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
Presbyterian Ineptitude... UPDATED
Updated. See
below.
The background: In 2005, Reverend Janet Edwards, a Presbyterian minister presided at the wedding of two women. After the wedding announcement was published in a local newspaper, some Presbyterian busybody decided to file ecclesiastical charges against her for conducing this ceremony. However, the charges were filed too late and therefore were dismissed. The fundies in the church howled that the dismissal on a technicality was simply the Presbytery's way of getting out of making a decision. However, the statute of limitations is clearly described in our Book of Order (part of our denomination's constitution.) No one knows why it wasn't filed in time. But the fundies, ever ready to proclaim themselves martyrs of the liberal elite bureaucrats who run the PCUSA, were sure this was all just a scam. (Never mind the fact that the members of the Permanent Judicial Commission (ie. the church court) who voted to dismiss the charges are simply members of the Presbytery, and are not bureaucrats, but people who are elected by the other members of the Presbytery, in this case a very conservative Presbytery. Also never mind the inherent contradiction of going through with a trial against someone for violating the Book of Order, when that would have required the Presbytery itself to violate the Book of Order by accepting charges filed past the statute of limitations.)
Then new charges were filed (mostly by people who admit they've never even met Rev. Edwards -- itself a clear violation of Biblical principles, but that's a whole 'nuther blog post) and the trial began again yesterday and has continued today. The prosecution delayed presenting their case yesterday because they weren't prepared, and today they didn't have a single witness available. Now remember, this is the second time over the course of two years that they've had to prepare for this case, and there were 13 people who signed the complaint. And yet they still screwed it up. I'm not even sure how many of those 13 people even bothered to show up. Maybe they just can't read a calendar and forgot which day the trial was being held. Or perhaps they had better things to do with their time, like wash their hairshirts or sharpen their cilices or something.
Guess what? She was found not guilty, unanimously. In spite of the fundie insults and complaining that has already begun, the Pittsburgh Presbytery is not some group of latte swilling east coast liberals. It is, in fact, one of the more conservative Presbyteries in the country. They voted *for* the ban on LGBT ordination. They voted for an overture that would have made that ban "essential." These are pretty conservative folks. And yet the fundies can't even be bothered to call witnesses in a trial on gay marriage in this conservative presbytery, where they may have actually had a chance at winning. In fact, the PJC stated that the prosecution was so inept that, "The Prosecuting Committee has failed to meet the burden of proof that the accused carried out a marriage ceremony at all." They couldn't even prove that a marriage ceremony was conducted when the accused admitted it! Fortunately for the Prosecuting Committee this isn't civil court, or they'd likely be sued for malpractice.
Now this sort of ineptness on the part of the prosecutors would be only mildly interesting/entertaining if this were the only instance of it. While there have been a small number of trials in which the fundies have actually bothered to show up, in many, many others the fundies who file the charges fail to show up, fail to present evidence, fail to file charges on time, and fail to cooperate with investigating committees. Again and again and again. So, over and over and over, their charges get dismissed because there is no case if the prosecution doesn't actually prosecute.
I know I should be pleased that these people are so incompetent, unprofessional, ineffectual, and pathetic but I'm really not. These bungling, bumbling, and botched attempts at filing charges do nothing but waste time and resources. So maybe .... hmmmm ....
What if their strategy isn't inept? What if inept is their strategy?
See, our Book of Order doesn't actually prohibit same sex marriage. It never says, "You can't do this." Period. The fundies know that but rather than attempt to amend our Book of Order to ban same sex marriages, they'd rather file charges. It's easier. So here's where their strategy comes into play. They then demonstrate such complete Keystone Kop-style bumbling ineptitude that the charges are dismissed, which was their plan all along. That way they can continue to tell the story to their supporters that the big, bad, evil, liberal members of the PCUSA refuse to stand up for so-called "traditional" marriage. That is, they get to portray themselves as martyrs to their supporters. (And probably make a lotta coin along the way. Just as in secular politics, gay marriage is a big money maker for the various fundie para-church organizations.) So, this strategy of ineptness is a way to keep gay marriage on the front burner without actually having to expend much time or resources. Every time a church court throws out one of these cases because the fundies don't show up, the court basically makes the fundies' case to their supporters that the church is corrupt.
Seem crazy? Well, it might be. But I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Because the alternative is that they just really are that pathetically incompetent.
UPDATED: While several folks seem to want to defend what was either ineptitude or outright laziness by almost all of the accusers, Rev. Yearsley, one of the co-accusers seems to agree with me. He published a letter in the Presbyterian Layman that reads in part:
"I cannot help wondering why there was a total of one prosecution witness presented. It quickly became clear that the defense was going to parade a group of progressive theologians, students and polity wonks through to talk about Biblical interpretation and Book of Order application. That being the case, why was Professor Rob Gagnon not presented to counter the foolishness presented by Dr. Krause? ....
To my knowledge, there were three of the people who filed accusations there -- including me. On day two there were two of us. Where was the orthodox/conservative/evangelical presence in Pittsburgh? It certainly wasn't in that room. I suspect that most of them were where they always are, hunkered down, head in sand, pretending that there is no theological problem in the church ...."
And the money quote:
"To be perfectly honest, while Janet and I will never agree on the issues that divide us and while I believe that she was and continues to be in error, I have more respect for her than I do for the majority of our peers and colleagues. Janet was willing to face a church trial for what she believes. Most of our colleagues are more concerned with their pensions and job security than with standing for the traditional faith and practices of the church."
The background: In 2005, Reverend Janet Edwards, a Presbyterian minister presided at the wedding of two women. After the wedding announcement was published in a local newspaper, some Presbyterian busybody decided to file ecclesiastical charges against her for conducing this ceremony. However, the charges were filed too late and therefore were dismissed. The fundies in the church howled that the dismissal on a technicality was simply the Presbytery's way of getting out of making a decision. However, the statute of limitations is clearly described in our Book of Order (part of our denomination's constitution.) No one knows why it wasn't filed in time. But the fundies, ever ready to proclaim themselves martyrs of the liberal elite bureaucrats who run the PCUSA, were sure this was all just a scam. (Never mind the fact that the members of the Permanent Judicial Commission (ie. the church court) who voted to dismiss the charges are simply members of the Presbytery, and are not bureaucrats, but people who are elected by the other members of the Presbytery, in this case a very conservative Presbytery. Also never mind the inherent contradiction of going through with a trial against someone for violating the Book of Order, when that would have required the Presbytery itself to violate the Book of Order by accepting charges filed past the statute of limitations.)
Then new charges were filed (mostly by people who admit they've never even met Rev. Edwards -- itself a clear violation of Biblical principles, but that's a whole 'nuther blog post) and the trial began again yesterday and has continued today. The prosecution delayed presenting their case yesterday because they weren't prepared, and today they didn't have a single witness available. Now remember, this is the second time over the course of two years that they've had to prepare for this case, and there were 13 people who signed the complaint. And yet they still screwed it up. I'm not even sure how many of those 13 people even bothered to show up. Maybe they just can't read a calendar and forgot which day the trial was being held. Or perhaps they had better things to do with their time, like wash their hairshirts or sharpen their cilices or something.
Guess what? She was found not guilty, unanimously. In spite of the fundie insults and complaining that has already begun, the Pittsburgh Presbytery is not some group of latte swilling east coast liberals. It is, in fact, one of the more conservative Presbyteries in the country. They voted *for* the ban on LGBT ordination. They voted for an overture that would have made that ban "essential." These are pretty conservative folks. And yet the fundies can't even be bothered to call witnesses in a trial on gay marriage in this conservative presbytery, where they may have actually had a chance at winning. In fact, the PJC stated that the prosecution was so inept that, "The Prosecuting Committee has failed to meet the burden of proof that the accused carried out a marriage ceremony at all." They couldn't even prove that a marriage ceremony was conducted when the accused admitted it! Fortunately for the Prosecuting Committee this isn't civil court, or they'd likely be sued for malpractice.
Now this sort of ineptness on the part of the prosecutors would be only mildly interesting/entertaining if this were the only instance of it. While there have been a small number of trials in which the fundies have actually bothered to show up, in many, many others the fundies who file the charges fail to show up, fail to present evidence, fail to file charges on time, and fail to cooperate with investigating committees. Again and again and again. So, over and over and over, their charges get dismissed because there is no case if the prosecution doesn't actually prosecute.
I know I should be pleased that these people are so incompetent, unprofessional, ineffectual, and pathetic but I'm really not. These bungling, bumbling, and botched attempts at filing charges do nothing but waste time and resources. So maybe .... hmmmm ....
What if their strategy isn't inept? What if inept is their strategy?
See, our Book of Order doesn't actually prohibit same sex marriage. It never says, "You can't do this." Period. The fundies know that but rather than attempt to amend our Book of Order to ban same sex marriages, they'd rather file charges. It's easier. So here's where their strategy comes into play. They then demonstrate such complete Keystone Kop-style bumbling ineptitude that the charges are dismissed, which was their plan all along. That way they can continue to tell the story to their supporters that the big, bad, evil, liberal members of the PCUSA refuse to stand up for so-called "traditional" marriage. That is, they get to portray themselves as martyrs to their supporters. (And probably make a lotta coin along the way. Just as in secular politics, gay marriage is a big money maker for the various fundie para-church organizations.) So, this strategy of ineptness is a way to keep gay marriage on the front burner without actually having to expend much time or resources. Every time a church court throws out one of these cases because the fundies don't show up, the court basically makes the fundies' case to their supporters that the church is corrupt.
Seem crazy? Well, it might be. But I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Because the alternative is that they just really are that pathetically incompetent.
UPDATED: While several folks seem to want to defend what was either ineptitude or outright laziness by almost all of the accusers, Rev. Yearsley, one of the co-accusers seems to agree with me. He published a letter in the Presbyterian Layman that reads in part:
"I cannot help wondering why there was a total of one prosecution witness presented. It quickly became clear that the defense was going to parade a group of progressive theologians, students and polity wonks through to talk about Biblical interpretation and Book of Order application. That being the case, why was Professor Rob Gagnon not presented to counter the foolishness presented by Dr. Krause? ....
To my knowledge, there were three of the people who filed accusations there -- including me. On day two there were two of us. Where was the orthodox/conservative/evangelical presence in Pittsburgh? It certainly wasn't in that room. I suspect that most of them were where they always are, hunkered down, head in sand, pretending that there is no theological problem in the church ...."
And the money quote:
"To be perfectly honest, while Janet and I will never agree on the issues that divide us and while I believe that she was and continues to be in error, I have more respect for her than I do for the majority of our peers and colleagues. Janet was willing to face a church trial for what she believes. Most of our colleagues are more concerned with their pensions and job security than with standing for the traditional faith and practices of the church."
Posted: Thu - October 2, 2008 at 03:29 PM