One battle lost in the struggle for justice and inclusiveness in our church

[1-13-03]

by Doug King

The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area met on Saturday, Jan. 11, and among other items of business received a report from the Committee on Bills and Overtures recommending that the Presbytery approve, for transmission to the General Assembly, an overture from St. Luke Presbyterian Church, Wayzata, MN.

This proposed overture was similar to a number of those submitted to the 213^th General Assembly, calling for the removal of provision G-6.0106b from the Book of Order, and the replacement of the authoritative interpretations which have provided the primary basis for the exclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons from ordination in the Presbyterian Church.

This proposed overture was submitted in accord with the commitment of the GLBT advocacy groups in the church - and many others - to continue the struggle for justice without undue anxiety about the prospects of any immediate "victory." The commitment of those groups, and of the St. Luke session, has reflected the words of Dorothy Day, "We are called not to be successful, but to be faithful."

The overture was submitted to a presbytery which approved a similar one two years ago, and which has over recent years been consistent in its support of full inclusion of all people in leadership of the Presbyterian Church.

Martha Juillerat, a member of St. Luke and the director of the Shower of Stoles, introduced the proposed overture, which she described as calling for "the removal of G-60106b from our constitution, lifting the ban on the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in our denomination."

Without rehashing all the familiar arguments, she acknowledged that "St. Luke considered the political astuteness of bringing this overture again this year. But as we searched the scriptures we found no record of Jesus forming a task force or counting votes, no record of his debating with his disciples the merits of political expediency or the timing of his actions. Like the young black students who tried to be served at segregated lunch counters in 1960, we do not believe that we are called to be successful. We are called simply to be faithful, to do what is right and just as a witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And like the parable of the widow who appeared again and again before the unjust judge, we are called to do so unceasingly."

She concluded by saying: "Your passage of this overture will stand as a powerful witness to those of us who continue to be turned away by this church. We invite you now to make that witness, to pass this overture and let the Spirit work freely through the minds and hearts of this church."

But this time such a witness was not to be. The Rev. Dr. Tim Hart-Andersen, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Minneapolis, and one of the founding leaders of the Covenant Network, rose before discussion on the motion had begun, and moved that the Presbytery take no action.

Hart-Andersen offered two major reasons for his motion:

First, he said that since this was the same proposal that was defeated in the presbyteries just two years ago, it would be futile to put forward the same thing again.

And second, he argued that any such overture would place G-6.0106b back on the Assembly's agenda, and would open the way for supporters of the ban on ordination to amend that provision in such a way that it would "stand up in court" better than the current vague wording has done in recent judicial cases.

Arguing against the motion for no action, the Rev. Kim Smith King, pastor of St. Luke, began by repeating that "We, in the church, are called not to be successful, but to be faithful to the Gospel. We come today not to debate and decide strategy, but to discern the will of God and do it!"

She continued, "This motion asks us to be primarily politicians - strategists for success. I implore us to be primarily disciples of Jesus the Christ who modeled for us a ministry that may have failed (witness the cross) - but was always faithful to God's call to justice, inclusion, merciful love.

"If you believe that this overture is faithful to the Gospel, how can you not vote for it? Jesus Christ alone is Lord of our consciences. Our allegiance is to be to his way.

"People are predicting what the Assembly will do - suggesting that we take no action today based on the probability that this overture will fail in the national church.

"People, we are the church! We believe that God alone holds the future - knows what will happen - and that the Holy Spirit, that surprising, powerful presence, works within us and among us to bring about changes in our hearts and minds. How can we bind the Spirit by our actions - preclude the possibility of the passage this year of the overture and subsequent amendment? Who knows (certainly not me!) what God can do in the church?

"As for me, I don't want to stand in the way of doing what I know is the will of God - can not say no to an inclusive church, a just church - simply because I think I might lose ... because I have a pessimistic spirit. We are called to live out of faith, not fear!"

Two or three other commissioners spoke in favor of Hart-Andersen's motion, arguing that more time is needed for us to understand one another, that this is not the time, and so on. The Rev. Anita Cummings asserted that Jesus did take time to strategize, in those hours he spent alone and in silence.

Then the Rev. Tammy Lindahl stepped to the microphone and spoke very personally:

"As long as the PC(USA) has G-60106b in its constitution it allows the church to exclude an entire class of people. To put it simply, it allows the witch-hunt that is now occurring in our denomination. Presently there are about two dozen allegations nationally related to this constitutional provision. One of these allegations has taken the time and energy of a Twin Cities Area Presbytery investigative committee for almost a year. The allegations are against me, stating that I have violated my ordination vows by living my life with faithfulness to the gospel, maintaining my personal integrity and living in truthfulness as a lesbian woman in this denomination and living in a loving, committed relationship of 15 years.

"Also, this provision in the constitution somehow seems to give permission for members of this presbytery to viciously attack me at presbytery meetings, to the point that I fear walking these halls alone. It seems to give permission to treat me as a leper in your midst, just as in generations past we have treated other classes, such as racial minorities and women, as unworthy to live our their call to serve this denomination.

"In conclusion I personally encourage you to vote no on this motion to take no action, as an act of support for our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters in Christ and their supporters."

The Rev. Margaret Strodtz, who is severely disabled by a bone disease, pushed her walker to the microphone and urged the presbytery not to continue what she herself has experienced: excluding a whole class of people because they are somehow different.

After a debate of some 30 minutes the question was called, a written vote was taken, and the motion to take no action was approved by a margin of 123 favoring no action to 93 who wished to take action, with one abstention.

Personal Reflections by Doug King

I write this out of a deep sense of pain - pain shared with friends who are deeply wounded by what they perceive as yet another rejection of their concerns by their church, and worse, rejection by those who have claimed so loudly to be their friends and allies in the struggle for justice.

I write this out of frustration - frustration at the sight of committed, well-meaning liberals who seem certain that they know best what should be done to bring justice to our Presbyterian Church, while they (seemingly) ignore those most affected by that the current injustice.

I write this out of sorrow - sorrow that people allow their very human need for "victory" to overshadow their genuine concern for other people, and their commitment to follow the will of God as they discern it.

I write this out of confusion - confusion at hearing a group that has so strongly affirmed our Reformed respect for conscience, and for allowing sessions and presbyteries to discern what is appropriate in questions of ordination, insist now that things must be done their way or not at all.

It all seems sadly familiar, for I remember (as one who was involved long, long ago) the willingness of white liberals in the 1960s to help blacks in the civil rights struggle - as long as we could do it our way. Martin Luther King, thank God, helped us get past that. But then came the strident demands of the Black Power movement, and more and more white "allies" dropped out of the struggle. We white liberals would struggle - but only on our terms.

Have we not learned yet? Are we ready yet to respect those with and "for" whom we struggle? But that would mean listening to them, taking seriously their views (and feelings, including anger), sharing the decision-making and strategizing rather than insisting on playing the game our way or not at all.

We witnessed yesterday a sad moment in our common efforts to help our church become more truly what God intends: a loving and inclusive community of faith for all people. My only hope is that this sad moment may provide a shock that will get us all working together again - not in obedience to the decisions of one small group, but in mutual respect and commitment.

And there's another note of hope:  The same presbytery also voted on Saturday not to remove from the roll of candidates for ministry a young man who had decided to ask that he be removed, because of his sexual orientation.  You can read the motion not to remove him, and his own response.

We'd like to hear your thoughts and comments!
Just send a note and we'll share it here.