Quick Links
Categories
My iTunes
My Flickr
My Blogroll
Archives and Links
Browse archives by date
My Old Blog
My Homepage
100 Things About Me
My Book List
My Husband
My Church
MoreLight Presbyterians
The Presbyterian Church USA
The Monkey Sphere
Mark Morford, SF Gate
Miss Manners
My Old Blog
My Homepage
100 Things About Me
My Book List
My Husband
My Church
MoreLight Presbyterians
The Presbyterian Church USA
The Monkey Sphere
Mark Morford, SF Gate
Miss Manners
XML/RSS Feed
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 07, 2009 10:28 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 07, 2009 10:28 AM
About 30 years too late...
This is another one of those Presbyterian posts,
so if you find those boring, feel free to skip it. Rather than list all my
previous PCUSA posts, I've collected them here.
Anyway. If you've been following these posts for any length of time, you know about the debate in the Presbyterian Church USA regarding the ordination of queer* folks. Blah, blah, blah, all the usual stuff: filing charges, witch hunts, church trials, etc. Those that are against queer ordination regularly issue their threats of schism, threats of secession, threats of taking their toys and going home. Yadda, yadda, yadda. A teeny, tiny number of churches have decided that their principles were more important than their property and actually have done what they said they'd do: they left. The rest bluster a lot, but they're too tied to their property to leave.
One solution to these ordination arguments that has been brought up over the years is something people call "local option." I hesitate to even call it a "solution" because, in fact, it's exactly what we're supposed to be doing in the first place, according to classical Presbyterian polity. The idea is that local church sessions ordain those elders and deacons whom they are called to ordain, and Presbyteries do the same for ministers. It's important to remember that this isn't a new idea, in fact, that's precisely how ordination is supposed to work in the PCUSA. Or it was, until the busybodies and fusspots started deciding it was their job to be the Gladys Kravitzes of our denomination.
The radical right fringe has been against so-called "local option" for years, chiefly, as far as I can understand, because then they wouldn't get to tell people what to do, even though local option is precisely what Presbyterian polity is based upon. (Just as in politics, don't expect conservatives to actually be ... you know ... conservative.) So, they've seen it as their God-Given duty to enshrine their particular beliefs about the queers in our Book of Order (our denominational constitution.) Well, that's their right. We do allow such things in the PCUSA, and they've been very successful. But lately, they've seen defeat after defeat after defeat. So now, instead of either 1) bucking up and taking it like adults, or 2) leaving, they're 3) writing "Declarations", which is probably the only thing even less useful or effective than their threats of schism. Oh look! We signed a piece of paper! Well, hey ... good for them ... whatever floats their boat.
This new "Declaration,"** from one of the most radically right wing Presbyteries in the country, says they've decided not to ordain people they don't want to ordain, ie. the queers. (Oh, and by the way, just so you know, they're not particularly thrilled about those Jews or Muslims, either, but that's another blog post.) In the meantime they're going to ignore Presbyterian polity, which is precisely what they have (accurately) accused people like me of doing, regarding ordination and marriage. I have ignored polity in order to do the right things: get ordained, and get married. They call that "local option", which they're against. They're now going to ignore polity in order to do the wrong things: deny ordination of queers, and work against gay marriage ... but they're quick to mention that isn't "local option" and now they're all for it. Um. Yeah. Right. The fact that they characterize this as being anti-local option is pretty hilarious, but again, as with the far right of American politics, they're missing the irony gene. It's about 30 years too late, but I'm glad they finally understand classical Presbyterian polity.
There are a couple things to quibble about in this statement. First, I find it a little surprising that they state that they "will not recant these statements." Apparently they've reached perfect knowledge and understanding, one might even say ... infallibility. The second, and much larger problem is that they claim that they will refuse to obey Church discipline, something I find pretty amazing. You see, plenty of queers like myself have been ordained and married in the PCUSA, and the other side has regularly filed charges against us and our straight allies***. What we have not done -- what not a single one of us has ever done -- has been to refuse to obey Church discipline****. It's classic non-violent opposition. You submit to the unjust law or rule in order to show how unjust it is. You choose to suffer, instead of causing someone else to suffer. Some people have renounced their ordination and left the church, but none of us on this side has ever failed to obey the Church's discipline, we go to these trials they put on, we meet with their Crucible-like investigating committees, but we don't ignore the discipline. I think it's interesting that instead of simply leaving, they've chosen this way to violate their ordination vows, which specifically state that deacons, elders, or ministers will submit to church discipline.
But while there's lots to dislike about this Declaration, and I never mind having a little fun at their expense, I didn't write this blog post just to slam the radical right in our denomination. Heck, that's too easy. While I'm glad they finally found their way toward recognizing classical Presbyterian Polity (mostly), there's something I honestly, seriously, really like about this Declaration even more. Unlike all their past actions of attacking the queers and their allies, filing charges, investigating committees, church trials, and witch hunts, with this Declaration they're actually putting their own necks on the line, instead of attacking someone else. For the first time in 30 years of fighting, they've found a way to stand up for what they believe without trying to get anyone fired, without prying into someone's private life, without being a busybody or fusspot, without attacking someone. That is perhaps one of the very first and most significant changes in their modus operandi in the last 30 years.
Sure, this Declaration says they're not going to ordain those awful queers, but who cares? Only a crazy person would seek ordination in that Presbytery anyway if they were out and queer. This Declaration doesn't apply to any closet cases who have already been ordained there -- and I have no doubt there are more than few -- so the statement that they won't ordain queers is meaningless. What it really means is they won't ordain queers they know about. (But they're either not clever enough to see that distinction, or they're going to rectify that situation as soon as possible.)
Through this Declaration, as otherwise meaningless as it is, maybe, just maybe, the other side will come to understand what we queers and our allies have known for 30 years: that standing up for what you believe in involves risk, and it's only a moral action if that risk is to yourself alone; not through using violence against your perceived enemies.
Finally our two sides may have something common. Given some time to see how this plays out, we may eventually be able to greet them with open arms, and a hearty, "Welcome back to the Church, brothers and sisters!"
h/t Classical Presbyterian
*Note: In the past, some folks have taken issue with my use of the word "queer". I find it more useful than LGBT. It is common parlance in the queer community, I think it is more inclusive, easier to say, and even normally skittish television networks use it freely (eg Queer Eye for the Straight Guy). I won't be having that argument again. It's 2008. Let's move on, shall we? If it's really a big deal for the reader, I suggest copying and pasting this post into a Word document, and then doing a search and replace of the word "queer" with "LGBT" if you really are that wigged out by it.
**Note: This analysis is based on the conclusion portion of this document, I haven't seen the entire thing yet.
***Note: Just to be clear, I've never had charges filed against me, though our Pastor has, and our Church has had some issues with Presbytery. They don't go after small-fry like me, because I'm only an elder. I suspect that filing charges against me wouldn't bring the satisfaction of bringing charges against a Pastor and thus potentially getting someone fired.
****Note: As far as I know. If there is an example of someone refusing discipline from our side, I've never heard of it, and I'm pretty informed on these matters.
Anyway. If you've been following these posts for any length of time, you know about the debate in the Presbyterian Church USA regarding the ordination of queer* folks. Blah, blah, blah, all the usual stuff: filing charges, witch hunts, church trials, etc. Those that are against queer ordination regularly issue their threats of schism, threats of secession, threats of taking their toys and going home. Yadda, yadda, yadda. A teeny, tiny number of churches have decided that their principles were more important than their property and actually have done what they said they'd do: they left. The rest bluster a lot, but they're too tied to their property to leave.
One solution to these ordination arguments that has been brought up over the years is something people call "local option." I hesitate to even call it a "solution" because, in fact, it's exactly what we're supposed to be doing in the first place, according to classical Presbyterian polity. The idea is that local church sessions ordain those elders and deacons whom they are called to ordain, and Presbyteries do the same for ministers. It's important to remember that this isn't a new idea, in fact, that's precisely how ordination is supposed to work in the PCUSA. Or it was, until the busybodies and fusspots started deciding it was their job to be the Gladys Kravitzes of our denomination.
The radical right fringe has been against so-called "local option" for years, chiefly, as far as I can understand, because then they wouldn't get to tell people what to do, even though local option is precisely what Presbyterian polity is based upon. (Just as in politics, don't expect conservatives to actually be ... you know ... conservative.) So, they've seen it as their God-Given duty to enshrine their particular beliefs about the queers in our Book of Order (our denominational constitution.) Well, that's their right. We do allow such things in the PCUSA, and they've been very successful. But lately, they've seen defeat after defeat after defeat. So now, instead of either 1) bucking up and taking it like adults, or 2) leaving, they're 3) writing "Declarations", which is probably the only thing even less useful or effective than their threats of schism. Oh look! We signed a piece of paper! Well, hey ... good for them ... whatever floats their boat.
This new "Declaration,"** from one of the most radically right wing Presbyteries in the country, says they've decided not to ordain people they don't want to ordain, ie. the queers. (Oh, and by the way, just so you know, they're not particularly thrilled about those Jews or Muslims, either, but that's another blog post.) In the meantime they're going to ignore Presbyterian polity, which is precisely what they have (accurately) accused people like me of doing, regarding ordination and marriage. I have ignored polity in order to do the right things: get ordained, and get married. They call that "local option", which they're against. They're now going to ignore polity in order to do the wrong things: deny ordination of queers, and work against gay marriage ... but they're quick to mention that isn't "local option" and now they're all for it. Um. Yeah. Right. The fact that they characterize this as being anti-local option is pretty hilarious, but again, as with the far right of American politics, they're missing the irony gene. It's about 30 years too late, but I'm glad they finally understand classical Presbyterian polity.
There are a couple things to quibble about in this statement. First, I find it a little surprising that they state that they "will not recant these statements." Apparently they've reached perfect knowledge and understanding, one might even say ... infallibility. The second, and much larger problem is that they claim that they will refuse to obey Church discipline, something I find pretty amazing. You see, plenty of queers like myself have been ordained and married in the PCUSA, and the other side has regularly filed charges against us and our straight allies***. What we have not done -- what not a single one of us has ever done -- has been to refuse to obey Church discipline****. It's classic non-violent opposition. You submit to the unjust law or rule in order to show how unjust it is. You choose to suffer, instead of causing someone else to suffer. Some people have renounced their ordination and left the church, but none of us on this side has ever failed to obey the Church's discipline, we go to these trials they put on, we meet with their Crucible-like investigating committees, but we don't ignore the discipline. I think it's interesting that instead of simply leaving, they've chosen this way to violate their ordination vows, which specifically state that deacons, elders, or ministers will submit to church discipline.
But while there's lots to dislike about this Declaration, and I never mind having a little fun at their expense, I didn't write this blog post just to slam the radical right in our denomination. Heck, that's too easy. While I'm glad they finally found their way toward recognizing classical Presbyterian Polity (mostly), there's something I honestly, seriously, really like about this Declaration even more. Unlike all their past actions of attacking the queers and their allies, filing charges, investigating committees, church trials, and witch hunts, with this Declaration they're actually putting their own necks on the line, instead of attacking someone else. For the first time in 30 years of fighting, they've found a way to stand up for what they believe without trying to get anyone fired, without prying into someone's private life, without being a busybody or fusspot, without attacking someone. That is perhaps one of the very first and most significant changes in their modus operandi in the last 30 years.
Sure, this Declaration says they're not going to ordain those awful queers, but who cares? Only a crazy person would seek ordination in that Presbytery anyway if they were out and queer. This Declaration doesn't apply to any closet cases who have already been ordained there -- and I have no doubt there are more than few -- so the statement that they won't ordain queers is meaningless. What it really means is they won't ordain queers they know about. (But they're either not clever enough to see that distinction, or they're going to rectify that situation as soon as possible.)
Through this Declaration, as otherwise meaningless as it is, maybe, just maybe, the other side will come to understand what we queers and our allies have known for 30 years: that standing up for what you believe in involves risk, and it's only a moral action if that risk is to yourself alone; not through using violence against your perceived enemies.
Finally our two sides may have something common. Given some time to see how this plays out, we may eventually be able to greet them with open arms, and a hearty, "Welcome back to the Church, brothers and sisters!"
h/t Classical Presbyterian
*Note: In the past, some folks have taken issue with my use of the word "queer". I find it more useful than LGBT. It is common parlance in the queer community, I think it is more inclusive, easier to say, and even normally skittish television networks use it freely (eg Queer Eye for the Straight Guy). I won't be having that argument again. It's 2008. Let's move on, shall we? If it's really a big deal for the reader, I suggest copying and pasting this post into a Word document, and then doing a search and replace of the word "queer" with "LGBT" if you really are that wigged out by it.
**Note: This analysis is based on the conclusion portion of this document, I haven't seen the entire thing yet.
***Note: Just to be clear, I've never had charges filed against me, though our Pastor has, and our Church has had some issues with Presbytery. They don't go after small-fry like me, because I'm only an elder. I suspect that filing charges against me wouldn't bring the satisfaction of bringing charges against a Pastor and thus potentially getting someone fired.
****Note: As far as I know. If there is an example of someone refusing discipline from our side, I've never heard of it, and I'm pretty informed on these matters.
Posted: Fri - September 5, 2008 at 11:28 AM