (Peterson) Minieri on A Sad Story
  • An early friend 😊 on A Sad Story
  • Laurie Minieri on A Sad Story
  • Susan on A Sad Story
  • Beth Ross on PC(USA) – if we don’t divide, how do we stop fighting?

• Tags

  aviation birthday blog bruce reyes-chow bush camp johnsonburg cat cats church deacon death Environment Flying ga218 gay marriage Ham Radio health homosexuality Job Search lawrenceville montreat new member new member class nj ordination pcusa picture a day prayer request presbyterian Princeton Seminary project open door reconnecting with faith retreat seminary sermon solar energy stewardship terrorism theology trenton devils trenton titans wife Work Youth youth ministry

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org