Making Certain Fewer People Can Join Your Church

The General Assembly Committees will be working into the night finalizing their recommendations for their reports to the plenary which will begin Wednesday afternoon. I am hoping for the defeat of one of the recommendations coming from the Committee on Church Polity.

It is the addition of membership vows. Now we already have conditions for membership in the Book of Order. This addition would require people to respond in a rote way to a specific question by the session. Here is the text:

“G-5.0200

“2. Membership Vows

“At the time member-candidates present themselves to the session for reception into membership, whether by profession of faith, transfer of letter, or reaffirmation of faith, the following question[s] shall be addressed to the member-candidates for their answer as indicated. Sessions may make the determination, on an individual basis, to exempt certain persons from answering these specific questions due to physical or mental disability. In such a case, appropriate alternative questions and their presentation should be devised, still meeting the requirements of G-5.0101a.

“Who is your Lord and Savior?

“Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.

“[Other questions are recommended and may be used, such as:]

“Trusting in the gracious mercy of God, do you turn from the ways of sin and renounce evil and its power in the world?

“I do, by God’s grace.

“Will you be Christ’s faithful disciple, obeying his Word and showing his love?

“I will, with God’s help.

“Will you be a faithful member of this congregation, share in its worship and ministry through your prayers and gifts, your study and service, and so fulfill your calling to be a disciple of Jesus Christ?

“I will, with God’s help.”

Following this ritual the candidates may then spin twice, click their heels three times, and curtsy.

In addition to treating adults like five year olds, this little exercise has a subtext. Every overture that comes to the General Assembly has a story. This one comes from Mission Presbytery where this overture originated.

Mission Presbytery is the home of Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church. This is a progressive congregation that strongly advocates for social justice and encourages freedom of thought. It doesn't treat adults like children.

They welcomed into membership journalism professor at the University of Texas, Robert Jensen. Take time to read his saga, Finding My Way Back to Church and Getting Kicked Out: What It Means to be a Christian Today. Do take time to read this insightful statement. You may be moved by his candor and his faith and disturbed by what happened to him and the congregation as I was.

Dr. Jensen, despite his reservations regarding dogma, was joyfully received into the membership of the church. He even thought out where he was in matters of theology:

On God: I believe God is a name we give to the mystery of the world that is beyond our capacity to understand. I believe that the energy of the universe is ordered by forces I cannot comprehend.

On Jesus: I believe Christ offered a way into that mystery that still has meaning today.

On the Holy Ghost: There are moments in my life when I feel a connection to other people and to Creation that rides a spirit which flows through me yet is beyond me.

I believe that Holy Spirit can only be nurtured in real community, where people make commitments to each other. I have found that community in St. Andrew's. I have tried to open myself up to our pastor's teaching, to the members of the congregation, and to the church's work in the world.

Sounds like a thoughtful person to me. I would be glad to have him join my congregation. St. Andrews thought so too and welcomed him.

Now get this. This happened. Really.

The Presbyterian Right in that presbytery didn't think Dr. Jensen should be a member of St. Andrews and took the congregation to church court! Really. Believe it. Dr. Jensen writes about that saga as well in the above statement. I haven't kept up with where St. Andrews is in the church court process, but the overture from Mission Presbytery regarding membership vows is in response to this situation.

Now there is nothing wrong with the language in the recommendation. It comes from the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship. I have used this language myself in welcoming members on occasion. If a new member found this language helpful to them in articulating their faith, I would be glad to use it again.

That isn't the point. The Book of Common Worship is a liturgical resource. It is not part of our constitution. Its purpose is to enhance the articulation of one's faith, not to enforce specific language upon people. It is a worship resource not a manual of dogma.

While this recommendation seems harmless enough, and many Presbyterians could in good conscience answer these questions or go through the motions whether they could or not, this recommendation is not about honoring Jesus or building up the church.

It is about adding a weapon to the arsenal in order to hassle progressive, thoughtful congregations and their members. They don't want gays. They don't want freethinkers. They want robots who will do what they are told. They will use all the ecclesiastical weaponry at their disposal in their attempt to stop progressive congregations from growing.

Think carefully about this one, dear commissioners. Once something gets in the Book of Order, it is tough to get it out. There is no need for this recommendation. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing and it will only be used for mischief.

A Matter of Conscience

Here is a thoughtful post from the New Church (R)evolution blog, Personal statement on G-6.0106b. Author of the post, David Paul wrote:

It is hard to comprehend sometimes why any Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT) person would remain in the PC(USA). Even with so many supportive and loving people in this denomination I am not sure why we continue to stick around. The church has made it explicitly clear that LGBT people are not welcome. Psychologists, therapists, and probably most people would say we are a bit insane. And to some degree I concur.

Today the Church Orders Committee will be voting on some sort of recommendation to the General Assembly on what to do about the gay, or as Parker Williamson of the LayMAN calls God's children, "sundry anomalies."

Sixty people testified yesterday and spoke either for or against changing our policies. The committee will vote today. Then on the floor of the General Assembly whatever recommendation is put forth will be debated.

David wrote on his blog regarding his observations of the testimonies:

The other thing that struck me today were all those beautiful gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals bearing witness to God's call in their life and the church's refusal to accept. You can see it on every single LGBT person that has stuck with the church. You can see it in their eyes and you can see how their heart aches. Beautiful children of God sharing what they know to be true. The church says one thing and yet we know that God's call is real and powerful. We know another reality exists....

So why again do we LGBT people stay in this broken discriminatory denomination? There are some things I guess we can never fully answer. For me I stay because I care. It sucks that I care, but I do. I wish I didn't and I could just walk away. But right now I care too much to walk away. So I am here in San Jose taking a week of vacation from my job to testify why the church should allow me and so many others to be ordained in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Each commissioner will have to wrestle with his or her conscience at this General Assembly. No one will be able to claim ignorance. No commissioner can say, "I didn't know about the exclusion these folks experience." The witness of LGBTQ people has been phenomenal. I am only there in a virtual way. But I see the pictures of the knitted scarves.







(Read about what those scarves mean here).









I can read and hear the testimonies as well as you can. Yes, the church has been talking about this for decades.

Please do not misunderstand. This conversation is not about sex.

It is about what it means to be human. It is about what it means to follow Christ. It is about following the example of Jesus who loved and embraced those very people who the religious authorities dismissed as "sundry anomalies."

What is decided this week will have larger implications than the Presbyterian Church. The decisions will have bearing on gay people in your life whether you know they are gay or not. The world is watching this week.

Are you worried, commissioners, that we might lose members and money or be labeled as a "queer church" by your friends and neighbors? Are you worried about the backlash of the right wing? Or do you really think that these folks are sundry anomalies and not worth the possible threat they pose to the so-called purity of the church?






Your conscience. Your call.










This is what one of those "sundry anomalies," David, wrote about his experience with the church:

The church is too busy trying to protect the purity of the church to listen to Jesus.

Maybe this week you can prove him wrong.

(photos by Erin Dunigan for The Presbyterian Outlook)

Sundry Anomalies

Kudos to Professor Patrick Evans for catching Parker Williamson, editor emeritus of the LayMAN, revealing his theology of contempt. Here is the letter to the editor published today (June 23):

Editor Emeritus Williamson writes:

"Proclaiming itself a champion of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered and other sundry anomalies, the Covenant Network ..."

Really? Could you be more specific about who the "sundry anomalies" are? To which children of a loving, redeeming, sustaining God do you refer?

Is there any place in supposedly Christian journalism for this kind of language?

Really?

Jesus would describe any of us as sundry anomalies, or be pleased that supposed followers who claim His name would?

Really?
Patrick Evans
Associate Professor in the Practice of Sacred Music
Yale Divinity School and Institute of Sacred Music

Presbyterians Really Are Nerds

A fitting tribute to one of the most dour, humorless clerics to have ever thumped a Bible.






The John Calvin bobblehead.

At a PC(USA) General Assembly near you!

General Assembly at the Ballgame

Inspired by watching the Johnson City Cardinals defeat the Kingsport Mets in their home opener, here is a baseball metaphor for the GA regarding lgbt issues.

This is slightly revised, from in my opinion, easiest to more difficult:

1. Walk--Revise the Heidelberg Catechism to its original language.
2. Single--Approve John Knox Overture regarding AI of G-6.0108.
3. Double--Render obsolete the 1993 Authoritative Interpretation.
4. Triple--Send new definition of marriage to the presbyteries.
5. Home Run--Send delete G-6.0106b to the presbyteries.
6. Grand Slam--All of the above.

The committees are meeting today and tomorrow. Watch the developments on PC-Biz.

George Carlin is Heaven Now

And boy is he pissed.


One of the all time best--I loved this guy, George Carlin--died of heart failure on Sunday.



I will miss him. Here is the article.




When Will Jesus Bring the Porkchops?

Soon, George, very soon. Rest in peace.




Here is a good one for us religious folks, Religion is Bullshit (OK, disclaimer, typical George Carlin language, as if you didn't know):

Janie Does It Again!

God, I love this woman. Rev. Jane Spahr, fresh off an acquittal from the Presbyterian supreme court (GAPJC) for marrying same-gender couples (the court ruled her innocence because they weren't really marriages), has performed a same-gender wedding in California. Marriage is now "real" in California for same-gender couples.

Rev. Spahr said: "I pronounced them married under the authority granted me by the state and as a minister of the Presbyterian Church..."

The newspaper went on to say:

Now that gay and lesbian couples can get married in California, a similarly technical ruling won't be possible, said Spahr, who is scheduled to officiate more same-sex weddings this summer.

"Although it is holy and it is a blessing, it is a marriage," she said. "I'm saying to our people who have voice and vote, it is time for you to stand up for what is right."

Did I mention that I love this woman?

Saving Paradise

I just saw on Witherspoon a thing about Rita Nakashima-Brock. She and Rebecca Ann Parker have a new book coming out,





Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire.




I do like that title.

"But once Jesus perished, dying was virtually all he seemed able to do."

It is a bit pricey, but it looks like an excellent read.

The Blogging Moderator

The election of Bruce Reyes-Chow may have changed the way Presbyterians will be doing business. BRC is a blogger with a huge internet presence. Google him and you find his life. Who cares about interviews with moderator candidates in the traditional newspapers such as the Presbyterian News Service, the Layman or the Witherspoon Society? How many people actually read the paper copies of those magazines anyway? I can find out about Bruce by asking him myself on-line. So can anyone else. This is a totally new deal.

This was an internet election and the candidate who knew the internet best and blogged most won. That in no way takes anything way from his message and his personality or that blogging was somehow an unfair advantage. No, he is the man for the job because he has the pulse of what is happening in church today. The medium is a big part of his message.

The internet is democratic, well, pretty much. It allows voices of the smaller church folks, layfolk, youth, and people without access to traditional sources of power, make it happen on-line. This medium allows people into the discussion. Adding voices is the heart of Bruce's message.

My internet presence has made a huge difference in how I do ministry. Much if it is on-line ministry. Much of my session business is done via e-mail as well as pastoral care, committee work, you name it. And I'm a loser at the computer. I can't even figure out how to get one of those real wide, attractive blogs to work.

And outreach? The PFLAG chapter would not have the influence and success it has here without the internet and the willingness to use it.

Bruce knows this. That is why he is moderator. It will be exciting to watch what happens.

Sermon: Equality is Sexy

Equality is Sexy
John Shuck

First Presbyterian Church
Elizabethton, Tennessee

June 22^nd, 2008

We are making our way through the Bible in 2008. We are now finishing the Writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Today, two texts will be featured, the Song of Solomon and the Book of Ruth.

The story of Ruth is a favorite in the Hebrew Scriptures. The story begins with a woman named Naomi and her husband who lived in Judah during the time of the Judges. There is a famine and they and their two sons leave Judah and settle in Moab. Naomi’s husband dies there and the two sons marry Moabite women, named Ruth and Orpah. The two sons also die leaving Ruth and Orpah who are now grown women.

So Naomi decides to return to Judah. Much time as passed and conditions have improved. But Ruth and Orpah are Moabite women. Naomi advises them to stay in Moab as there is no future for them with her. Orpah decides to stay in Moab, but Ruth does not. She loves her mother-in-law and tells her in words that are often used in weddings:

‘Do not press me to leave you
or to turn back from following you!
Where you go, I will go;
where you lodge, I will lodge;
your people shall be my people,
and your God my God.
¹⁷Where you die, I will die—
there will I be buried.
May the Lord do thus and so to me,
and more as well,
if even death parts me from you!’
¹⁸When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her.
Ruth 1:15-18

So we have a story that features as its protagonist, Ruth, a foreign woman with no resources. No money, no protection. But she does have one thing, her mother-in-law whom she loves.

They return to Judah. Naomi has a relative named Boaz. He is doing pretty well. Ruth decides to glean in his field behind the reapers. Boaz notices her and offers her protection from the other reapers and allows her to glean. He is impressed with her and with the care she has taken for Naomi her mother-in-law.

Naomi devises a plan for Ruth to marry Boaz so that Ruth will have some security. She will go when he is sleeping and “uncover his feet” which is probably a euphemism for something a bit more erotic. Anyway, she does it and Boaz is impressed. He decides to marry her and they have children. One of the grandchildren is David, eventually King of Israel.

That is the short version. This story is set in conditions in which our heroine, Ruth, has absolutely no resources. The injustices of patriarchy leave her without protection, security, or economic opportunity. As a foreigner, she is even more marginalized. None of that is questioned within the story. It is assumed as the way things are and should be.

Yet the story hints that YHWH’s favor is upon Ruth. It is that favor for the marginalized that provides the critique of this system as not the way YHWH wishes the world to work. Through the courage, loyalty, and intelligence of Ruth, she becomes a subject not an object. She becomes a human being not defined as someone else’s property or a foreigner.

It is a story of comfort and hope in that YHWH looks with favor upon those most marginalized. The word to those who are marginalized is this:

“No one thinks you matter, but I do.”

I was thinking about Ruth’s story in light of the Shepherd’s Inn. The Shepherd’s Inn is our safe house in Elizabethton for women who are victims of domestic violence. Domestic violence is not Ruth’s story. However, lack of resources, protection, security, and economic opportunity is Ruth’s story and the story of virtually every woman who enters the Shelter.

Ruth and Naomi were fortunate. They had each other. The women who enter this shelter often do not have even that. Domestic violence continues because it isolates women from those things that can be a source of empowerment.

The unfortunate reality is that most of these women go back to these violent relationships. Observers from the outside may wonder why. They may put the blame on the women. But the reality is that there are often few options. Pressures from families and religion, and lack of economic resources are too much for many of these women. Coupled with that, psychological issues regarding self-esteem can make imagining a different future nearly impossible.

It is neither accurate nor just to put the blame and the responsibility on these women. We need to work toward making a community in which domestic violence is unacceptable.

We have our work cut out for us.

The task involves breaking the silence and becoming educated about the reality and the depth of domestic violence.

The task involves imagining and creating a new ethic of right relationship between all people. This entails equality and opportunity regardless of gender. It includes education at all levels beginning with the very young in our schools about solving conflicts peacefully.

It includes asking these questions:

“Is the home a private sphere where the larger community turns a blind eye to violence within the home?”

“Is sexual violence and rape permissible when it occurs between a married couple?”

Too often a marriage license is viewed as a license to control another person’s body.

It includes asking questions about the inequality of traditional gender roles. This week has been historic as same-gender couples have been granted the right to marry in California. Some say this will somehow hurt marriage. But evidence suggests that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach heterosexual couples.

A recent article in the New York Times, “Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage” cites a number of studies on same-gender unions and how they compare with opposite gender unions.

After Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions in 2000, researchers surveyed nearly 1,000 couples, including same-sex couples and their heterosexual married siblings. The focus was on how the relationships were affected by common causes of marital strife like housework, sex and money.

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”

Equality in relationships leads to more peace.

This is not to say that gay or lesbian couples never have violence. But it does show that we can learn from each other and re-examine gender roles that legitimize oppression within the home.

In the Ruth story, the true love story is between Ruth and Naomi. Boaz is somewhat of an extra. He is needed for security. He offers that for Ruth and Naomi. But it is the loyal, faithful, “I will be with you until you die, friendship” between Ruth and Naomi that is the heart of the story.

I want to turn to the Song of Solomon. This is erotic poetry. It is really quite beautiful. There is no violence in this book. There is no domination. No forcing. The relationship is mutual, equal, and sexy.

As an apple tree among the trees of the wood,
so is my beloved among young men.
With great delight I sat in his shadow,
and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
⁴He brought me to the banqueting house,
and his intention towards me was love.
⁵Sustain me with raisins,
refresh me with apples;
for I am faint with love.

And…

How beautiful you are, my love,
how very beautiful!
Your eyes are doves
behind your veil.
Your hair is like a flock of goats,
moving down the slopes of Gilead.
²Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes
that have come up from the washing,
all of which bear twins,
and not one among them is bereaved.
³Your lips are like a crimson thread,
and your mouth is lovely.

How different this ancient book is from how sexuality is perceived and portrayed in our society? Women are objectified to sell everything from cars to cameras. Eroticism is equated with domination and control. The church’s attitudes toward sexuality are atrocious. It thinks it has done its job when it controls people and tells them they are dirty for being sexual beings. It has removed the sacred from the body.

We do have our work cut out for us. Sexual justice is related to all other forms of justice and right relationship. Violence whether it be physical, emotional, or spiritual against women or sexual minorities is all connected.

We can begin to make a new ethic. This ethic involves making equality sexy. It is about loving our bodies and respecting the bodies of others including the body of our Mother Earth.

I am going to close with Toni Morrison from her book, Beloved. Baby Suggs speaks to her congregation:

"Here," said Baby Suggs, "in this here place, we flesh. Flesh that weeps, laughs, flesh that dances on bare feet in grass. Love it. Love it hard. Yonder they do not love your flesh. They despise it. They don't love your eyes; they'd just as soon pick em out. No more do they love the skin on your back. Yonder they flay it. And O my people, they do not love your hands. Those they only use, tie, bind chop off and leave empty. Love your hands! Raise them up and kiss them. Touch others with them, pat them together, stroke them on your face 'cause they don't love that either. You got to love it, you! ... This is flesh I'm talking about here. Flesh that needs to be loved.