So far I haven't seen any of the pundits weighing in on the Lisa Larges decision. I am no expert on polity, but I am wondering if there might be a silver lining around this temporary cloud. The complainants had a number of complaints. None of them held water but one. The Synod PJC ruled that the presbytery erred by saying she was ready for ordination "with departure." According to the PJC, the presbytery should have just said she is ready for ordination.
At the ordination examination itself is when the candidate can state a departure or scruple or whatever it is. The ordaining body can determine whether or not to accept it at that point.
The silver lining here seems to be that there is no legal means for keeping lgbt candidates from entering candidacy or being certified for ordination. If you can't declare a departure until the examination time, then you cannot say a candidate departed (and therefore prevent them from being ready for ordination) until that time either. That is the logic of the decision is it not?
The course for Lisa, it seems, is to request the presbytery to certify her as ready for ordination. Period. The course for lgbt candidates for ministry is to do the same.
Even when we remove or change G-6.0106b, it will still depend upon the makeup of the ordaining body as to whether or not a candidate can be ordained. Removing G-6.0106b will not open the floodgates and enable lgbt candidates to be ordainable everywhere.
The news should be more and more clear to us. The floodgates are open now. It takes brave and bright candidates like Lisa to pass through them and brave and bright allies to walk with our lgbt sisters and brothers in solidarity.
I notice that Mark Smith and Steve Salyards have made posts about this.
ReplyDelete