This past Tuesday night, at 660th meeting of the Presbytery of San Francisco, the Presbytery narrowly approved Lisa Larges for ordination. Larges is a lesbian who has sought ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA) for over 20 years. Presbytery Moderator Chuck Fry wrote the following on the Presbytery’s website:
The Presbytery in its 660th meeting voted in favor of sustaining Lisa Larges in her trials of ordination in preparation for proceeding to ordain her as a minister of word and sacrament. The body demonstrated once again that it is capable of dealing with sensitive and polarizing issues in the context of mutual respect, order and love. Those who were present witnessed the work of the Spirit as together we sought to discern God’s will for this body. May this be a lesson as we proceed with our structural enhancements, altered staffing and refocused priorities for the future. (more here)
It was certainly an historic event to be present for, and while I’ve had my own frustrations with the Presbyterian process, I left the meeting feeling proud of the Presbytery for the decision it made. And while #sfpby never made it as a Twitter trending topic, there was a lot of chatter on Twitter about the meeting, both from many who were at the meeting and from many around the country (and world) who were following the live-updates via Twitter.
For many of you – it will not surprise you to know that I was thrilled that Lisa Larges was finally approved for ordination. I met Lisa for the first time before her examination on Tuesday night, and had never heard her speak before. I was incredibly impressed during her examination with her ability to share her call, the passion with which she spoke about following Christ and her ability to remain calm and collected as person after person got up to question her call, her theology and her commitment to Christ and the scriptures.
The Presbytery of San Francisco is an extremely divided Presbytery and I was present for the last major Presbytery vote when the Presbytery voted against Amendment B. So I was cynically very much expecting a similar vote this time around. However, first the Presbytery voted to allow Lisa’s call to serve as Ministry Coordinator for That All May Freely Serve, and after hours of discussion and conversation, voted to ordain Lisa to that position. I will say that while the Presbytery is so divided, the tenor and tone of the questions and discussion were *for the most part* fairly civil and filled with charity. There were of course exceptions to that, and it was disheartening to hear some of the questions and perceptions of some present.
I guess the thing that kept coming up for me was the folks who were so fearful and threatened by Lisa’s interpretation of scripture. Some of the questions/statements seemed to imply, “Lisa – your interpretation of scripture is CLEARLY different than mine. Thus, your interpretation is wrong – or it’s clear that scripture has no authority for you.” The inability of some to see the possibility for the presence of difference is quite frustrating. Now, obviously, this is something that I (and others who are supportive of Lisa and all other LGBT folk in the church) need to work on as well. Sometimes I can find myself too closed off from hearing others perspectives that I don’t agree with – but when I’m at my best, I hope that I can leave room for that difference as well.
There are some who are probably wondering how the Presbytery of San Francisco could approve the ordination of a lesbian woman, according to our polity. I’ll let the polity wonks out there define it in more detail:
- This Presbyterian Outlook article is a helpful start
- Shuck and Jive: Lisa Larges Approved for Ordination
- Shuck and Jive: Lisa Larges and Her Scruple
- Shuck and Jive: Busybodies Strike Back at Lisa Larges
- A Time to Embrace: Lisa Larges Approved for Ordination, But
Essentially, Lisa was scrupling G-6.0106b, which has traditionally been used to keep gay and lesbian folk from being able to be ordained. Lisa was able to make a theological case for the fact that it didn’t go against the essentials of Reformed faith and polity, and that she could remain faithful to Christ and the scriptures while acknowledging a departure from this section of our church’s polity. This is all something that is possible to do within our current church polity.
Of course – many knew that the celebration would not last long. There was a large group that disagreed with the Presbytery’s actions last Tuesday, and according to this Press Release:
Enough signatures were collected at the close of the meeting to secure a Stay of Enforcement while a remedial complaint is filed with the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission. Mr. Larges’ ordination cannot take place unless all legal hurdles are overcome, which could take another eighteen months.
This was both expected and very sad. This will put her ordination on hold, will consume many people’s time and energy, and will undoubtedly cost a fair amount of money. It’s unfortunate that some people feel obligated to “protect God’s word” by these types of actions. However, it’s also part of the Presbyterian system that allows for this and makes sure that everyone’s voice is heard. Lisa has been waiting for over 20 years – and while I’m sure she’ll be able to handle this additional time – it’s sad that she is being forced to, especially after the Presbytery has now validated her call to ministry and voted in favor of her ordination.
While the actions to delay her ordination are saddening, I’m still very pleased with the way the Presbytery voted last Tuesday, and I am incredibly impressed with Lisa Larges and the way in which she was able to express herself so candidly, honestly and faithfully during her examination. If you want to read her Statement of Faith, you can find it here. Her statement of departure from G-6.0106b can also be found here.
Talking with someone yesterday, she was remarking that one day her children (both currently in middle school) will look back on situations like this and be so utterly confused what all the fuss was about. I’m confident that one day this will not be an issue that we find ourselves debating about. But it’s just unfortunate that we still have a long way to go until then.
Related posts:
- Ordination Update
- Next Step in my Ordination Process
- National and Local Ordination Standards
- Ordination Update: Finally, A Decision
Share This Post:
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for this Adam, and for the links! I had the joy of meeting Lisa in 2003. She is bright. I think of my examination for ordination and my questioning as I have moved from presbytery to presbytery and it has been nothing. My theology is all over the place but hey, at least I’m not gay! I do hope that as she is clearing the way that the road will be easier for those who follow.
Thanks for sharing. DM me your email address or shoot me an email (I’m @socialpipeline btw)
Dear Adam:
Is this what church IS for you? A struggle for the gays? I know it isn’t all church is for you, but given the VERY few things you EVER say in public about things like, say, Jesus Christ and his resurrection or the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or even the wonder and truth of Holy Scripture, one really must wonder whether church is anything more than a bare-bones political struggle for “equal rights.” And if it is little more than a political struggle, I have to ask: why not just be a politician? Who needs the Church?
Amos – it’s certainly not ALL the church is for me. I think I’ve written enough stuff here about emerging church issues, pluralism, youth ministry and more general ministry stuff as well…
I think you’re right that for many, “church” has become so focused on this issue. But I do feel that there is a strong pulse of scripture that talks about God siding with the poor and the disenfranchised…God’s very interactions with his people when they were in bondage and being oppressed.
That is why I think there is enough theological and biblical precedence to believe that yes, part of being the church is struggling for those who are being left behind and those who are being ostracized by the church…that’s very different than just calling it a political struggle for equal rights.
Amos – I’m going to clarify something. When I said that, “for many, ‘church’ has become so focused on this issue” – I think that it a sad thing – but I don’t think it’s bad. I think it’s *important* for those in the church to be focused on this issue until we are able to get past it and start allowing everyone – including our LGBT brothers & sisters – to be working together to bring about the kingdom.
Um, Amos – have you been reading the Credo series? There’s plenty here about “Jesus Christ and his resurrection or the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or even the wonder and truth of Holy Scripture”…I wonder if we’re reading the same blog.
Um, Amos – have you been reading the Credo series? There’s plenty here about “Jesus Christ and his resurrection or the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or even the wonder and truth of Holy Scripture”…I wonder if we’re reading the same blog.
Yes I have been reading this series. It’s a freaking joke. Really? You think this counts as intellectual engagement of Christian tradition? Please. Writing words like “Holy Spirit” and “Jesus” down in HTML and then clicking “publish” in WordPress does not count as theological reflection. So yes, we are reading the same blog. I just tend to think that theology is more interesting, rewarding, and complicated than the bullshit lip-service to modern liberalism this blog amounts to. Sorry if that’s harsh, but it’s the reality of the situation.
I think it’s *important* for those in the church to be focused on this issue until we are able to get past it and start allowing everyone – including our LGBT brothers & sisters – to be working together to bring about the kingdom.
Is it really beyond your imagination to think that telling gays that homosexuality is sinful cannot be an option for bringing about the kingdom? Are you really that much of a fundamentalist?
I just tend to think that theology is more interesting, rewarding, and complicated than the bullshit lip-service to modern liberalism this blog amounts to.
If that is the case, then why waste your time reading and commenting here?
John, you have a very good point. The thing is that Adam is way too popular not to be taken seriously. Even though what is on this blog is not seriously intellectual, it is highly regarded among many leaders in quasi-evangelical churches. I waste my time because I think a counter-point needs to exist on this blog, even for its own sake! If I didn’t write what I wrote, there would have just been about fifteen or twenty comments saying “ohhhh yay Adam, yay Adam!”
My existence makes this blog better. The bare fact that I might disagree with the All-Powerful Pomo makes reading this blog more interesting. And it may just remind people out there in the echo-chamber of theoblogging that there are plenty of flesh-and-blood thinking people who do not buy into the rhetoric of wooly modern liberalism.
I know I’m not going to convince anyone reading this. People who read and write blogs like this one are not interested in having their minds changed or thinking through the implications of sexual morality in the church – one way or the other. Adam is no more likely to change his mind on this issue than Jerry Fallwell. The idea that “gays must be ordained” has the force of DOGMA in many churches, to the extent that even to question the idea makes one a homophobe, etc. So I know my rants will not even come close to persuasion. Even as Adam reads these very words right now he is mentally crafting his tentative, but ultimately disagreeable response.
So whatever. When Adam starts using his brain instead of drinking the damned Kool-Aid of the 1960’s, the silent majority who read this blog might take him more seriously. Until then, he will get responses like this to prove that not everybody thinks just like him.
OK. Bless you on your mission.
Amos,
Why so angry? It’s one thing to disagree and have a different view and quite another to degrade someone’s character or make assumptions about who Adam is or what Adam is doing.
Also, I’m puzzled by the statement you made earlier:
“Is it really beyond your imagination to think that telling gays that homosexuality is sinful cannot be an option for bringing about the kingdom? Are you really that much of a fundamentalist?”
Are you saying that judging, condemning and hating other people whom you don’t know is a viable option that will usher in the kingdom of God?…a kingdom where Paul says all are one in Christ, where there is no Jew, no Greek, no male, no female, no slave, no free; a kingdom of love and justice for the poor, oppressed and marginalized?
Your statement or train of thought lacks any and all imagination, at least of the loving, redeeming, creative kind. A lot of people throughout history have imagined a world ordained by God where Jews, blacks (and other races), women, etc. were not fit to be a part. Many people have abused scripture to further their own power and authority of a majority white male ruling class–refusing to see God’s love in the other and thus make it their mission to squash anyone who teaches, as Jesus did, that all should be loved–the prostitute, the tax collector, the fishermen, the Roman soldier, the poor, the sick,the leper, the prisoner, the Samarian, etc.
Your statements seem to indicate that you are the type of person who is desperately trying to hold tightly to your box, unwilling to step out of your comfort zone and see the world with fresh eyes, to vision a world where God’s love is for all people, not just the ones you deem to deserve it.
And let me also point out that your arrogance and self-righteousness is astounding and almost laughable. You immediately discredit your viewpoint by boasting that you make this blog better by having an opinion that is void itself of any genuince and faithful constructive criticism, pastoral dialogue or intelligence. You throw out tired metaphors like “drinking Kool-aid in the 60s” that have no context or bearing on the post Adam has written or this blog as a whole. You’ve resorted to lazy labels and name calling because the truth is you have no real argument. You spew vindictiveness instead of offering a rationalized and thought-out viewpoint.
There are ways to disagree and stand by your convictions in an honest and loving way without tearing down another opinion, voice or human being. Bitching and moaning and throwing tantrums as you seem to be doing makes you look like the kid in the school yard who’s upset because no one will play the way he wants everyone else to play. For someone who says this blog is paying lip service, you’re sticking out one big fat quivering lip with a bunch of drool dripping from it.
Yikes, Andy.
Your statements seem to indicate that you are the type of person who is desperately trying to hold tightly to your box, unwilling to step out of your comfort zone and see the world with fresh eyes, to vision a world where God’s love is for all people, not just the ones you deem to deserve it.
Allow myself to repeat myself:
“The idea that ‘gays must be ordained’ has the force of DOGMA in many churches, to the extent that even to question the idea makes one a homophobe, etc. So I know my rants will not even come close to persuasion.”
Why rant? Why not present an intelligent,rational, faithful, sincere argument from the other point of view? It is possible. Tony Campolo and Dan Kimball among others have written and expressed their beliefs that the gay lifestyle and ordination of gays is a sin without ranting, condemning the other side, labeling other groups or people, making assumptions, misusing info, etc.
I’m willing to listen to your view. As of yet, all you’ve done is make assumptions and accusations about Adam and this blog and boasted about how you’re rants make this blog better. But so far there’s been no substance to your statements. You’re not really attempting to enter into authentic dialogue or share your opinion in a way that would prompt others to listen. Yelling and making wild untruthful statements doesn’t get anyone anywhere.
Let’s start here, then, if you’re so willing. Churches should be allowed to make decisions about what counts and what doesn’t count as sexual morality. Agree or disagree?
I agree.
Do you disagree?
I’m not sure it’s a question of allowing or disallowing churches.
Churches of all denominations essentially do what they want in terms of deciding who is in or out, what is acceptable or not acceptable, appropriate or not appropriate in their faith community based on their interpretation of scripture and beliefs. I think that’s perfectly reasonable as long as the rule is applied consistently and fairly. It’s not right or just for a church to say that a homosexual in a loving and committed relationship is sexually immoral while ignoring the member or elder or pastor who has cheated multiple times on their spouse. But one has to be careful because if you start throwing out every person, regardless of orientation, who has been sexually immoral then churches would be very empty.
Now as far as I know, there aren’t any churches who have been forced to accept an ordained gay and lesbian person or adopt views on sexual morality that they as a church are against. And that wasn’t the point Adam was making. He was speaking from a Biblical and theological perspective of justice which I say a little more later on.
What I do know is that there are churches who don’t allow gays, lesbians who are in healthy, loving and committed relationships to worship in their congregations much less be ordained. There are churches who spend exorbitant amounts of money (in the millions) to crusade against homosexuals while not giving a dime to the poor.
And there is a great lack of open, honest and authentic conversation and genuine understanding in many churches (moderate, liberal, conservative) about human sexuality, sexual morality and gay and lesbian issues.
Among faith communities, I hear more people demanding that the Church not allow gays and lesbians less they spend time in eternal hellfire. In other words, it tends to be the side who is against homosexuality that condemns and attacks the other view, church, believer and all. And often it is those same faith communities that give a slap on the wrist to a straight pastor who has had multiple affairs.
Again, no church or denomination is being forced to do this or that. We all need to be in prayer and conversation with one another, engage the Bible intelligently, and be willing to listen to one another with open hearts.
I do believe God is a God of love who advocates justice for those who are marginalized. I believe gays and lesbians have been marginalized for decades and don’t deserve the harsh treatment they receive from the Church or Society. I believe the gay and lesbian lifestyle is unfairly linked to issues of sexual morality when one’s sexual attraction or feelings toward another is really about human sexuality.
Sexual morality is about how we live out our relationships in healthy, loving, honest ways. All people, straight and gay, are guilty of sexual immorality–of abusing relationships, i.e. multiple partners, affairs, verbal/sexual/physical abuse, lying, judging, keeping secrets, being jealous…the list goes on.
I believe that people called to ministry, regardless of their sexual orientation, who are living faithful and committed relationships and are devoted to serving Christ, should be ordained. To tell a lesbian they can’t be ordained because they are attracted to the same sex or engaging in a healthy adult relationship (say for example 20-year relationship with the same partner) and thus are inferior or not worthy to serve God is an act of great dehumanization. It’s no different than when Christians (using Scripture) said the Jews were an abomination or that blacks were literally animals and not humans or that women didn’t have the intelligence to serve. To deny justice to those whom God is calling to serve in such a judgmental and malicious way and to abuse and twist scripture to further the agenda of the majority white heterosexual ruling class, as numerous churches and Christians do, is wrong.
What is it about gays and lesbians being ordained and serving God and feeding the poor and hungry and preaching Jesus’ teachings that bothers you? Why do seemingly feel threatened by a group of people who are doing nothing to harm you or your way of life, but actually are striving to make the world a better place for all people?
Also, as a side, it would be helpful if you explained why you agree that churches should be allowed to decide sexual morality instead of just saying “agree” and expecting an “agree” or “disagree” response. You sound a bit antagonistic, as if you’re itching for a fight. That will not get the conversation going anywhere.
I only asked the question that way because I think the rest of the discussion hangs on our answer to this question. You heard antagonism? Weird.
Great article here, Adam. I’m both saddened and unsurprised that the Presbys are dealing with this in similar ways that the Methodists are. Sigh.
Amos,
The question “Churches should be allowed to make decisions about what counts and what doesn’t count as sexual morality. Agree or disagree?” is broad and attempt to set up a black-and-white conversation.
Churches already make decisions about what counts and doesn’t count as sexual morality. Do I agree with every church’s definition of what counts and doesn’t count as sexual morality? No. Do I agree that a church should use its decisions on sexual morality to condemn, judge and hate others who don’t believe the same way they do? No. Do I agree that a church’s decision on what counts or doesn’t count as sexual morality mean they have a clear understanding of sexual morality and human sexuality? No. Do I agree that a church’s decision, etc., is the correct one? No.
This is much more complex than agreeing or disagreeing whether churches should be allowed to make decisions? We’ve got to be looking a lot deeper in our souls and hearts at more serious questions such as how a church or individual Christian defines sexual morality and understands human sexuality within the context of faith in a post-post-modern world.
Help me understand why you agree that churches should be allowed to make decisions on sexual morality and how those decisions impact people and communities of faith?
Help a brother out here…
Andy you wrote:
What I do know is that there are churches who don’t allow gays, lesbians who are in healthy, loving and committed relationships to worship in their congregations much less be ordained. There are churches who spend exorbitant amounts of money (in the millions) to crusade against homosexuals while not giving a dime to the poor.
Name one Presbyterian church that does this please. Call them out here. I struggle when people make claims and assumptions and then don’t back it up, so please, back it up
Chris,
To clarify I never said that it was Presbyterian churches spending money on anti-homosexual campaigns.
It is pretty common knowledge that there have been some mega churches and denominations like the Baptists and the Catholics who have spent millions of dollars on Proposition 8 or anti-homosexual material. Currently in Uganda, Christians are trying to push a Anti-Homosexual bill through the government and into law.
I recall hearing or reading an article years back about a fundamentally conservative mega church that was spending something like 8 million on billboards that said homosexuality was a sin. I’m sorry I don’t recall the specific church.
And it’s pretty common knowledge that Southern Baptists and Presbyterian Church of America don’t allow homosexuals to be members of their congregations unless the gay or lesbian person denounces their lifestyle and confesses their sin.
There is also within the PCUSA and some other denominations, the Confession Church Movement which contains a key belief about homosexuals are sinful and shouldn’t be ordained. Each of those particular churches have different views on whether gays and lesbians can be members. Some places they are allowed as long as they don’t become elders or pastors. Other places might forbade it completely.
There is a list of churches on the Layman website. The Layman is a fundamentally conservative voice in the PCUSA that writes numerous articles railing against homosexuality.
http://www.layman.org/Home/Evangelism/Confessingchurches.aspx
Again, pretty common knowledge that there are churches of all denominations in existence who spend more money and time on crusading against gays and lesbians than they do any other types of ministry. There’s Dobson of Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson and the 700 Club and millions of Christians and therefore numerous churches that tune into every hateful anti-homosexual word and believe it to be gospel.
All you have to do is read a news article or watch a video and see that people get more upset and angry (volatile and violent even) over someone who is gay more so than someone who is starving to death.
No assumptions here. That’s reality. Check out “For the Bible Tells Me So” great documentary about the issue, very eye-opening.
And Chris, to state the obvious, it’s clear from Adam’s post there are specific PCUSA churches opposed to gays and lesbians being in the church, ordained or not, as the opposition group to Lisa Large’s ordination shows. Churches elect elders to go to Presbytery meetings to vote on behalf of the particular church. I don’t know if any of those churches spend money on anti-homosexual campaigns, probably none.
But to assume that no churches, even Presbyterian ones, don’t do spend money in that way whether it’s a thousand or a million, is pretty naive. I’m willing to bet some Presbyterian churches in California sent some money to the Say Yes to Prop 8 Campaign.
I agree that the Church is often very hypocritical, and sinful, in the way the we have dealt with homosexual people and with the issue in general, but it seems you paint with too broad a brush as well…
Is there really no room for someone to call homosexual behavior sin without being labeled a bigot?
In our church homosexual people are welcomed, but homosexual behavior is considered sin. To ask for us to affirm something that we believe scripture is clear on denying, is to ask us to violate our conscience, surely you understand that?
I recognize that there are many who are motivated by fear of homosexuals because of the cultural pressure to do so, and because they have never known any… but I am sure you recognize that there are those of us in the church who fall into a different category?
I don’t see Jesus affirming anyone, welcoming everyone while simultaneously inviting them to become the kind of person whom God can affirm. Accepting Jesus’ welcome changes us.
I understand that the church has botched the message so poorly with the gay community that it is understandable that there is confusion, but the fact remains; there should be no question about ‘affirming’ people as they are. The question is not about who we really are, or what is really going on inside of us, nor is the question how stable and wonderful our partnerships might be, the real question is, who does God want us to become?
On this question, I am sure that you can see (even if you have honest disagreements with the position) that there are those of us who simply cannot find any room for homosexual behavior in who God has revealed Himself to be.
This is worlds apart from hating, fearing, disliking, homosexual people. Would you be willing to acknowledge that and begin to speak from within that perspective in the future?
Andy, you still ddin’t answer my question. You claimed that churches spend millions on antihomosexual campaigns, and don’t spend one dime on helping the hungry. PROVE IT. You mention the Layman (not a reliable new source IMHO) but of the churches listed, I daresay that they give signifigantly to feeding the hungry, and helping the poor.
My point was that you made a blatent statement ” There are churches who spend exorbitant amounts of money (in the millions) to crusade against homosexuals while not giving a dime to the poor.” Yet, you cannot back this claim up. Yes there may have been a mega church who spent money on billboards (that you admit you cannot recall the name of the church) but did they really not care fo the least of these among us?
My point was, I am tired of people making claims and statments that folks who may be opposed to homosexual practice, have no compassion, no love for justice, and no love for mercy. This is not true.
As to your claim that “For the Bible tells me so” is a documentary-please don’t insult my intelligence or anyone else’s, it is propganda and you know it.
All that being said, I suspect that you and I will have to live in the realm where we cannot agree…
Ok. Good points.
What I was trying to say earlier is that there are churches spend money on anti-homosexual campaigns when they could be spending that money on the poor or other ministries
i disagree that For Bible Tells Me So is propaganda…sounds like you haven’t watched it and you are judging it by its name and description alone.
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree
What I was trying to say earlier is that there are churches spend money on anti-homosexual campaigns when they could be spending that money on the poor or other ministries
That’s a tautology if ever there was one. Churches are spending money on ‘x’ when they could have been spending money on ‘y’ is not a valid argument for why churches should spend money on ‘y.’
It’s a valid argument if there are Christians or churches spending money on things that promote hatred and intolerance rather than using money in ways that foster love and help the poor, oppressed and marginalized, i.e. what is currently happening at the moment in Uganda.
We need less Christians trying to convert and save people who they judge and deem different and unworthy (and even worse criminalize and persecute in the Uganda case), and more Christians reaching out to others in love, regardless of economics, gender, sexual orientation, culture, religious beliefs, etc.
Wonderful. And now you why the mainline denominations are going extinct.
Yup. Convert people to a religion of non-conversion. Good luck with that!
>>>Yup. Convert people to a religion of non-conversion. Good luck with that!
Their real religion is Liberalism, and believe you me, they will make every effort to convert you to that one. The christian missionaries of old had nothing on these guys.