Even though the denomination’s Peace, Unity, and Purity committee report two years ago called for a hiatus on efforts to toughen or loosen the denomination’s now somewhat ambiguous ban on ordaining as ministers or elders non-celibate, non-married people (mainly gays and lesbians), both sides move ahead this year. One committee rejected an effort to permit same-sex marriage, but by a fairly wide margin another committee recommended at least to interpret the Peace, Unity, and Purity policy as giving congregations and presbyteries more leeway in this regard (local option) (which would overturn a recent Presbyterian supreme court interpretation).
Inside and outside of McEnery Convention there was evidence of these debates. Supporters of gay ordination gave out and wore multi-colored leis, and a whole row of booths featured Presbyterian “renewal” groups (like the one calling for the solemn assemblies – almost all against gay ordination). Groups from both sides sponsored various events. I talked with a former YAD who said she was sick of the debate and seemed to oppose gay ordination. But I suspect a majority of the YADs in this caucus oppose it (given what I know about youth attitudes towards sexual orientation, the attitudes of my former students, and the number of leiis worn in those caucuses).
I personally support gay ordination (and attribute the length and serious-ness of the training my church put me and fellow elders to be through to the local option/discernment clause and the orientations of my fellow new elders) and even same-sex marriage, but I’m not sure I would have voted for these proposals. I give some credence to the PUP recommendations and don’t believe we’ve exhausted the opportunities for learning and dialogue on these issues that PUP called for, I also respect some of the people on the other side, I think the Bible is only somewhat ambiguous on the issue, and I want to keep my job. Sharp leftward turns on these issues will drive many more churches out of the denomination (accelerating the current trend, following the Episcopal church), this will accelerate the denomination’s money problems (and it will do so even without churches leaving, as disgruntled churches withhold their per capita or simply give less), and the axe will come down more quickly on my department.
The debate moved back to the streets yesterday and today. Gay ordination advocates gave out cookies, and I talked with a Louisville Presbyterian seminary graduates who I’m guessing cannot be ordained as a minister or seek a pastoral call because she is an out lesbian. Creating a bigger stir, however, was a group of I suspect non-Presbyterians with loud signs Wednesday night who probably created sympathy for the gay ordination cause more than anything. These men apparently told many Presbyterians passing by that they were going to Hell and – in the diatribe I overheard – one man launched into a graphic, lurid diatribe about gay sex that resembled – in some ways – assertive anti-abortion protest at abortion providers.
San Jose police stood around, the Stated Clerk mentioned the protests, and I heard people talking about (we were urged to ignore them – not to engage them), but I noticed the daily “General Assembly News” carried nothing about their appearance Thursday morning.
I don’t know how the plenary votes on the floor will go, and I’m not sure I know how I want them to go, and I can’t be sure I’ll have a job – especially by two years from now – but I am sure that, like a graphic mailing by conservatives to Jefferson County (KY) voters that helped turn the school board (barely) in favor of a nondiscrimination policy for gays and lesbians – that the appearance of these folks probably added a few votes to the gay ordination side (whatever we think about, we’re not like them, and so maybe we should stand with the other side).
P.S. Proposals loosening and eliminating the ban on ordaining gays and lesbians both narrowly passed late in the Assembly. The latter proposal - sent to the presbyteries for now the third time - will likely fail again. (The difference is that - at General Assembly - presbyteries with more people have more delegates (not the case obviously if 2/3 of the presbyteries must ratify the change). (The U.S. constitutional amendment process is modeled after ours.) (The broader difference is that an equal number of ministers and elders vote on each of these issues - even though there are many more elders. Ministers are, on the whole, much more liberal on these issues.) The former proposal - loosening - apparently needs no ratification.
Inside and outside of McEnery Convention there was evidence of these debates. Supporters of gay ordination gave out and wore multi-colored leis, and a whole row of booths featured Presbyterian “renewal” groups (like the one calling for the solemn assemblies – almost all against gay ordination). Groups from both sides sponsored various events. I talked with a former YAD who said she was sick of the debate and seemed to oppose gay ordination. But I suspect a majority of the YADs in this caucus oppose it (given what I know about youth attitudes towards sexual orientation, the attitudes of my former students, and the number of leiis worn in those caucuses).
I personally support gay ordination (and attribute the length and serious-ness of the training my church put me and fellow elders to be through to the local option/discernment clause and the orientations of my fellow new elders) and even same-sex marriage, but I’m not sure I would have voted for these proposals. I give some credence to the PUP recommendations and don’t believe we’ve exhausted the opportunities for learning and dialogue on these issues that PUP called for, I also respect some of the people on the other side, I think the Bible is only somewhat ambiguous on the issue, and I want to keep my job. Sharp leftward turns on these issues will drive many more churches out of the denomination (accelerating the current trend, following the Episcopal church), this will accelerate the denomination’s money problems (and it will do so even without churches leaving, as disgruntled churches withhold their per capita or simply give less), and the axe will come down more quickly on my department.
The debate moved back to the streets yesterday and today. Gay ordination advocates gave out cookies, and I talked with a Louisville Presbyterian seminary graduates who I’m guessing cannot be ordained as a minister or seek a pastoral call because she is an out lesbian. Creating a bigger stir, however, was a group of I suspect non-Presbyterians with loud signs Wednesday night who probably created sympathy for the gay ordination cause more than anything. These men apparently told many Presbyterians passing by that they were going to Hell and – in the diatribe I overheard – one man launched into a graphic, lurid diatribe about gay sex that resembled – in some ways – assertive anti-abortion protest at abortion providers.
San Jose police stood around, the Stated Clerk mentioned the protests, and I heard people talking about (we were urged to ignore them – not to engage them), but I noticed the daily “General Assembly News” carried nothing about their appearance Thursday morning.
I don’t know how the plenary votes on the floor will go, and I’m not sure I know how I want them to go, and I can’t be sure I’ll have a job – especially by two years from now – but I am sure that, like a graphic mailing by conservatives to Jefferson County (KY) voters that helped turn the school board (barely) in favor of a nondiscrimination policy for gays and lesbians – that the appearance of these folks probably added a few votes to the gay ordination side (whatever we think about, we’re not like them, and so maybe we should stand with the other side).
P.S. Proposals loosening and eliminating the ban on ordaining gays and lesbians both narrowly passed late in the Assembly. The latter proposal - sent to the presbyteries for now the third time - will likely fail again. (The difference is that - at General Assembly - presbyteries with more people have more delegates (not the case obviously if 2/3 of the presbyteries must ratify the change). (The U.S. constitutional amendment process is modeled after ours.) (The broader difference is that an equal number of ministers and elders vote on each of these issues - even though there are many more elders. Ministers are, on the whole, much more liberal on these issues.) The former proposal - loosening - apparently needs no ratification.
No comments:
Post a Comment