The Sense of “Sense of the Assembly” Resolutions
by Rev. Dr. Lisa W. Davison
Today, Wednesday, was our only full day of business,
and was it ever FULL. Two major resolutions were passed today; major in that
they cause some debate and the need for standing votes. Do these resolutions
make sense in our theological diverse (there needs to be a stronger word)
denomination?
The resolution on denouncing
hate speech and spiritual violence against GLBT persons was the first to trouble
the calm waters. As I had expected, the first concern raised had to do with the
definition of “spiritual violence”. Immediately, there was a motion
to send the resolution back to the Reference & Counsel committee for further
work to “define spiritual violence”, which was essentially a motion
to kill this resolution. The motion
failed.
It seemed that those who spoke
against the resolution and raised concerns about the definition of
“spiritual violence” knew all to well what the phrase meant.
That’s why they were concerned. There was, though, one voice from the
floor that misquoted and misunderstood my sermon from Monday night. In my
sermon, I had defined one example of spiritual violence as calling GLBT persons
“abominations”. The dissenting voice today accused me of saying
that, if a person believed homosexuality was a sin, then that person was guilty
of spiritual violence, which is not the same thing. Even Leviticus does not
call the people involved in same sex intercourse abominations; it is the
behavior that is condemned.
The other
comment was that I had said that people would have to discount scripture
passages, which according to this person, was worthy of hell fire. I wonder,
does person eat pork? Then part of the bible is ignored. Does this person wear
clothing of cotton and another fabric? Then part of the bible is ignored. How
did this person get to Portland if they sold all they had and gave it to the
poor? Then part of the bible is ignored. I am reminded of a comment by Rev.
Peter Gomes during the 2003 General Assembly. He pointed out that there are no
true literalist, when it comes to the bible. There are only
selectivists.
The story does have a happy
ending. The resolution passed with an overwhelming majority. But, what does
this mean for me or for the dissenting voices? Not much, really. Except, for
me it means that this assembly, gathered here and now, took a small (but
important) stand against injustice. Perhaps a headline will read tomorrow that
the CC(DOC) stands for “gay rights”. I hope so. Nothing is binding
in the resolution, however, so the dissenters can ignore this call to justice.
That’s everyone’s right as a member of the CC(DOC).
Filed Wed - July 27, 2005, 05:20 PM in
Return to: |