My presbytery votes on the amendments (including Amendment A) next Tuesday. We put up a page about it on our congregation's website.
On that page you'll find
- a sermon,
- an argument I made nine years ago (the exact same points are being made today),
- a radio interview,
- and links to other resources.
- Throw us some love on the Facebook event I created!
We are More Light, inclusive, and we embody full inclusiveness.
So I am happy every two years getting up before my presbytery and bearing witness to the Gospel's call to do what Jesus would do.
Some are tired of the argument and of revisiting this same amendment again and again. The best solution to end this would be to vote in favor of amendment A.
It is the only thing that will work with a divided church.
- Charity on non-essentials.
- We ordain individuals not categories of people.
- Governing bodies are in the best position to decide their own candidates' sense of call.
Because as long as there are court cases (can we ordain Lisa Larges already?!!??!) there will be those who will vote to remove this bad law as it binds the freedom of conscience on sisters and brothers on an issue that is non-essential.
It does not matter how strongly you believe you are right about what "the Bible says". It doesn't matter. I believe I am right, too. There is no consensus. The only answer in that situation is to respect the freedom of conscience of the other.
But, oh well, vote it down if you like.
We'll be back.
Pass it by all means John. The new law is so vague that mysogynists all over the country could take over Presbyteries and make sure that only freemasons get ordained and there will be nothing that GA could do. The same could apply to elders in individual sessions. The only worse thing than an unpopular law is replacing it with a bad law and that is what is happening here.
ReplyDeleteThat Stushie, is paranoid disinformation. Truly bizarre on your part. G-6.0106b which was placed in the Book of Order in 1997 has done nothing to stop "mysogynists" or "freemasons" from being ordained.
ReplyDeleteThe only accomplishment of G-6.0106b is to keep the church tied up in expensive court cases against openly gay candidates whom governing bodies have discerned a call.
It is a bully law used to hassle a particular class of people (and they are not freemasons or mysogynists)!
Interesting...
ReplyDeleteI didn't know "fidelity and chastity" had anything to do with misogyny or freemasonry.
Is that another “Homosexuality is like bestiality and incest” kind of argument?
Oh well, I guess if you don’t have a real argument then just say anything. There’s always someone somewhere willing to buy into it. It just seems a little odd that Stushie would try it out here though.
Oh well, I guess if you don’t have a real argument then just say anything.
ReplyDeleteAnd say if often!
Stushie again is batting 0.000. Batting or batty? Batty might be more accurate.
ReplyDeleteSomehow the PCUSA got along fine without G-6.0106b for years and years and years, contra Stushie's paranoid delusions.
Frankly, if anything makes me wonder about our ordination standards it is the paranoid ramblings of someone who is supposed to be a Minister of the Word and Sacrament like "Rev." Stushie.
Kattie wrote, "It just seems a little odd that Stushie would try it out here though."
Then you haven't read enough of Stushies other comments here and elsewhere. Unfortunately it doesn't seem odd or surprising in the least. More's the pity.
Well, his argument does have one redeeming characteristic. It would most likely be expressed to East Tennessee Presbytery, where 10-A is expected to pass easily. If his argument is characteristic of the anti-10-A sentiment at ETP, we have nothing to worry about.
ReplyDelete"If his argument is characteristic of the anti-10-A sentiment at ETP, we have nothing to worry about."
ReplyDeleteWe have nothing to worry about anyway. If God be for us, who can be against us?