You can read her article in Presbyterian Outlook >>

We offer some excerpts here >>

Where I agree with progressives who won't compromise

Dear Doug,

Thank you for posting an interesting series of articles about voting on the proposed "Amendment B." As a conservative who supports keeping the current ordination standards, I still have to agree with those progressives who believe there has to be an up or down vote on the matter. I just do not understand the thinking that places institutional unity above a search for the truth. If in fact the progressive arguments about sexuality and ordination are correct, then of course it is a monstrous denial of justice and even God's will to defer the matter.

I think the church really needs the clarity of a real decision. Let all who actually support the current ordination standards (on Biblical/theological grounds) vote accordingly. And let all who actually oppose those standards vote according to their conscience and understanding of where God is calling the Presbyterian Church (USA). But let's stop fooling around with "no action" votes.

Blessings,

John Erthein

Another correspondent, Brian Wells, responds to Barbara Wheeler’s call for “No action” on the amendment of Book of Order G-6.0106b.
[11-20-08]

I suppose it’s in slightly bad taste, but I and some others at church used to joke about being “recovering [blanks],” where [blank] was the name of whatever religious experience had left us in a state of spiritual confusion and dysfunction with God’s people.

Today I write as a recovering Presbyterian, but there is no humor for me in that. Though months have passed since I officially left the PC(USA), tears still well up, particularly on Sunday mornings. And yet I remain hopeful - even confident - that the PC(USA) will eventually exorcize G-6.0106b from its BOO (I love the irony of that abbreviation), perhaps very soon. Even now, though, with so much still left to do before we get there, and more still after that, I realize that some people whom I respect greatly, and whose support sustained me in difficult times, see the dissatisfied and departing conservatives and reproach, “See what you made them do!”

One bright morning this last February I was privileged to attend an adult forum at my church, where Barbara Wheeler described with profound empathy the devastating impact of our institutional homophobia, and I marveled at her insight on how this injustice touches nearly everyone in the PC(USA). Whatever comfort I found dissipated, though, as she went on to explain her opposition to our pleas for support on a vote to strike part of that injustice from our constitution. As she did then, Barbara still responds that it would not “benefit the church to act on this constitutional amendment this year.” What would benefit the church (is this a new topic?), she continues, would be for us to wait until we have reached “a theological consensus about norms for human sexual behavior.” It seems our elders have decided we must eat our plate of theological consensus before we may even ask for justice dessert.

Such a consensus may elude us for at least a bit longer; first our movement will need to recover from the inevitable internal fallout of “no action.” Many of us felt kicked in the teeth by allies before, but luckily my people are known for our resilience, so we could recover in time to surprise ourselves by, say 2014 or 2016, leaving us to receive results from presbyteries around, what? 2018 or 2020?

AND ON THAT DAY, JUSTICE WILL RAIN DOWN, hallelujah and amen!

Or more precisely, we will have united in taking that first step in striking an unjust law that corrupts us all. (And if the vote fails, LET THE RECRIMINATIONS BEGIN for having not waited long enough or for the right climate.)

Meanwhile, as we hold justice hostage into the next decade or beyond to appease our idols of peace, unity, and theological consensus, we swell this season’s stream of LGBT seminarians, clergy, members and families who drift away, even as we fail spectacularly to hold back a river of conservatives now straining at the levees. The survivors may find it easier to reach some sort of theological consensus, but I cannot fathom what it might be. Setting aside whatever elements might be non-negotiable for the conservatives, the progressives may have a difficult time finding consensus ourselves. It appears at minimum we follow a theology that: honors the radical Gospel of Love of the Living Christ; finds wisdom in taking “no action [until having a] consensus about the norms of human sexual behavior;” envisions a Jesus who might have just as easily responded to cries for healing on the Sabbath with “What would benefit us now is to wait and seek consensus in the Temple in Jerusalem …”

While we’re working on all that, I pray that any potential Bobby and Mary Griffiths still here don’t wait around to see how it goes. Many PC(USA) congregations like those they were members of still hold that Bobby’s death was not a consequence of a badly flawed theology, but merely the inadequate execution of a perfectly good one. These true believers continue enthusiastically educating generations of Presbyterian ministers, voting elders, and members.

Such people remind me of those Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of in his letter from the Birmingham Jail: to paraphrase, people of ill will (however unintentionally and unknowingly) leverage the passage of time to far greater advantage than people of good will. This very point came up during the adult forum that Barbara led that morning, and she flatly rejected any connection between the delay she proposes and that advocated by the white pastors to King. I fully realize that King's struggles, dreams and path differ greatly from mine in many significant ways, but it seems a little absurd to imagine him advising ANYONE struggling for justice to adopt “NO ACTION NOW!” as a call to action.

No matter how eloquent their preambles, it will be a challenge for those advocating “no action” to avoid the implication that LGBT people who won’t even wait just one more year (for the foreseeable future) are responsible for preventing progress. This message is particularly problematic for those who came to the church from abusive family relationships, as it is so eerily familiar: “Please, stop making him (her) hurt you!” has become “Please, stop upsetting them by demanding justice and equality now!” Fifteen years ago the abuse I allowed my mother to inflict on me finally overtook a lifetime of an enabling father’s insistence that what we needed do was reach some sort of consensus – which she would be willing to do if the rest of us would stop making her abuse us.

Obviously, my reasons for leaving the PC(USA) extend far beyond a single encounter with one person. Most of those reasons are completely selfish – some even petty, which makes leaving all the more shameful for me, having known others who have fought much longer, with so much more impact, and who continue to do so at great personal cost. Barbara merely came along at just the moment I was ready to see that for years I have stayed only because I allowed myself to fall back into old, unhealthy patterns, combined with my guilt about leaving others to finish what I cannot. Those are terrible reasons to stay anywhere – certainly in a church – and Barbara helped me face the only honest way I can see forward for now.

As you continue seeking the justice that will surely come someday, I hope you'll keep me in your prayers, as you are certainly in mine. 

Shalom, 

The Rev. Ray Bagnuolo adds his reasons for saying “No” to “No action”      [11-15-08]

The recent recommendation of some notable allies in the struggle for LGBT/Q folk has been to "do nothing" in considering the ratification of 08-B. For many of us, many ... the idea of leaving G-6.0106b intact in our constitution points to the misunderstanding common to most institutions. The "misunderstanding" is that the PC(USA) is dealing with the issue of ordination standards for LGBT/Q folk. We are not an issue, thank you very much. We are not dealing with an issue – we are living, breathing, Spirit-filled creations of God just like everyone else. We cannot be objectified as "an issue" in an attempt to distance this ratification from the real lives of our sisters and brothers who are LGBT/Q and how the church's constitution impacts those lives.

In all the years that I have been part of working with others to change the church's practices, I have always been up-ended in trying to understand how loving Christians could not recognize how these unjust practices, ensured to continue by G-6.010b, could be allowed to go on knowing the violence they cause. Indeed, some of those most vocal in recommending no action have acknowledged the violence the church has nurtured by its misguided treatment of the LGBT/Q community and the responsibility it has to change; to stop the violence; to accept its wrong-doing; and to set an example for others to follow in welcoming Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people into the full work and worship of the Church of Jesus Christ. To hear at this critical time of decision, "Take no action," means the same thing it has meant for more than four decades: "Wait some more, LGBT/Q folk. Wait. Our church is not quite ready. It's going to be too disruptive. Just a while longer. Let's try another way."

Well, sorry, we are ready, and after 40 years of conversation and trying other ways it's time for the church to be ready, as well.

What is remarkable, I think, is that I believe most Presbyterians and most presbyteries are ready to finally go forward and use the new language for G-6.0106b that will deliver us all from this ongoing blemish on our church, our ministries, and our souls. What is remarkable to me is when some who are allies start sounding much like those who oppose us. Surely, that is not true. However, when actions are suggested that could postpone justice for reasons that are based on "order," I begin to have difficulty in teasing apart the practical differences between the two.

In many ways, the idea that any remnant of the current intention of G-6.0106b could be left in our Book of Order, regardless of advances in other areas - is an affront to the LGBT/Q Christian community and another blow to the chance we have to minister to those LGBT/Q believers seeking sanctuary and community in their faith journey to God.

Perhaps, even more than the physical violence that emanates from any discriminatory policy, such as G-6.0106b, the spiritual violence of turning away God's children, denying them a full welcome, especially by allies and supporters has to be the worst blow of all.

Please, work within your churches, presbyteries, committees, and elsewhere to ratify 08-B. There are wonderful resources available at mlp.org, tamfs.org, and many other places. And, once this work is done, the real work of healing and amends can begin. Until then, divided we will be.

Peace,

Remarks generated by the Wheeler and Loudon articles in The Presbyterian Outlook
[11-12-08]

by Dale A. Johnson

Wheeler and Loudon, however, both advocate a non-vote (a modest distinction from a no-vote) on Amendment 08-B, Wheeler because voting will short-circuit whatever conversations within the church are ongoing or desperately needed, Loudon because voting will undercut the opportunity to live with and into the PUP report. These arguments themselves deserve conversation and reflection. In addition, I believe they call for a look back on the work of the 2008 General Assembly, so to see how and why decisions there set the course for where the church is today.

I served as an elder commissioner to the 2008 General Assembly, assigned to the Church Orders and Ministry Committee. Three sets of topics in multiple overtures came to us in an ascending order of significance:

1) how to assess the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church, approved by the 217^th General Assembly;

2) how to deal with the PJC’s recent Bush vs. Presbytery of Pittsburgh decision that the “fidelity and chastity” clause in G-6.0106b is binding on all candidates for church office; and

3) whether to do anything about the G-6.0106b clause itself and the support material that stands behind it.

The several overtures proposing to rescind PUP either in whole or in part obviously required a response. In the end, with only three votes against PUP in committee, and with the Assembly’s endorsement by a simple voice vote, this judgment does not look very controversial.  But when Loudon encourages his conservative colleagues to live with the PUP report, one should note that it was not entirely self-evident at the G.A. that some would want to do that. Calls for "theological reflection and prayerful discernment" seem in some quarters to mask an agenda.

The Bush decision

The Bush decision raised a number of concerns across the church, not just from liberals who saw it as undermining PUP, but also from some conservatives who believed that it departed from the recognition in G-6.0108 of “freedom of conscience within certain bounds” (Loudon’s article reinforces that perception). Another flurry of overtures developed from the decision, some affirming and some rejecting it. Substantial debate occurred in committee as well as on the floor of the Assembly. To declare, as both bodies did (although by a much wider margin in committee) in a new Authoritative Interpretation, that examining bodies are to "give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination," but also that such bodies are "not required to accept a departure from standards," should not have been seen as opening the floodgates to any and all understandings of such standards. As I read the Wheeler and Loudon arguments, both go this far. Still, not everyone at G.A. did (46% of the commissioners), and the contention continues, even though, or perhaps because, AIs are not up for presbytery vote.

The new AI allowing local discretion on declarations of departures

The question, rather simply, is whether this new AI is clarifying or confusing, the promotion of a level playing field or an invitation to local option. Is it imaginable that some congregations and/or presbyteries now would or could ordain some persons that other governing bodies would not? Of course. This is what gives Wheeler ground for saying that the church can now do what she clearly wants it to do. But the same variety has gone on in different contexts in the church for quite some time, leaving aside the present focus on sexuality. “Local option” – technically, call it a narrower or looser understanding of scrupling – has long been observed, at least when those understandings did not seem so great as to require schism. All this would be more obvious if the decisions with respect to the calling and installing of ministers were included within the larger discussion.

It could fairly be argued that this decision, rather than the Book of Order question, is the crucial issue for the church. Curiously, it is one that both Wheeler and Loudon pass by without comment. Before the end of the 2008 G.A. there were discussions about developing overtures for 2010 that would overturn this AI and the one discussed in the next paragraph. The point here is not to fault Wheeler and Loudon, only to note that whatever happens to Amendment 08-B, even their recommended non-vote, many people will have left the church because they could not accept the AIs, and many who remain will want to revisit these same questions in 2010. Almost certainly, the topic will not be quieted with a feint around voting on this issue now. One can only reinforce what I take to be Wheeler’s most important concern: there needs to be conversation about these matters in the church.

The AI setting aside all earlier AIs

And what about that second AI, which rather bluntly declares that the “interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members” since the 1970s “have no further force or effect”? There was a good bit of discontent over what appeared to be parliamentary maneuvering in the vote that tied it to the Book of Order language issue, rather than permitting separate consideration. That was unfortunate. But what provoked the bluntness, I believed, was that when in the mid-’70s a presbytery appealed to the larger church for “definitive guidance” on the question, what they got came to be called Definitive Guidance, and the label carried more weight than many in a later generation were prepared to give the contents. The church may certainly want to review historical judgments and evaluate them in relation to contemporary understandings. Is this also not grounds for conversation?

Why did the Church Orders Committee take this additional step to amend G-6.0106b?

All this background may help explain why the majority of the Church Orders and Ministry Committee must have seen a logical connection between these first two questions and the third, even if much of the larger church has yet to see it. Quite simply, it is that without this additional step the church would be at odds with itself. Those who will work to oppose the 2008 AIs know that. Are those who support those AIs comfortable with this position alone?

What is a commissioner to do? I went to the G.A. with the understanding that we were to prepare in advance by reading as much as we could, that we were to exercise our consciences, that we did not represent a particular constituency, and that we should make our decisions after careful reflection and prayerful engagement. Clearly, our committee staff both encouraged and enabled that latter to happen. That’s what I did, as best I could, and that is what I believe my fellow committee members did. I even suspect that the full Assembly pretty much did that, too. We did not “do anything to the church.” I thought we were giving an opportunity to the church to reach some middle ground on this issue, perhaps reflecting changes in our church and out society since the last vote on this issue was taken.

I think it is fair to say that almost no one on the progressive side believed that we would replace the language of G-6.0106b. I spoke to several persons at the conclusion of the committee sessions and got that view. They came to reinforce PUP and to reverse Bush, and they succeeded. They had put no effort that I could see in replacing 6b language, and they were very surprised at the result.

Why did it happen? One person at my Presbytery meeting following the G.A. asked that question. I did not appeal to the work of the Holy Spirit, though I could have – and I believed it, too. Was it simply the luck of the computer draw, for certainly another calculation based on the much closer Assembly vote, could have altered the mix? Was it the persuasiveness of the argument, especially that memorable remark from one minister commissioner that he “would never vote for oppression again”? Was it the presence – and the votes – of the YADs, who very largely, in committee and in Assembly (though there, only with advisory votes), did not understand “what the big deal” was about? Was it the statement of the new Moderator, Bruce Reyes-Chow, in his pre-election comment that he believed that 6b should be eliminated (though maybe not now), which encouraged others to believe that there might be a new day for the church? Was it that we commissioners and YADs really did exercise our consciences and vote on the basis of careful reflection and prayerful engagement? I suspect “all of the above” and then some is the best response.

More conversation is needed – but not as a substitute for change 

I absolutely believe that the church desperately needs opportunity for conversation. How much time should be given? How much longer should we wait? What thought or concern has been or will be given in this conversation to the GLBT persons who are members of our church and who must already, vote or no vote, view themselves as second-class members? One example from the history of Vanderbilt Divinity School, where I taught for many years, may be relevant: when the second black student applied and was accepted to the institution in 1954, the dean wrote to him to say that he could take courses there but in no other school of the university and that he could not take his meals in the dining room or live in the dormitory. How long after that would people think that such a position was unacceptable at the University? Happily, not very long, as it turned out.

Wheeler’s appeal for ongoing conversation is paired with her belief that the precedents for debate and voting in our church are, to put it mildly, unhelpful. Personally, I do not look forward to the “two microphone, two minutes per speech, carefully balanced between pro and con” process, although I am well aware that parliamentary procedure is very helpful for large assemblies and for assuring public representation from the several sides within a debate. That is why I came home with the hope that time for conversation among the parties and persons would be possible before a presbytery vote and the commitment to assist in facilitating such conversations.

I may well have been naïve in my hope (not the first time, certainly). There appears to be little interest in conversation. Just get past this vote, amid its rancorous deliberations, and on to other things – this seems to be the prevailing sentiment in my presbytery. Another and clearly more significant question is who will even care to engage in conversation. I take with some hope Loudon’s statement (from “a wise observer” of General Assembly meetings, he says) that moderates could number 45% – this, to be sure, in such meetings, but maybe also in the denomination? Perhaps it is this constituency that ought to be of greater concern than the more vigorous opponents of any movement on this issue. Have people seen the 80-some page document that has been lately prepared by the Presbyterian Coalition? I have, and it clearly does not appear that anyone there wants to converse about any of this. In fact, there is positive disdain for anything that smacks of “discernment.” I was particularly impressed with the name-calling and the accusations expressed there: unbiblical, departing from Christ, etc. I wonder where Wheeler believes this church to exist where members who have “opposing deep convictions about an issue but still model gentle, respectful treatment of each other.” Where are the people who want conversation? Can we not try to gather them somehow? Does determining to vote for “No Action” offer any hope that conversation about this serious question would occur? Instead of that parliamentary procedure, how about standing outside the site of the Presbytery meeting and refusing to go in, inviting all who are are willing, to join in a genuine conversation about the topic? I have come to think the actual vote is considerably less important than the conversation; but are those who support Wheeler’s view regarding voting actually working to promote the conversations she so earnestly desires?

About media reports

A final comment emerges from our recent election coverage. Wheeler is worried about what “the secular media” would do and say, whatever the result of the vote. But when the Christian Century can’t get to the subtlety or the depth of the G.A. decisions (see its report on the work of the GA), should we worry so much about secular media when we know the issue is too complex for a soundbite? On election night, speaking about Kay Hagan’s victory over Senator Dole in North Carolina and referring to Hagan’s response to the Dole ad that implied that Hagan was an atheist when in fact she was both a Presbyterian and a Sunday School teacher, a CBS commentator said, “Last time I checked, Presbyterians loved Jesus just as much as anyone.” Some hope (and sanity) there. 

Voices of Sophia blog

Heather Reichgott, who has created this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:

Witherspoon’s Facebook page

Mitch Trigger, Witherspoon’s Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive

Got more blogs to recommend?

Plan now for our 2010 Ghost Ranch Seminar!

GHOST RANCH SEMINAR

July 26-August 1, 2010

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: