Shuck and Jive

Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Fusspots Want Oversight!

The LayMAN reports that Santa Barbara wants "more oversight."

What do they want oversight over?

Wild guess.

Go ahead.

Take one.

How about... marriage.

It seems the BFTSs (Busybodies, Fusspots, Tattletales, and Scolds) are in a terrible tizzy over the marriage between Craig Wiesner and Derrick Kikuchi. The wedding was held during the 2008 General Assembly at the More Light Presbyterians' Dinner.

(By the way, volunteers are needed for this year's MLP dinner and other festivities. We need something juicy for the BFTSs to fuss about two years from now.)

Anyway the Fusspots just couldn't bear it.

So (I mean, really!) they sent an overture to the General Assembly to stop it! Just stop it! No more gays getting married at General Assembly! No! No! No! Report somebody! We need oversight! Good Lord, Sweet Jesus we need oversight!

I thought I had the spiritual gift of paranoia. Read this:

The Presbytery of Santa Barbara respectfully overtures the 219th General Assembly (2010) to do the following:

1. Require events sponsored by PC(USA) aligned groups taking place at General Assembly or other General Assembly-sponsored gatherings to be evaluated by the Office of the General Assembly in advance of all General Assemblies or other General Assembly-sponsored events to assure that the activities of all PC(USA) aligned groups are conducted in a manner that honor the constitutional standards of the church.

2. Direct the Office of the General Assembly to establish a Board of Oversight and Review whose task will be to hold accountable any Presbyterian organization conducting its affairs or events in violation of current constitutional standards. We also advise that this board be available to receive complaints from commissioners at General Assembly.

3. Direct that after a process of review is completed, a violation of the church’s standards of behavior or Constitution shall result in the denial of the privilege of exhibiting at future General Assembly-sponsored meetings and events. Such violation shall also result in denied access to commissioner’s mailboxes at future General Assemblies.

4. Advocate that a process of recourse be established for organizations charged with such violations. In order to be reinstated, the organization so charged would be required to go through an appeal process. The Office of the General Assembly would form a committee of the most recent General Assembly commissioners to hear appeals. This committee would be composed of a theologically balanced group within the denomination.
Obviously, it isn't enough to file a complaint if a rule was allegedly broken. What do you do if no one agrees with you and consequently the baddies do not receive the spanking you think they deserve?

If you are a BFTS you
need to know everything everyone is going to do in advance just in case something might be done that might make some BFTSs think it might be wrong.

God I love the LayMAN.

Don't you just want to cuddle them?


  1. The funny thing about this is that the New Wineskins folks will probably be the first investigated.

  2. Just how exactly do they intend to enforce this?

    (Yes, I see #3 there, but that's unenforceable.)

    And yes, if this were to pass (which it won't), I think we should immediately file complaints against New Wineskins, Presbyterians for Renewal, etc. Notice that the complaint process here is not the filing of charges or any other real Presbyterian disciplinary process, so how hard can it be to simply set up a website that will allow people to submit complaints online and deluge them with complaints?

    Also notice that there are no restrictions on the membership of this Oversight and Review board. So we can pack that.

    Wow, I'm amazed at the stupidity of the BFTSs on this one. If the whole denomination really is as apostate as they think, exactly which direction do they think this will be used?

    Actually we might want to think about supporting this measure. Seriously. I have every confidence we could get it to work in our favor.

  3. I hope more couples get married at this year's More Light Dinner.

  4. I agree with Alan. I would vote for this.

  5. This will not pass and frankly people will continue to do what they want to do. The last wedding at GA should have taught people that.

  6. Oh dear, may I appropriate ( BFTSs (Busybodies, Fusspots, Tattletales, and Scolds)) and use wonderful...

  7. Hey Onedia,

    Well you sure may. I borrowed it from someone who found it somewhere else!

  8. I would not vote for this. Even though one could use it against the opposition (and that needs to be said) it is against everything I value about being Presbyterian (mutual forbearance, freedom of conscience, not being an a___hole when we can possibly help it, and so forth and so on).

    However, if the BFTSs were to pass something like this AND be the first to use it against MLP et al, I would definitely use it to turn the tables.

    But I would vote against it.

  9. "However, if the BFTSs were to pass something like this AND be the first to use it against MLP et al, I would definitely use it to turn the tables. "

    That noise you just heard was the sound of OneByOne-ers face-palming all at once.

    Gee, banning OneByOne using the BFTSs own overture would get their attention, eh? :)

  10. I am not mystic, but I do marvel at how clever little things BFTSs dream up to get others can come back to bite 'em.