Cautious Optimism for PC(USA)

[andrewlittle]

Just now (4:15 Eastern), I received this update from Presbyterian Rainbow:

DELETE B passed with 54% in favor!
What this means is that the Presbyteries now need to vote on this. However an immediate authoritative interpretation goes into effect.

The action is to place before all Presbyteries a constitutional amendment to replace G-6.0106b (hence the name DELETE B)of the Book of Order:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

with...

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate's sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

It also offers an authoritative interpretation by the General Assembly:
Interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof, have no further force or effect.

Now, I haven't seen this on the PCUSA website, yet, so it could be jumping the gun.

Outside of all the jargon, it means that:
Even though a constitutional amendment has been rejected twice before by presbyteries over the last few years, they will get to vote again.

The vote this time is a little different. It puts the weight of determining suitability where it has traditionally rested in the Presbyterian tradition - in the hands of the individual presbyteries.

It still has to be passed by two-thirds majority, however.

The good news is removing the old, and damaging, authoritative interpretations. The playing field just got longer and wider, folks. But the game could become quite a bloodbath from here. I serve in a presbytery that filed a DELETE B overture. I almost wish I served in one that didn't - so I could try to have more effect on that one. Well, maybe by distance.

[BruceChris]

But still not quite as useful as congregational polity, the rule that each church congregation can make some or all of it's own policies. Some Baptist governing bodies allow this. The UCC does this.

I looked up the Wikipedia list of Baptist denominations, and found that there seem to be over a hundred, so I would not know which applied without asking, but one Baptist church that I once attended had a lesbian minister and a lesbian intern. It obviously was not a Southern Baptist. I guess that being in Minnesota can do that for you.

Peace, Bruce Chris

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

But still not quite as useful as congregational polity, the rule that each church congregation can make some or all of it's own policies. Some Baptist governing bodies allow this. The UCC does this.

Peace, Bruce Chris

But polity is an important part of what makes a Presbyterian a Presbyterian, a Methodist a Methodist and a Congregationalist (UCC) a Congregationalist. It's kind of pointless to suggest that the Presbyterian Church would be improved by adopting Congregational polity.

All Congregational polity means is that the national UCC body can pass pro-LGBT legislation, but they can't impose LGBT pastors on local churches that want to discriminate against them. It's nice that some UCC congregations accept LGBT pastors, but that doesn't mean that LGBT persons are welcome everywhere in the UCC.

On the other hand, in a hierarchical church like the United Methodist Church, more women get appointed to better positions, whereas in the UCC churches may call women because they "can't afford a man." I suspect in the UCC the same pattern may develop with LGBT pastors getting less desirable pulpits because those churches that can "afford" a more "ideal" (i.e. "traditional") pastor's family will call them in preference to LGBT persons. I'm not saying that's always the case---just saying that may be a tendency. On the other hand it has the benefit of appearing to be "democratic."

I've heard horror stories of UCC congregations treating LGBT candidates for pulpits very badly. E.g. a relatively liberal pastor search committee misjudges their congregation, invites a LGBT candidate only to have that candidate experience all the homophobes come out of the woodwork to cast "no" votes. But that's "democracy."

Frankly, I don't want to get into a fight about church polities and whether one is more superior than the others or not. They all have their good points and their bad points. I do object to suggestions that Presbyterians could improve their denomination simply by becoming Congregational. That would be asking them to surrender a key piece of their identity and tradition---like asking Episcopalians to do away with Bishops.

Steven Webster