Date: Sat, 2 Nov 96 11:32:11 EST From: James Anderson Subject: More Light Update Nov-Dec 1996 (182 K) MORE LIGHT UPDATE For all ministers, elders, deacons, members and friends of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) November-December 1996 Volume 17, Number 2 Presbyterians for Lesbian & Gay Concerns James D. Anderson, Communications Secretary P.O. 38 New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0038 908-249-1016, 908-932-7501 (Rutgers University) FAX 908-932-6916 (Rutgers University) Internet: jda@mariner.rutgers.edu (or jda@scils.rutgers.edu) PLGC-List: plgc-list@andrew.cmu.edu PLGC home page: http://www.epp.cmu.edu/~riley/PLGC.html Masthead, with Publication Information at end of file. Note: * is used to indicate italicized or boldface text. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CONTENTS OOPS: Attention Librarians PHOTOS EVENTS Love Matters: Working Toward a Loving Church: PLGC's winter conference NOT IN PRINT VERSION: Intimacy with God: Running for Our Lives -- Resting in God, January 9-12, 1997 PEOPLE Notes on PLGC folks Church and Transgender, by The Reverends Carla Pridgen and Erin Swenson RESOURCES Shower of Stoles Becomes Permanent Program REQUESTS Help a Congregation Welcome a Lesbian Couple's Newborn Child Shower of Stoles Project Needs Computer FEATURE ARTICLES The Chastity Amendment Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Read Very Carefully, by The Rev. Charles L. Rassieur, Ph.D. Issues for Presbyteries to Reflect upon prior to their vote on the proposed Amendment to the Form of Government in The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), by David J. McGown "Bold and Curious Searchings into God's Secrets," Or, What Do the Confessions Call "Sin"? Compiled by Leslie E. Ellison, Stated Clerk, Mission Presbytery Remembering General Assembly Remembering Albuquerque, by Lainey Rathgeber "The Assembly Takes a Step Back. The Church of Faith Moves Forward" -- The Albuquerque General Assembly, by the Rev. Harold Porter, Mt. Auburn Church, Cincinnati We Are Here to Stay, by Manley Olson I'm Not Leaving Either, by Laurence Reh Reflections on My First General Assembly, by Cindy Herron It is Now My Struggle, by Pat Ireland. Thoughts and Observations, by James Nicholson The Cultivation of My Soul, by the Rev. Kay Huggins NOT IN PRINT VERSION: A Letter to the Moderator, by Laurence Reh Many Ups and Downs: A message to my core family -- PLGC & More Light Churches, from Howard Warren NOT IN PRINT VERSION: A New Church Office: Sinquisidor? By Peg Beissert Why Do I Cry at Happy Endings? By Chris Glaser Commentary and Analysis. By the Rev. Tom Hanks NOT IN PRINT VERSION: A Letter to the Session, from Elder Dick Wunder NOT IN PRINT VERSION: Speech on Overture 96-13 Not Given to the 208th General Assembly by a Person Not There: Jim Asendorf NOT IN PRINT VERSION: To my fellow members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): from David N. Grimshaw, D.O. NOT IN PRINT VERSION: And Now for a Little History: The Auburn Affirmation, contributed by Sonnie Swenston PLGC Officers and Contacts (at end of file) Masthead (publication information) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OOPS Attention Librarians And anyone else out there that thinks like we librarians: I neglected to say in the note about our new format and publishing schedule in the previous issue, that THERE WAS NO AUGUST 1996 *More Light Update.* -- Jim Anderson, Editor, Communications Secretary, and Librarian! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PHOTOS In our new format, we have a lot more room for photos, so send your favorite PLGC-related photos in! This issue features photos by Lainey Rathgeber, Harold Snedeker, and Rob Cummings, to whom we give great thanks. We regret that these great photos are NOT in the electronic version! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EVENTS Love Matters: Working Toward a Loving Church PLGC's winter conference, featuring Lisa Larges, will be held in Cleveland, OH, February 21-23. See the registration flier at the end of this issue. It is designed for you to remove, copy, and distribute widely! Please register at ONCE, because the planners must reserve housing by DECEMBER 15! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOT IN PRINT VERSION: Intimacy with God: Running for Our Lives -- Resting in God, January 9-12, 1997, 7 p.m. Thursday dinner through Sunday lunch. $295 ($150 registration deposit). In this tenth annual retreat for gay and bisexual men, we will focus on the recovery of sacred peace in the midst of our often harried lives, as we reach for accomplishments, and run from fears -- as men, as Christians, as gay and bisexual, and as members of a community coping with the AIDS pandemic. Presentations, small groups, storytelling, praying, singing, and worship will create our community together. Led by (1) John McNeill, Catholic priest, psychotherapist, co-founder of Dignity, and "Dean" of gay events at Kirkridge, beginning in 1977. John is the author of the widely acclaimed and ground-breaking books *The Church and the Homosexual; Taking a Chance on God;* and *Freedom, Glorious Freedom;* (2) Chris Glaser, Presbyterian activist and author of *Coming Out to God: Prayers for Lesbians and Gay Men, Their Families and Friends* and *Uncommon Calling: A Gay Man's Struggle to Serve the Church.* Contact Kirkridge, 2495 Fox Gap Rd., Bangor, PA 18013, 610-588-1793. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PEOPLE Doug Elliott, long-time PLGC coordinator for the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii and also our coordinator for prison ministry, is retiring from these PLGC positions. All of PLGC send our best wishes and great appreciation for years and years of faithful service! At its September board meeting in Santa Fe, the PLGC board appointed several new coordinators. Please welcome: Our first coordinator for Transgender Concerns, The Rev. Carla T. Pridgen, 740 Sidney Marcus Blvd., #5106, Atlanta, GA 30324, 404- 262-0566. We have also invited one of our members to serve as Coordinator for Bisexual Concerns, and we will list her as soon as we get her OK. Donna Michelle Riley is the creator and coordinator for PLGC's wonderful world-wide web page, so the board is thanking her by recognizing her with our new Web-Page Coordinator position. Her address and phone are: Box 323, 4902 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3799, 412-422-1822, 412-268-5550 wk, email: riley+@andrew.cmu.edu New coordinators for (1) the Synod of the Covenant, Mary Rose, 861 W. Bluff St., Marquette, MI 49855-4121, 906-226-7163, marose@nmu.edu; (2) the Synod of Lakes and Prairies, Richard Winslow, 111 E. Water St., #100, Appleton, WI 54911-5791, 414- 731-0892; (3) the Synod of the Sun, John P. McNeese, P.O. Box 54606, Oklahoma City, 73120-1404, 405-848-2819; and Gail Rickey, 13114 Holston Hills, Houston, TX 77069, 713-440-0353, 713-440- 1902 fax, email patrickey@aol.com; and (4) the Synod of Alaska Northwest, Michael Tsai, 1622 W. James Pl., #2-F-2, Kent, WA 98032, 206-859-5686. Rob Cummings was appointed PLGC recording secretary; Jim Anderson and Lew Myrick were re-appointed to serve as communications secretary and treasurer, respectively. Mike Smith is our new issues coordinator. Many thanks to Bill Capel for his many years service as our PresbyNet coordinator; Dorothy Fillmore will continue to serve in this capacity. Tony De La Rosa and Peter Oddleifson continue as coordinators for judicial issues; John Trompen continues as PLGC liaison to the Presbyterian AIDS Network. Susan Leo joins Howard Warren and Lisa Bove as a PLGC liaison to Presbyterian Act-Up. Dorothy Fillmore is chair of the PLGC Nominating Committee. Bill Moss will join the committee to bring it to full strength. Send them your nominations! Woody Smallwood is new chair of the PLGC Bylaws Committee; Lisa Larges will chair next year's Inclusive Church Award Committee (send her your nominations!). For next year's General Assembly, Lindsay Biddle will coordinate our hospitality suite, and Lisa Furr will be general coordinator of all our events. Lisa Larges will coordinate PLGC worship. Please note the following changes and corrections to Coordinator and Board member listings: Co-Coordinator for Southern California, The Rev. L. Dean Hay, has moved. His new address and phone are: 2851 S. La Cadena Dr, #71, Colton, CA 92324, 909-370-4591. Please correct the address of our European coordinator, Jack Huizinga, from 74 to 76 Shoe Lane. His complete address is: Voice of America, 76 Shoe Lane, London EC4A 3JB, U.K., email: jwhuizen@dircon.co.uk Lisa Furr's PNet address is: Lisa Furr; email: lisa_furr.parti@ecunet.org Tony De La Rosa's PNet address is: Tony De La Rosa; email: tony_de_la_rosa.parti@ecunet.org or tonydlr@ix.netcom.com Mike Smith's PNet address is: Michael D Smith; email: Michael_D_Smith.parti@ecunet.org Susan Leo's email address is: sleoclu@aol.com Gene Huff's phone number is: 415-668-1145; he will be on PNet soon. Delete Lisa Furr's PNet address from the listing for Elizabeth Hill, co-ordinator for the Synod of Mid-Atlantic. Woody Smallwood's email address is: woodybalt@aol.com Delete the position of Liaison to the More Light Churches Network, because of our continuing close working relationship, including joint board meetings. We are also discontinuing PLGC Postings while we explore new ways to facilitate matching friendly persons with friendly positions, perhaps via the internet and/or PNet. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Church and Transgender by The Reverends Carla Pridgen and Erin Swenson Why should the Church be concerned about transgendered persons? On the one hand, the Church should be concerned about this because there are numerous transgendered people both inside and outside of the membership of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Some estimates suggest that there may be as many as 2,000 transgendered Presbyterians. These individuals are found in every aspect of Presbyterian life, including leadership. In fact, there are currently at least two transgendered ministers who have made their transgendered identities known to the church. On the other hand, concern about transgendered persons need be no greater or less than for any other child of God. Transgendered Presbyterians have the same need to serve and be served as any other member of the PCUSA. Transgendered persons in the general population are no less worthy of the loving outreach of this portion of Christ's church than anyone else in society. The moral and ethical issue here is how the church ministers to its own and to others, not whether being transgendered is "right" or "wrong." Who are transgendered people? Time Out! What is gender identity, anyway? According to *Gender Dysphoria, a Guide to Research* (Denny, 1994), "Gender identity is the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs; that is, the awareness that 'I am male,' or 'I am female.' Gender identity is the private experience of gender role, and gender role is the public expression of gender identity. Gender role can be defined as everything that one says and does to indicate to others or to oneself the degree to which one is male or female." On the one hand, transgendered people are a particular group of individuals who experience extraordinary feelings of inappropriateness about the sex assigned at birth, and the gender identity and role that accompanies that assignment. This is sometimes referred to as gender dysphoria, a condition of profound dissatisfaction about one's gender identity and role. On the other hand, being transgendered is a common experience among men and women in that all of us, from time to time, experience gender discomfort. A young woman who feels uncomfortable about the shape of her body is experiencing this kind of discomfort. A middle aged man who is sensitive about the size of his penis feels similar discomfort. So, what is the difference between these two views? It is that those who are labeled transgendered experience these otherwise common feelings more intensely, whether this occurs on a daily basis or only occasionally. What is "transgender?" On the one hand transgender is an inclusive term that encompasses a variety of alternate gender expressions and lifestyles. This can include an individual who simply feels uncomfortable about her gender. It can also include a man who finds a real sense of well being by occasionally dressing and behaving as a woman. It also includes some who feel a profound inappropriateness about their anatomical sex and its related gender role. These individuals desire to seek medical treatment to effect permanent bodily changes (transsexuals). There are even those who desire the consistent appearance and role of one gender while wanting the genital anatomy of the other gender. These people are often called transgenderists. This term should not to be confused with the more general term, transgender, which includes all of the above and more. On the other hand transgender is a meaningless term, only given meaning by the rigid bipolar ways in which our culture defines sex and gender roles. Again, we are all transgendered because we all cross these rigidly defined boundaries (e.g., womanless weddings, wives wearing their husband's shirts, men assuming the role of homemaker or nurse, etc.). Hopefully, one day we will not need such a term as transgender because we will all be able to express our identities freely. What do the Bible and church tradition say about transgender? On the one hand, these sources of authority say absolutely nothing about transgender. Like many other issues born of the technological advances of our time (e.g., organ transplants, nuclear technology, and genetic engineering) it is a phenomenon unknown to Biblical times and most of church history. Some biblical passages that may seem appropriate are, in fact, irrelevant when studied carefully relative to contemporary understandings of gender and human sexuality. On the other hand, most of Biblical theology is directed to the relationships between people and their Creator, people and other people, and between a person and her/his own self. This begs inquiries into the nature and destiny of humankind in the grace of God as we journey into the future, e.g., "In Jesus Christ you are all children of God through faith ... there is no longer male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26f). The Constitution of our own denomination also states unambiguously, "The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life" (G-4.0403). "Each member must seek the grace of openness in extending the fellowship of Christ to all persons. Failure to do so constitutes a rejection of Christ himself and causes a scandal to the gospel" (G-5.0103). Aren't the transgendered simply homosexual? On the one hand this is a complex question because transgendered people can, like anyone else, experience their sexual orientation in any direction. Gender identity is distinct from and more basic than sexual orientation. One's sense of being male or female necessarily precedes one's affectional attractions. Moreover, as it concerns all humankind, there is absolutely nothing simple about being sexual. There are, indeed, some transgendered people who are homosexual. There are also many who are heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual (some might say celibate). Some transgendered people are even attracted to other transgendered people, and that classification hasn't even been named. On the other hand, the transgender phenomenon renders these categories moot. If I am a male-to-female transsexual (post operative, legally "female"), does my attraction to women mean that I am heterosexual or homosexual? Or, if I fall in love with a male person and marry him legally, am I homosexual or heterosexual? The simplistic distinctions we make between male and female sexual expression begin to crumble within the transgender phenomenon. Transgender, therefore, raises an inescapable question, "What does it mean, in our time, both within the church and the world, to be a man and a woman?" [BOX] The Reverend Carla Pridgen, M.Div., M.Ed., is a member-at- large of Cherokee Presbytery in northwest Georgia. The Reverend Erin Swenson, M.Div., Th.M., Ph.D., is a marriage and family therapist and a member of The Presbytery of Greater Atlanta. Both are post operative transsexuals and active within the transgender community. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RESOURCES Shower of Stoles Becomes Permanent Program Due to the overwhelming support of the Shower of Stoles project at General Assembly, we are pleased to announce that we have developed the project into a permanent program. This fall we have received approximately $25,000 in grants and pledges to help continue the work of the project. PLGC has agreed to act as our fiscal agent until a separate board is established, and has also made a generous pledge of support to the program. We will use these initial funds to help take the stoles "on the road" as presbyteries begin their debates on the proposed "fidelity and chastity" amendment. The Shower of Stoles has become an important symbol of the presence of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered folk in our church. Without having to utter a word, the collection of 350 stoles and their attached stories stands as a powerful witness to our leadership in this denomination and our determination to claim our God-given calls. The display, which now easily covers the entire perimeter of an 800 seat sanctuary, cannot help but move minds and hearts. We invite you to bring the Shower of Stoles to your region this winter. We have already received requests for the stoles to be displayed at a city-wide ecumenical celebration, as a cooperative program for several "More Light" and supportive congregations in another urban area, and as a pre-Presbytery educational tool. Another region is considering a cooperative "traveling display" through five adjoining presbyteries. We have also sent a smaller number of stoles to a congregation for an installation service for their new pastor. To talk to us about bringing the display to your area, or for more information about the program, please contact Martha Juillerat, 6146 Locust St., Kansas City, MO, 64110, (816) 523- 1812. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REQUESTS Help a Congregation Welcome a Lesbian Couple's Newborn Child If anyone has useful resources for helping a congregation extend a warm Christian welcome to a lesbian couple's newborn child, please let Dean Hay, our coordinator in Southern California know. The child is on her/his way! Dean can be reached at: 2851 La Cadena Rd, #71, Colton, CA 92327, 909-370-4591. Shower of Stoles Project Needs Computer The Shower of Stoles project is seeking the donation of an IBM compatible laptop computer. The laptop should be new or almost- new, with enough memory capacity for a full range of database, graphics and communication applications. For more information, contact Martha Juillerat at (816) 822-8577. Thanks! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FEATURE ARTICLES The Chastity Amendment If nothing else, the proposed "fidelity and chastity" amendment to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been a great spur to wide-spread study of the Scriptures, and especially the Book of Confessions. We lead off with three contributions resulting from this study. -- JDA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Note: * = italics; ** = bold italics Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Read Very Carefully by The Rev. Charles L. Rassieur, Ph.D. I have just returned from the 208th General Assembly in Albuquerque as a clergy commissioner from the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area. Because of action taken by the Assembly, 171 presbyteries will be voting in the next twelve months on the amendment that begins with the words, **"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."** That sentence states the fundamental theological premise for this amendment. It is a sentence that should be read very carefully throughout the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), for it expresses a theology of faith and commitment that betrays the essential Reformed theology in the ordination vows now taken by every deacon, elder, and minister of the Word and Sacrament! The constitutional ordination questions (*Book of Order* G14.0207 & G14.0405) for all three offices of deacon, elder, and minister of the Word and Sacrament call for church officers to be obedient specifically and **only** to Jesus Christ and not to Scripture, and to be instructed, led, and guided by our historic confessions, **not conformed** to those confessions. Those ordination vows are written precisely as they are, because church officers are to have but one Lord to whom they are obedient, Jesus Christ. We may talk in the church however much we want about the authority of Scripture, but the bedrock of the Reformed tradition is obedience to Jesus Christ alone, a faithful obedience that is properly instructed, led, and guided by our church's historic confessions. Those confessions speak clearly about the only One to whom we are called to be obedient. Referring to baptism, The Westminster Confession of Faith includes these words: "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, ..." (Book of Confessions 6.157). And, The Confession of 1967 declares in the Preface: "Obedience to Jesus Christ alone identifies the one universal church and supplies the continuity of its tradition. This obedience is the ground of the church's duty and freedom to reform itself in life and doctrine as new occasions, in God's providence, may demand" (9.03). There has long been confusion in the church about what is meant by the Word and who or what is the Word. The crisis of that theological confusion has now reached unprecedented proportions for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the very first sentence of the proposed change to our church's constitution. The issue before the church is far greater than how any one of us might feel about matters regarding ordination. **The enormously important issue now before every presbytery is whom will the church call Lord, and to whom will the church be obedient!** Every member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) should read the proposed amendment very carefully and read the constitutional ordination questions very carefully, all in the light of the guidance offered on this matter by the church's historic confessions. Then, return again to these words and forget them not: "for you have one master, the Christ" (Matthew 23:10b); and "No one can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24a). The church's officers are to be obedient only to Jesus Christ, not to Scripture, which is more than enough reason for why the proposed amendment on sexuality and ordination should be rejected. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Issues for Presbyteries to Reflect upon prior to their vote on the proposed Amendment to the Form of Government in The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by David J. McGown The proposed addition to the Constitution would add to the Form of Government 6.0106 the following: "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 of 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." Let us now consider the consequences of adopting this proposed addition to our national Presbyterian Constitution. 1. " Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life *in obedience to scripture."* a. Divorce: Exodus 20:14 -- "You shall not commit adultery"; Matthew 5:32 -- "Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Thus ordination or installation of divorced persons is prohibited. b. Tithing: Malachi 3:8-10 -- "Will anyone rob God? Yet you are robbing me! But you say, 'How are we robbing you?' In your tithes and offerings! ... Bring in the full tithe." Thus non-tithers may not be ordained or installed. c. Investing for interest: Deuteronomy 23:19 -- "You shall not charge interest on loans"; Psalm 15 -- "O Lord who may abide in your tent? ... Those who walk blamelessly, ... who do not lend money at interest." Thus no investors or bankers may be ordained or installed. d. Treatment of aliens: Leviticus 19:33-34 -- "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself." Thus any who advocate cutting of benefits to aliens may not be ordained or installed. e. Wearing clothing of mixed fabric: Leviticus 19:19 -- "... Nor shall you wear a garment made of two different materials." This would disqualify many. f. Non-kosher food: Leviticus 11 & Deuteronomy 14 -- Only those who keep kosher could be ordained and installed. g. What the Bible says about affectional same sex relations: Nothing. There is no Biblical injunction against faithful monogamous affectional homosexual relations. h. What the Bible says about temple prostitution: Under the assumption that everyone is naturally heterosexual in orientation and disgusted with temple prostitution, Paul says in Romans 1:26, 27, "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men." Thus those involved in temple prostitution may not be ordained. i. What the Bible says about homosexual rape: Genesis 19 -- "Two angels came to Sodom in the evening .... Lot saw them and said, '... spend the night, then you can rise early and go on your way.' ... But before they lay down, ... the men of Sodom ... surrounded the house and they called out to Lot, '... Bring the men out to us so that we may know them.'" Thus rapists should not be ordained or installed. j. Farming: Leviticus 19:9,10 "... You shall not reap to the very edges of your field .... You shall not strip your vineyard bare; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien ...." This would disqualify most farmers from ordination as deacons or elders. 2. "Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life ... *in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church."* [Reference numbers are to the Book of Confessions of our PC(USA) Constitution] a. Greed and Merchandising: 4.110 Heidelberg Catechism -- "God forbids ... deceptive advertising or merchandising. ... He also forbids all greed." Thus greedy persons should not be ordained/installed. b. Playing golf, tennis, fishing or other recreation on Sunday: 7.227 Westminster Larger Catechism -- "The Lord's Day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all that day ... from worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful." This would disqualify from ordination not only any who are gainfully employed on Sunday but also any who fish, play golf, tennis or any who engage in any other recreation on Sunday. c. Employing others to work on Sunday: 7.228 Westminster Larger Catechism -- "They are bound to not only keep (the Sabbath) themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge." Thus any who employ others to work on Sunday should not be ordained or installed to office in the church. d. Any who occasionally skip Sunday worship: 4.103 Heidelberg Catechism -- "... that I diligently attend church, especially on the Lord's Day." This would eliminate from ordination any who fail to attend church when traveling or any other reason. e. Baptism by women: 5.191 Second Helvetic Confession -- "We teach that baptism should not be administered in the Church by women ...." This would eliminate women from the ministry of Word and Sacrament. f. Having pictures of Jesus, especially in a worship center: 4.097 Heidelberg Catechism -- "God cannot and should not be pictured in any way." Those who display pictures of Christ should not be ordained or installed. g. Complaint about taxes or governmental authorities: 5.258 Second Helvetic Confession -- "... let them pay all customs and taxes faithfully and willingly. ... For he who opposes the magistrate provokes the severe wrath of God against himself." Thus such complainers should not be ordained or installed. 3. "Among these standards is the requirement to live ... in fidelity within the covenant of marriage of a man and a woman (W- 4.9001)." Scripture and the Confessions do call for fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness. They *also* define other sins. 4. The final sentence in the proposed amendment is "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 Word and Sacrament." Conclusion: If the proposed amendment were to be adopted, it would become incumbent upon every local church nominating committee and Presbytery Committee on Preparation for Ministry to inquire about adherence to such biblical and confessional standards as enumerated above and to propose for ordination/installation only those meeting these standards. How many of our current deacons, elders and ministers of word and sacrament would pass the test? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Our first two feature articles highlight the main issues facing the church as it ponders the wisdom or folly of the proposed fidelity and chastity amendment. Now for some details. Here we present the most comprehensive catalog of confessional sins that I have seen to date! -- JDA "Bold and Curious Searchings into God's Secrets" Or, What Do the Confessions Call "Sin"? Compiled by Leslie E. Ellison, Stated Clerk, Mission Presbytery Notes from *The Book of Confessions* showing those things which the confessions declare to be sin and/or persons who are sinners. **The Nicene Creed:** none **The Apostles' Creed:** none [JDA's comment: is it significant that "sin" is NOT an issue in these two basic creeds?] **The Scots Confession:** "conspiring against the sovereign majesty of God" (by eating the forbidden fruit) (3.02) "idolatry" (3.05) "stubborn contempt for righteousness" (3.05) heresies condemned: of Arius, Marcion, Eutyches, Nestorius; which deny the eternity of the Godhead, the truth of the Son's humanity, or which divide the Godhead and humanity (3.05) blasphemy against "Christ's death and the everlasting atonement thereby purchased for us" (3.09) stubbornness, disobedience, persecution, filthy persons, idolators, and all sorts of the unbelieving (3.11) "carnal lusts" (3.11) "murderers, oppressors, cruel persecuters, adulterers, filthy persons, idolators, drunkards, thieves, and all workers of iniquity" (3.13) "Acts to the contrary (of good works) are sins ...." (3.14) "not to call upon him alone when we have need, not to hear his Word with reverence, but to condemn and despise it, to have or worship idols, to maintain and defend idolatry, lightly to esteem the reverend name of God, to profane, abuse, or condemn the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to disobey or resist any whom God has placed in authority ..., to murder, or consent thereto, to bear hatred, or to let innocent blood be shed if we can prevent it." (3.14) "... The breach of any other commandment of the first or second kind is sin ...." (3.14) "... Any men who conspire to rebel or to overturn the civil powers, as duly established, are ... rebels against God's will." (3.24) vanity, cruelty, filthiness, superstition, and idolatry; those who now serve the devil in all abominations. (3.25) **The Heidelberg Catechism:** Question 87 (4.087): "Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved? A. Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or homosexual perversion*, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'" [* JDA's comment: The Heidelberg Catechism comes to us from Germany, dated 1563, three centuries before the word "homosexual" was coined, first in German, then in English. Thus, this term was not, and could not have been, in the original text. According to Christopher Elwood and Johanna W. H. Van Wijk-Bos of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, "In fact, the original editions of the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 make no mention of *homosexual perversion* or of same-sex relations *in any terms.* Neither do any subsequent German editions ...." If the confessions are to become the new legal code for Presbyterians, surely we need new accurate and authoritative translations, or, as an alternative, presbyteries should refer *only* to the confessions in their original languages and texts.] idolatry, sorcery, enchantments or praying to saints (4.094) picturing or drawing God (4.097) abusing God's name; cursing (4.099) ignoring or violating any of the ten commandments (4.092-4.115) hating, injuring or killing a neighbor (4.105) envy, anger, desire for revenge (4.106) unchastity in wedlock or in single life (4.108) "unchaste actions, gestures, words, thoughts, desires, and whatever may excite another person to them" (4.109) theft, robbery, wicked tricks, schemes to cheat others, use of false weights and measures, deceptive advertising or merchandising, counterfeiting, exorbitant interest, greed, misuse of God's gifts (4.110) bearing false witness against anyone, twisting someone's words, gossiping, slandering someone, condemning someone lightly without a hearing (4.112) **The Second Helvetic Confession** Heresies are condemned. The Jews and Mohammedans; "all who blaspheme that sacred and adorable Trinity." (5.019) making an image of God (5.020) praying to a saint (5.025) adoring or revering relics of saints (5.027) swearing by the name of a strange god (5.028) Epicureans are condemned; they deny the providence of God. (5.030) Manichaeans and Marcionites are condemned; they believe in two gods, one good and one evil. (5.032) Any who cast doubt on the immortality of souls (5.035) "Sin: By sin we understand that innate corruption of man which has been derived or propagated in us from our first parents, by which we are immersed in perverse desires and averse to all good, are inclined to all evil. Full of all wickedness, distrust, contempt and hatred of God, we are unable to do or even to think anything good of ourselves. Moreover, even as we grow older, so by wicked thoughts, words and deeds committed against God's law, we bring forth corrupt fruit worthy of an evil tree (Matt. 12:33 ff.). For this reason by our own deserts, being subject to the wrath of God, we are liable to just punishment, so that all of us would have been cast away by God if Christ, the Deliverer, had not brought us back." (5.037) "... Sins are not equal ... some are more serious than others." (5.039) Adultery (5.101) Defrauding people (5.101) "surfeiting, drunkenness, and all kinds of lust and intemperance" (5.227) gluttony; commerce with spirits of the dead (5.239) In marriage: quarrels, dissensions, lust and adultery (5.247) For single people: impurity, lusts, fornication (5.250) lies, superstition, impiety, idolatry (5.253) Malefaction, sedition, theft, murder, blasphemy, perjury, heresy which blasphemes the majesty of God (5.255) **The Westminster Confession of Faith:** Eating forbidden fruit (applies to our first parents) (6.031) Sin = "a transgression of the righteous law of God" (6.036) Sin = to reject the dispensation of the gospel. "... They who reject its merciful offer are not only without excuse, but are also guilty of resisting the Holy Spirit." (6.052) Sin = failing to follow the moral law, the ten commandments (6.102) "... to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred." (6.121) "Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority." (6.122) Sin = vow of poverty, etc. "... Monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself." (6.126) [JDA's comment: That's my favorite! -- "vows of perpetual single life"! That's one sin Rafael and I have not committed, having been a couple for 25 years!!] Sin = to contemn or neglect Baptism (6.158) Sin = wickedness, disobedience (6.181) **The Shorter Catechism** "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." (question 14, 7.014) Sin for our first parents = eating the forbidden fruit. (7.015) Sin = "the denying, or not worshiping and glorifying, the true God as God, and our God; and the giving of that worship and glory to any other which is due to him alone." (7.047) Sin = "the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his Word." (7.051) Sin = "all profaning or abusing of anything whereby God maketh himself known." (7.055) Sin = "the omission, or careless performance, of the duties required, and the profaning the day [**the Sabbath**] by idleness, or doing that which is itself sinful, or by unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about our worldly employments or recreations." (7.061) Sin = "the neglecting of, or doing anything against, the honor and duty which belongeth to everyone in their several places and relations." (7.065) Sin = "the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto." (7.069) Sin = "all unchaste thoughts, words, and actions." (7.072) Sin = "whatsoever doth, or may, unjustly hinder our own, or our neighbor's wealth or outward estate." (7.075) Sin = "whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own or our neighbor's good name." (7.078) Sin = "all discontentment with our own estate, envying or grieving at the good of our neighbor, and all inordinate motions and affections to anything that is his." (7.081) **The Larger Catechism** Sin = "any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature." (7.134) Sin = atheism, idolatry; "ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions, unworthy and wicked thoughts of" God; "bold and curious searchings into God's secrets"*; "profaneness, hatred of God, self-love, self-seeking, and all other inordinate and immoderate setting of our mind, will or affections upon other things, and taking them off from him in whole or in part"; "vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, misbelief, distrust, despair, incorrigibleness, and insensibleness under judgments, hardness of heart, pride, presumption, carnal security, tempting of God"; "using unlawful means, and trusting in lawful means"; "carnal delights and joys, corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal"; "lukewarmness, and deadness in the things of God"; "estranging ourselves, and apostatizing from God"; "praying or giving any religious worship to saints, angels, or any other creatures"; "all compacts and consulting with the devil, and hearkening to his suggestions"; "making men the lords of our faith and conscience"; "slighting and despising God, and his commands"; "resisting and grieving of his Spirit, discontent and impatience at his dispensations, charging him foolishly for the evils he inflicts upon us; and ascribing the praise of any good, we either are, have, or can do, to fortune, idols, ourselves, or any other creature." (7.215) [*JDA's comment: "bold and curious searchings into God's secrets" -- Hey, does this mean that all scholars, especially scientists, are automatically suspect??!!] Sin = "all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all, or of any of the three Persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony, sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed." (7.219) Sin = "the not using of God's name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning or otherwise using the titles, attributes, ordinances, or works; by blasphemy; perjury; all sinful cursing, oaths, vows, and lots; violating our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God's decrees and providence; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious and unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any way opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by uncomfortable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking or backsliding from it." (7.223) "The sins in the Fourth Commandment are: all omissions of the duties required, all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them; all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; and by all needless works, words, and thoughts about our worldly employments and recreations." (7.229) "The sins of inferiors against their superiors are: all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government." (7.238) "The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior." (7:240) "The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement or prosperity one of another, and usurping pre-eminence one over another." (7.242) Sin = "all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in the case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful or necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions; distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreation; provoking words; oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any." (7.246) Sin = "adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel, prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews*, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stageplays, and all other provocations to, or acts of, uncleanness either in ourselves or others." (7.249) [JDA's comment: "keeping of stews" -- Hooray for the *Oxford English Dictionary.* We can continue to enjoy stews of meat and vegetables, but NOT "brothels." The OED provides examples of this usage from 1362 to 1873.] Sin = theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depopulations; engrossing commodities to enhance the price, unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness, inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming, and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate; and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us." (7.252) Sin = "all prejudicing of the truth, and the good name of our neighbors as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expression, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, talebearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling; rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstruing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessarily discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors; receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any; endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration, breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report; and practicing or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name." (7.255) Sins = "discontentment with our own estate; envying, and grieving at the good of our neighbor, together with all inordinate motions and affections to anything that is his." (7.258) **The Theological Declaration of Barmen** Sin = looking for God's revelation **apart from** Jesus Christ as attested in Holy Scripture (8.12) Sin = seeking justification and sanctification from another than Jesus Christ (8.15) Sin = following political ideology instead of Jesus Christ (8.18) Sin = letting the state run the church (8.24) Sin = letting the Word and work of the Lord Jesus Christ be subject to any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans (8.27) **The Confession of 1967** Sin = claiming mastery of our own lives, turning against God and fellow man, exploiting and despoiling the earth (9.12) Sin = unbelief, pride, lust, and fear (9.23) **A Brief Statement of Faith** Sin = "... We rebel against God; we hide from our Creator. Ignoring God's commandments, we violate the image of God in others and ourselves, accept lies as truth, exploit neighbor and nature, and threaten death to the planet entrusted to our care." (10.3) Compiled by Leslie E. Ellison, Stated Clerk, Mission Presbytery, 7201 Broadway, Suite 303, San Antonio, Texas 78209, Phone: 210 826-3296. This document may be copied or used by whoever finds it helpful, and may God have mercy on us! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remembering General Assembly Remembering Albuquerque by Lainey Rathgeber *"I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies .... Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. **But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream"** Amos 5:21-24.* Now that we've all returned back home from GA and had a little time to ponder what really happened, it seems that we have come down from a mountain-top experience. For some of us coming home means returning to a More Light church that supports us and nurtures us and encourages us to talk about our experience there. Sadly, for many of us, coming home means returning to no church or faith community that really cares about or "gets" what happened there. For many of us, our "family" or support system was the very group we were with all week in Albuquerque. Since my return, I've spoken with several people, and each of us felt an emotional let down or "valley" having coming down from that mountain top experience. At GA there was an extraordinary sense of community among our "family" members, a spiritual intimacy and an incredible sense of closeness as we shared and sang and worshiped together, as we broke into smaller groups to share our faith journeys and as we gathered together each evening to collectively share our experiences of the day. We lived and loved and functioned and came together as a family throughout the week which for many of us is the only accepting family we have. So you can see why it might be a bit of a let down coming home. In several conversations I've had since GA there was an assurance that we would keep in touch, that we would be there for each other in the months ahead when this warm feeling had grown slightly cold from the lack of support and the reality of how many people in the church still do not support the full inclusion and ordination of our family and friends. I hope all of us can be there for each other in the weeks and months ahead, to stay mindful of the movement, to remember that none of us are alone in this work. We are so much like the early church and it is good that we remember each other always in prayer and letters and phone calls. (I'm sure the Corinthians would have had horrendous phone bills if they had been given more modern modes of communication!) I want us to keep remembering, to not forget what happened in Albuquerque. Because I think in many ways we won. We won because so many of us came. We won because so many of us learned and had our eyes opened to what it is we need to do on the local level to get our people behind pulpits. We won because we came together, stronger and more unified than ever before. We won because we heard new voices speak out and new faith stories being shared. We won because we came together as a faith community and witnessed to the entire Assembly what it is to be gay and lesbian Christians. We won because we had heterosexual allies in larger numbers than ever before speaking out for us and joining us as members of our family. We won because we spoke the truth of our lives and we let love cast out our fears. We won because we never stopped singing and dancing and believing that justice will come. Throughout the week, many of us wore stoles that had been sent in from all over the country symbolizing the large number of lesbians and gays who cannot serve because they are "out" or who are serving from the closet. Some stoles had names of our sisters and brothers who have left the church, others had names of people who have died and some had names of "out" seminarians who wonder if they will ever be ordained by the church. I remember one afternoon running into one of the conservative "Genevans" who stopped and asked me what the stole around my neck symbolized. As I began sharing with him he interrupted me and said, "You know what's the worse part about being at GA all week?" I had no idea so I said, "What's that?" He said, missing Rush Limbaugh on the radio all week. As I walked away a few minutes later, I smiled to myself and thought a week without Rush Limbaugh might make him a nicer guy. Another day, as I returned from lunch with Meg Morrison and our hands were filled with drinks and sandwiches, another "Genevan" held the door open for us. We smiled and said thanks and as he looked at my stole he said, "See, we're nice guys, we'll even open the door for you." What an interesting choice of words I thought. These are the very guys who are working fervently to keep the door closed to us. For that moment he saw our desire to come in, and he gladly held the door open. If only it were that simple. Throughout the week, we all had many encounters and chances to share our stories and the lives represented on the stoles we wore. It was a sacred act, an honoring of the names and faces and lives represented on those beautiful pieces of cloth. I wore Katie Morrison's stole all week. And it was both an honor and a privilege. By the end of the week, I was exhausted from telling her story, and only then, as her loving friend, do I think I truly felt even one tiny part of the pain she has experienced from this church. She and I have laughed and cried and screamed together over this church and shared many anguished hours wondering if she will ever be able to truly serve in the PCUSA as an out lesbian. But it wasn't until I wore her stole all week that I could even begin to comprehend the pain she lives with on a daily basis. And I couldn't help but think of the hundreds of others whose names marked the stoles that filled the assembly hall. I hope and pray Martha and Tammy know how much we all appreciate their hard work and commitment to the stole project. It was a powerful witness and will continue to be, throughout the church, wherever it is displayed This is why we do what we do. This is why we came to Albuquerque. This is why we go back home and continue our work -- educating and sharing our lives, telling our truth, demanding inclusion, screaming for justice. Let us remember, let us never forget. We want to see the Promised Land. We had a glimpse of it in Albuquerque and it's time to experience it fully. We're tired of dreaming, it's time to live it! So let us remember always, we are not alone in this movement. And this is about all of us. Let's pray for the day when we will truly walk hand in hand and the doors will burst open for all to enter and to serve. So be it! [box] Lainey Rathgeber works for Alyson Publications, which is now owned by The Advocate. "We publish gay and lesbian books such as *Daddy's Roommate* and *Heather Has Two Mommies*." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "The Assembly Takes a Step Back. The Church of Faith Moves Forward" The Albuquerque General Assembly by the Rev. Harold Porter, Mt. Auburn Church, Cincinnati On Sunday, the day after the General Assembly adjourned, here at worship and at a marvelous evening gathering, we focused on the refusal of this Assembly to repent from the Presbyterian Church's intolerance of gay and lesbian members. Hearing the news from Albuquerque, I know many of you were disheartened -- and rightfully so. I was, but I also shared what I thought were unprecedented hopeful occurrences at the Assembly that actually moved our denomination forward, both towards tolerance and acceptance of all persons regardless of their sexual orientation. Let me summarize what happened and why we have some new reasons to rejoice. I have attended the General Assembly many times since 1978 when that Assembly declared through its "definitive guidance" that homosexuals could be members of the church, but if they were non- celibate, they should not be ordained as elders, deacons, or ministers. That Assembly confessed that many responsible and faithful members disagreed with this guidance. Unfortunately, the 1978 Assembly's "definitive guidance" evolved from guidance to an absolute rule. Mount Auburn Church, along with others, declared such a policy unjust, unloving, and contrary to the Word of God. Such a rule is a sad contribution to the homophobic evil in the world. We decided we would not abide by it or any teaching or constitutional mandate that demeans persons who are homosexual. As you know, after rejecting such an unChristlike policy, we at Mount Auburn have experienced the joy and delight, the wonderful enrichment of our ministry, by a host of faithful and talented gay and lesbian members, many who have been ordained as Elders and Deacons. But it has been a difficult policy to change in the church at large. This has been so even though William Thompson, who was the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of 1978, and who declared "definitive guidance" to be binding, has totally changed his mind. His repentance is worthy to emulate. He noted, after his own study, that the Bible is not as conclusive on the subject as most have thought, that scientific studies led him not to accuse persons of sin whose condition is not their fault, and, finally, the loss of gifted members who demonstrated leadership potential but have been prohibited. Lacking a change in the policy, Thompson recently suggested, the high and courageous way was not to abide by it. In our own Presbytery, with its 86 churches, we, as a church, have been a lonely voice in our effort to change this policy even though we have increasing numbers of allies. Recently, the Knox Presbyterian Church in Hyde Park was accused of ordaining a gay Elder, and we pray they will prevail in our church courts, even though the first court, in the Presbytery of Cincinnati, has ruled against them. They are appealing to the Synod. You are aware that after a three year moratorium on this issue, when the church at large was to study this issue and to hear first hand from the aggrieved (our gay and lesbian Christians), this 1996 Assembly in Albuquerque was expected to revisit the "definitive guidance" rule and either affirm it, remove it, or leave it up to the presbyteries and sessions (who do the ordaining) to decide who is fit to serve. The Albuquerque Assembly did none of these. Instead of rectifying the mess it had constitutionally and theologically created, it passed the responsibility to the presbyteries. Further, in a very deceptive way, it approved sending to the presbyteries a proposed change in our Constitution. By a vote of 321 to 226, the Assembly sent to the 171 presbyteries the following for their approval or rejection (a simple majority needing to pass): *"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 of 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."* At first glance, this amendment, with its high-sounding principles, seems acceptable. It is not. Deceptively, this amendment, clothed in pious language, was well-crafted to make an end-run around facing the worth and being of homosexual members. How so? Since marriage is to be only between a man and a woman, and any sexual intimacy apart from marriage is deemed sinful, then all homosexual persons who seek the same love and intimacy that are afforded heterosexuals are excluded. This is biological idolatry, the elevating of sex over persons. It claims God's gift of sexuality only for heterosexuals. Yes, the amendment allows homosexuals to be ordained, but only if they place their sexuality in the refrigerator and shut the door on it for their entire lives. The Assembly has said the same to all-single persons, many we know who do not have marriage available to them or would find it, especially some of the elderly, unhelpful to their lives. There is no tolerance in this proposed rule or real understanding of human sexuality and its complexity. The Assembly is saying sex is dirty. Save it only for your spouse. It makes no room for Holy Unions or other forms of mutual, covenantal relationships between mature persons. It says we were made for marriage not marriage was made for us. It is unlike what Jesus said of institutions, such as the sabbath, that they are made for us, not we for them. Marriage is to be a chosen, mutual blessing, not a curse. This proposed amendment also speaks of other "sins" enumerated in our confessional standards. Even though sin should be considered a condition, a state of being out of relationship with God's love, these so-called "sins" are an endless list in our confessional guides. Working on the sabbath, bearing false witness, greed, lust, pride, jealously, enmity, idolatry, spite to name a few. We are all personally familiar with them, for after all, we all fall short of perfection, even married couples. This rule is ludicrous, and attempts to enforce it will be worse. It offers no grace or freedom. Much more needs to be said about this new attempt at religious fundamentalism, but let me simply say, a better rule would have been the one Jesus gave: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and your neighbor as you would yourself." Let that be the standard for those who would be leaders in Christ's church. But as I said, this amendment is a clever dodge to avoid addressing the worth and being of homosexual persons -- that they too are made in the image of God. It is a way to keep them as second-class members of the body of Christ. We must do everything we can to see this constitutional amendment is defeated. We can take some solace knowing the Presbytery of Cincinnati, conservative as it is, last year rejected a similar amendment. Further, there are many hopeful signs of repentance in our denomination, a church that has long been known for tolerance and not religious legalism. Let me enumerate. 1. The vote on inclusion was closer than ever this year. If only 39 of the commissioners had voted for tolerance, this amendment would not have passed, and we would have returned to our historical practice of letting Presbyteries and Sessions decide who is fit to be ordained. 2. This year, for the first time, two of three ministers who ran for Moderator of the General Assembly approved of ordination for *any* church members called by the church. One of them, John Buchanan, was elected, the Pastor of the large 4th Presbyterian Church of Chicago. Last year's moderator, Marj Carpenter, was against it. Progress indeed! 3. Last year, our denomination, by a vote of a majority of the Presbyteries, approved that its ministers should be able to participate in the blessings of same sex unions. 4. The Witherspoon Award, the coveted social justice award (given to Mount Auburn Church last year) was given to all in the More Light Churches Network. There are 73 such Presbyterian Churches and countless more who believe in its goals. Virginia Davidson, in accepting the award, said: "The heart of the More Light movement is hospitality .... As love grows, mistrust and fear melt away." The More Light Churches Network had its first booth at this Assembly, and it was the most frequented by the visitors and commissioners. 5. Remarkably, the Albuquerque Assembly approved the consideration (such as before the State of Hawaii) to give the same civil rights now granted to married couples to same sex partners. 6. A majority of professors who actually teach the scriptures in our Presbyterian seminaries, in a paper delivered to the Assembly, "The Whole Bible for the Whole Family of God," declared the present understanding of homosexual behavior is not incompatible with scripture and should not prevent ordination. 7. After the negative vote by the Assembly, one of the most mature and moving demonstrations even seen took place. Nearly a third of the visitors and commissioners marched silently through the hall for nearly a half an hour, breaking into the song, "We Are Marching in the Light of God." The anger was there but faith, hope and love transcended it. 8. Later, a large crowd gathered for a two hour impromptu worship service with many individuals giving personal testimonies of faith and new hope. One was especially moving. An Elder who was in the last stages of AIDS said his first reaction when the Assembly voted was to say to himself, "I will not live long enough to see justice in the Presbyterian Church." After the demonstration, he said he had a second reaction. "I decided to live longer!" Dear Friends, let us not despair. We will overcome because God is just. God is love. Wonderfully, when we arrived at Albuquerque, there appeared a double rainbow in the enchanting New Mexico sky. And the very day the Assembly was over, what did we see again? Another double rainbow -- a double dose of the covenantal assurance of God's steadfast and unconditional love for all. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * We Are Here to Stay by Manley Olson After General Assembly, many folks went north to Ghost Ranch, a wonderful conference center of the Presbyterian Church in northern New Mexico. One afternoon, Voices of Sophia (VOS) held a well attended information session. We concluded with songs from the VOS songbook, which had been introduced at General Assembly. After the meeting, Sylvia Thorson-Smith commented that we needed a new song to reflect current conditions. Her first suggestion was the spiritual, "We Shall Not Be Moved," which had been used extensively at the first Re-Imagining Conference. As we were leaving she suggested that I should write a song, since I had written two of the songs in the collection. About 5 a.m. the next morning I awoke and could not get back to sleep. The words of the old union organizing song, "Solidarity Forever," began running through my mind. I began to formulate new words. By 6:30 I had completed the words. At breakfast I showed the words to several people and the response was enthusiastic. Sylvia recommended I should send the song to PLGC, Witherspoon, Voices of Sophia, and other groups to include in their newsletters. I did a little editing after I got home, but the changes were minor. While the words are protected by copyright, I give permission for anyone to use them in what ways they choose. The tune is in the public domain. -- Manley Olson We Are Here to Stay (c) 1966 by Manley Olson Tune: Battle Hymn of the Republic We are justice loving people in the service of our God, We will carry on together though the way ahead be hard, And despite self-righteous censors we will make our voices heard, For we are here to stay. Refrain: Presbyterians forever! Presbyterians forever! Presbyterians forever! We are here to stay! We're a rainbow-colored people who accept all who will say, That the church must be inclusive if it is to be the way. We're transgender, het'rosexual, bi, lesbian and gay, And we're all here to stay. We bring diverse perspectives as we gather in this place, Reformed but still reforming we're empowered by God's grace, And we speak with one voice only, despite status, gender, race. It says: We're here to stay. The church throughout the ages has proclaimed it knew the truth, And tries hard to muzzle prophets lest their wildest thoughts get loose. But God has yet more glorious light from God's Word to break forth, So we are here to stay. Our critics preach compliance and support for status quo, they hope we'll get discouraged and decide it's time to go. But this church was born reforming and we pledge to keep it so, Thus we are here to stay. Then come join our justice struggle, bring your gifts by God imbued, For the remnant shall be multiplied, the church shall be renewed. We're trees planted by the waterside and we shall not be moved, They'll know we're here to stay. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I'm Not Leaving Either by Laurence Reh This is a little piece I wrote after General Assembly. My friends were pleased to publish it in *Zephyrs* / September 96 (the monthly newsletter of my home church, Westminster, Tiburon, CA): "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life." -- Revelations 2:10 (KJV) When I was confirmed in 1955 at Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod in Wenona, Illinois, it was the custom that every confirmand was assigned a Bible passage that was to be their personal "text for life." Revelations 2:10 was mine (and the King James Bible was the only one I knew at the time). For all my friends and faith family who have expressed condolence, concern and encouragement in the wake of General Assembly's combined action-inaction at Albuquerque, I pass along the ten most important reasons why I'm not leaving the Presbyterian Church (inspired by my "text for life," and by a conversation with Bill Ibershof): 1. Because it's what the exclusionists most ardently desire, but reconciliation and healing in the church -- leveling walls and building bridges -- is more likely to come from the oppressed than the oppressors. 2. Because it would leave the "reformed" church with even less impetus to be "ever reforming" on this issue. 3. Because it would abandon the spiritual and emotional welfare of current adult lesbian and gay members who still feel the pressures of intolerance to remain anonymous, and therefore oppressed. 4. Because it would not help the church become a more welcoming faith community in the future for lesbian and gay youth who are now -- and will continue to be -- growing up and coming out within it. 5. Because the church has too long relegated sexuality to a place of shadows, silence and smirks. 6. Because even more than sexuality, the issue is justice, embodying the unconditional love of Christ and celebrating the goodness of God's creation. 7. Because the historic dogma of the "church" is a root cause of cultural bigotry on this matter, and it must be called to recognition, repentance and renewal. 8. Because the Spirit promises and demonstrates through growing support and commitment nationwide that the pivot point is fast approaching. 9. Because we are admonished to love those who persecute us, and love cannot be adequately exercised across a bitter and resentful distance. 10. Because above all it is God's church, not our church, and it is God who calls us to this work. -- Lawrence A. Reh, unordained gay candidate, pastor of First Light Ministries, Alameda, CA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Reflections on My First General Assembly by Cindy Herron, PLGC-DC Co-moderator (reprinted from the wonderful PLGC-DC Newsletter, August 1996) I have many memories from my first General Assembly. Some are wonderful, some not so great. The experience overall gave me a greater understanding of the politics, policies, and connectiveness of the Church. But I also realized that I have been sheltered in the past few years. I attend a More Light church so I don't always hear or feel the comments and disdain of fellow "Christians" who think of me as misguided and fallen from the grace of God. I had the opportunity to witness to people. It was wonderful! I wore a stole from the Shower of Stoles all week. I wore buttons, a pink triangle, and rainbow ribbons. A group of folks asked me what the pink triangle meant. I had the chance to explain about how during World War II Hitler put gay people in the death camps. The pink triangle was placed on their clothes to identify them as gay. Their mouths fell open at that point. Later in the week, I had a conversation with a man about the significance of the stoles that we were wearing. At times, especially during the committee hearings, I felt a bit lost as to what was happening. I only sat in on the Ordination and Human Sexuality committee meetings. I know other issues were being discussed at GA, but this issue I take very personally. I needed to be there to watch it happen. The moderator of the committee was picked by Marj Carpenter. So you knew where her position was going to be and it was evident from the beginning that she (Roberta Hestenes) was in control. She seemed to spend hours on the "process" of the committee. And during the committee's discussion, she seemed to misunderstand and misinterpret the rules of order. The testimonies on both sides of the issue were impassioned. The ones who spoke for ordination were wonderful, moving and sometimes humorous. The ones who spoke against ordination were not as negative as I had anticipated. They used the same arguments I had heard and read before. (The PLGC Book Discussion/Bible Study group here in Washington, DC, had prepared me for this.) Those arguments did not have the same power and hurtfulness that they could have had. They brought up the ex-gay ministries, that we should be celibate, that we are a third gender, we were born abnormal, are an abomination, etc. But the argument most used was the Creation story in Genesis ... God made Adam and Eve, not ... you know the rest. During the hearings, I sat on a front row aisle seat. Some of the opposition had to walk by me after they spoke. I would stare at them, trying to make eye contact so that I could smile at them as a way to let them know they were speaking about a real, live person. Not one would look at me. Some glanced, saw my ribbons, pink triangle and stole, and then looked down or away. I would then pray that God would release them from their fears. They most amazing thing was that even the ones who identified themselves as pastors would not look at me. In walking around the convention center and exhibit hall, I also tried to make eye contact and to say "hello" to everyone I passed, especially those with Genevan signs and "Peace, Purity, Unity" buttons (the opposition usually wore these). They all seemed cold, closed off, and they seemed to have no joy or excitement in them. They talked about "loving the sinner but hating the sin." Yet they would not look at me or show any compassion toward me. I sensed that they are afraid of us. I also met Marj Carpenter. I was working at the PLGC booth in the Exhibit Hall. She was browsing at the booth across from me. I went up and introduced myself. I had been hoping for a chance to meet her because we are both from Big Spring, TX. She would not make eye contact with me, nor would she shake my hand. She even turned her back to me before I had finished speaking to her. I believe her actions were due to the fact that I was wearing a stole and all those buttons that said "Celebrate Diversity." I was not to be dismissed by her so easily, and I was not going to just slip away. So I said to her back that I would say good-bye and that I had wanted to meet her and to say hello. She nodded and said "nice to meet you." And with a wave of her hand I was dismissed. I met many wonderful people who came to GA to support, witness, and person the issue. I felt very nurtured by those who were there. I have a greater understanding of the pressure and the abuse that is heaped upon those who are in front on this -- like Janie Spahr, Lisa larges, Howard Warren, Scott Anderson, Laurene Lafontaine. We had a PLGC debriefing each night where we discussed what happened that day. We immediately followed that with a worship service. There was a pastoral care team available at any time for anyone who needed to talk or pray with someone. We had two worship services on the Sunday that GA began and we had a 2-1/2 hour service after the GA procession on Friday. The first Friday night, there was the wonderful play inspired by Lisa Larges and performed by the Witness for Reconciliation Players. There was the PLGC Reconciliation Party and the Shower of Stoles display on Saturday night. There was the PLGC annual meeting that was attended by John Buchanan, the newly elected Moderator. There was the fantastic Witherspoon Dance. There was the PLGC cookout held at the hotel on the Fourth of July. There was the Healing service and the laying on of hands. After the vote on Friday where the Fidelity and Chastity amendment passed (57% to 43%), we gathered at the back of the assembly hall. We were allowed ten minutes to express our pain and grief. We had organized a procession that would take place if we lost. The procession was led by the leaders of the movement carrying a cross draped in white stoles. Over 1000 joined in the silent procession. When the cross reached the center of the Assembly hall, we began singing "We are Marching in the Light of God." Others from the seats joined us with tears streaming down their faces. Some stood during the procession. About one third stayed in their seats and would not even look at us. Cameras were everywhere. Some of those taking pictures looked a bit menacing. It made us wonder what "hate" magazine we were going to show up in. It has been a week now since I've been home. I have had a hard time readjusting to real life. While I live and worship in an accepting environment, the people I met at GA became almost like family to me. And I miss them. I can't wait until the More Light churches Conference next year so we can have a reunion. And I may actually go to GA next year. We have only 7% more votes to go! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * It is Now My Struggle Dear Friends -- I was a commissioner at the 208th GA. I didn't get up to the hospitality suite. There was never time, but I must say I was extremely impressed by your presence and the way you expressed yourselves. Janie was absolutely regal -- what a sense of drama going up the escalator. I mourn with you and for you as well as for myself. I've been only nominally active in your struggle, because it really wasn't *my* struggle. I've been married 31 years, the parent of two adult straight sons from the Heartland where it is easy to keep one's head in the sand. The *More Light Update* ("Illuminations: Rites for the Soul," June-July 1996) which greeted me on return from the Assembly was painful and magnificent. The rituals were powerful. I have commissioned myself, knowing that it is now *my* struggle. I hope most have been able to resist the ritual for leaving. It is my loss if you leave. Please accept the enclosed check in honor of Kate Morrison, Merrill Proudfoot, Will Smith and others. I wish it could be larger. More important, know there are many of me out here -- not known to you, but known to God and listening to God and hearing a call for inclusiveness and a rejection of purity codes which deny love. -- Pat Ireland. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Thoughts and Observations by James Nicholson Reprinted from *Becoming*, the newsletter of Bethany Presbyterian Church, Dallas, TX I felt their stares burning through me, trying to get the heart of my soul. Their looks were judging my very right to be there in the same room with them, maybe even in the same world with them. I could feel deep fear, verging on hatred of me and people like me. I was completely caught off guard by their reactions. I could see their emotions well up in their eyes. I felt like I was drinking out of the wrong fountain in the deep South in the 1960s or sitting in the wrong place on the bus. I really thought about running very fast, and very far away. I was very confused about these strong reactions from people. After all, I was only walking through the main hall of General Assembly and none of these people could be threatened by me. After all, I am not that threatening to look at, very late thirties, extra 15-20 pounds, thinning hair, 5' 6-1/2", white guy (actually I look a lot like most of the other people there -- except 15-20 years younger), so why were they so moved? Then I remembered I was wearing *MY STOLE*. By wearing something as simple as a liturgical stole (not that my stole is simple) I was declaring myself on a different side of THE issue from my onlookers. They did not know it was my name in the bright gold metallic letters that run down both sides, they did not know how much courage it took to place the thing around my neck the first time, nor did they know how much it meant to me to make the stole. They would not know these things because they did not want to know. They wanted to pass judgment on me without even talking to me, without hearing why I had on the stole, without even really looking me in the eyes. Because when they saw I was looking back with only love, they darted their eyes away. They hated who I was, what I represented. The change I was and am fighting for. By wearing the stole, I was declaring and calling for an inclusive Church, a Church that follows a path of allowing all people to be at the front, to be complete and full members without judgment because they are different. This is a radical concept for the Christian Church, because they have worked for the last two thousand years to change all people into followers of their God in the image of the predominately white, western, Christian Church. Then my faith soared again when someone smiled at me and said, "Beautiful stole, thank you for being here." Then I increased my field of vision, not to look only at those closest to me, but to include all people in the hall. Many people were smiling back and many were wearing stoles, their own, their friend's, their children's, or a stranger's. These were and are the **People of God.** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Cultivation of My Soul by the Rev. Kay Huggins The most recent cultivation of my soul happened at the 208th General Assembly. In my experience worship, controversy, friendships and prayers, play equal parts, but so does my spiritual preparation. I approached this General Assembly with a trembling in my heart. Painfully, I named the issues, from Consultation on Church Union to the ordination of gay and lesbian Christians to the move to define the essential tenets of the reformed faith, as indications of the brittleness within our beloved church. I feared the church was poised on the edge of schism. Fear controlled my soul as I approached this General Assembly. And my fear had a focus. It was you. You, the congregation calling me to ministry: you the tangible symbol of the love of Christ, you the innocent, you who do no harm to the neighbor, you who love your Lord and seek to walk in his ways, daily ... you were the focus of my fear. I feared that actions from the extreme right or left would hurt you. And I did not want that to happen. Above everything else, as I prepared for General Assembly, I prayed that you might be spared the pain of schism. I feared that the church would split and that you -- and all those congregations full of God-loving, Christ-serving folks like you -- would somehow be hurt. Full of fear, with my eyes and prayers on you, I prepared for this Assembly. Now, I can confess the error of my preparation. Now, I can say that my prayers did not spring from love, but from fear. Now, with yet another cultivating experience to my soul's credit, I can state the narrowness of my pre-assembly faith. I was controlled by fear, not by love. But, friendships, worship, issues and prayers worked on my soul. First, I met our daughter's minister. It was sheer delight; our daughter has never had a minister, she's only had a minister- mother. But the Reverend Dan Smith, pastor of the West Hollywood Presbyterian Church, the only "out" gay man ordained by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)*, is our daughter's minister. Dan carries a heart full of love for our daughter. Within a few moments of pastor to pastor talk, this mother knew her daughter was in faithful hands. Dan became a new friend, one destined to cultivate not only our daughter's soul, but mine as well. [*Well, no, Dan is not "the only 'out' gay man ordained by the Presbyterian Church," but one of our favorites! -- JDA] Then, Jim Wright, an old friend, also helped. Jim and I were candidates under care of Pittsburgh Presbytery together. We were both on the "special needs lists" -- I because I was a woman, he because his skin was black. We were desperate friends, bonded through exclusion and injustice, but dear, dear friends nonetheless. We had not seen each other in 20 years, but when I saw his name tag and when he saw my eyes, we grasped hands remembering the ties that bind. The conversation was brief: how are you, what are you doing, there's never been a year I haven't recalled our friendship, you were a blessing to me. And then it was Friday; *the issue* -- the ordination of gays and lesbians -- was docketed for the afternoon. Fear was still controlling my heart and prayers. The morning preacher talked about saying good bye to all that keeps us from God's will and way: good bye to the lines of division, good bye to the quick judgments about who's worthy and who's not, good bye to all that flows from fear. Something inside me began to open up. The musician for that service was a young, Hispanic from northern New Mexico. His voice sang with the sorrow and the resiliency I have comer to admire in our northern neighbors. When the prayers began, I was granted a vision. This is what I saw: I saw you. That great beloved center of the church. The people I am called to pastor. The numberless flock I count as my very own. I saw you safely within the center of the church. For your provision were worship, education, witness and mission -- strong resources for your souls! You were strong and beautiful and my love for you was powerful. But as I looked at you, I heard a voice calling to me. It was a familiar voice, a voice which is always able to capture my attention no matter the dialect or the volume. It was the voice of Christ. His voice floated over you, but the point of origination was not among you. Christ's voice came form the edges of the church. Christ was standing, calling from that place he has promised to be: among the least of these! As I turned to look, I felt a physical attraction to the boundary of our church: to that place where belief and non-belief meet. I saw Dan Smith, our daughter's pastor, standing on that boundary. There, I also saw Jim Wright, my friend during a perilous passage. I heard the preacher begging us to say our good byes. I heard the young, Hispanic singing sorrow and resiliency. Then, the call to attention, recognized as the voice of Jesus, met a painful experience within me. For you see, I once stood on the very edge of this large church. I was not "born a Presbyterian." I was adopted in by membership and later, by ordination. The ordination came after a hearty examination and a vote so close that a division of the house was necessary. My call to ministry was confirmed by a margin of five votes from a total of three hundred. Looking toward the boundary: Now, I saw an empty place where I once stood. As the disciples, after Jesus' good/bad seed parable, I was uneasy with this vision, uneasy with the word I was receiving. So, as the disciples, I sought clarification. Their question, *what does this mean?*, became mine and I prayed even more deeply. As I stayed with the uneasiness, presenting it to Jesus for clarification, one more vision graced my soul. I found myself closer to you. I realized that as I stood on the boundary between belief and non-belief, I was positioned to check the inward motion of that boundary. You see, if left unchecked -- if no one steps out to boundary -- the boundary closes in. Unless there are those of us who love to meet the lord in folks of color, folks of different physical conditions, folks who are female, folks who are too old, folks who are too young, folks who are gay or lesbian, folks who are forgotten within the great middle, folks we call "the least," Unless there are some who love to meet the Lord in all God's folks, the great center of the church is put at risk. The boundary between belief and non-belief must be maintained, but it must be maintained by some positioned to do the soulful work of standing beside the least of these. Suddenly, the uneasiness was gone. Suddenly, God's purpose was clear. Suddenly, my soul was light with Christ. Suddenly, I felt completely at ease with my place on the boundary. [Kay's remembrance of G.A. is "drawn from the closing of a sermon delivered at the Rio Rancho Presbyterian Church on July 21, 1996. The text for the sermon is Matthew 12:24-30, 36-43."] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOT IN PRINT VERSION A Letter to the Moderator by Laurence Reh Lawrence urges us all to write our own letters to John Buchanan (Moderator of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 100 Witherspoon St., Louisville, KY 40202-1396). He writes: "Of immediate concern to me is prompting as many people as possible to flood John Buchanan with *personal* letters of appeal and testimony, the kinds of things he didn't get a chance to hear in the deliberations of the Ordination and Human Sexuality Committee. The worst thing that could happen is that this new moderator, after making a public statement in favor of ordaining lesbian and gay candidates, should get the idea that all the pressure is off now that GA is past. I want him putting the issue in a positive perspective at every appearance he makes for the next year -- and discouraging the passage of the constitutional amendment. He is the single most important advance person for improving our chances at the next General Assembly in Syracuse." Here is Laurence's letter to Buchanan: Dear Dr. Buchanan: Now that the dust has settled a bit .... What am I saying? For you, it will probably be more than a year before the dust even begins to settle. I suspect you had -- may still have -- only a glimmer of what you were getting into when you opted to stand for election as moderator this year. I write to congratulate you, to praise you, to thank you and to entreat you. There, I think that puts most everything on the table. Congratulations on reaching one kind of pinnacle in your service to the denomination, and in making your appeal felt broadly enough among the Albuquerque commissioners to win, while refusing to take the easy, probably more popular path of relegating lesbian and gay Presbyterians to that inferior class where many of our members would keep them (if they must keep them at all). Your words on behalf of your candidacy, prior to the vote, were courageous and prophetic (not in the future-telling sense, you understand, but in the sense of calling to recognition and accountability). You did not stand alone -- my friend Norm Pott, I think, made it just a little easier for you to take your stand, and that does not diminish in the slightest either your courage, your conviction or your acceptance of the role of prophecy. I thank you not only for those words, but for the understanding and sensitivity you displayed from the first, in scrupulously fair administration of the debate on "ordination and human sexuality" and in making time for, and being extraordinarily patient with, the procession of both observers and commissioners in sorrowful yet determined, faith-affirming response to the vote on submitting restrictive constitutional language to the presbyteries. I was there; I testified before the committee, I engaged dozens of persons in dialog on their feelings with respect to the issues during the ten days. Actually, I'm less disappointed -- perhaps I should say less discouraged -- by action, or inaction, of GA on the issue of full status for lesbian and gay members of the church than some of my "straight" friends are. In fact, my reaction to the proposed constitutional change was just short of hysterical -- not the mad panic type, but the in- credulous hilarity type. When the score or so of duplicative overtures first came to my attention, I couldn't believe intelligent, Christ-led persons of faith would be so short-sighted, impractical, mean-spirited, and unmindful of ramifications as to seriously propose chiseling these "fidelity and chastity" conditions in stone. It was obvious, of course, that the intent of the many overtures was to proscribe ordination of lesbian and gay people who dared to admit, embrace and employ their God-given sexuality, and proscribe it in such a sanctimoniously "non- discriminatory" manner that sponsors could protest they were merely seeking moral renewal among all church leadership. But it seemed their focus was so fixed on their real targets that they failed to see how their broadside approach could, and would, wound, demean and potentially disenfranchise millions of others. The self-righteous attitude that "my sexual behavior is above reproach (or at least, beyond purview); yours is suspect by definition" was, to my thinking, so notoriously un-Christian, so un-Christ-like ... but my idealistic lenses have always had to contend with too-slow appreciation of human reality. That is evident from the fact that I keep alive the faith (illusion, some say) that in my celibacy, I have as much chance as any candidate to be called and ordained. Witnessing the discussion in the Ordination and Human Sexuality Committee, I was modestly encouraged to hear a diverse expression of concern over how such a provision would affect fixed-income seniors, for whom marriage imposes a harsh economic penalty, or the homeless, whose station in life does not encourage intimacy, or the divorced or separated, even married couples who are childless either by choice or cruel chance. Then somewhere along the line I was absent for a crucial hour, and was appalled to learn that wording had been added which would also bar ordination for all unrepentant behavior that was labeled as sinful anywhere in the Book of Confessions, historic context notwithstanding, and Scripture alone apparently having been judged too ambiguous a yardstick to be relied upon for moral measurement. Between the narrow-minded and the shallow-hearted who at all costs wanted to ensure against ordination of lesbian and gay people, and the weary who, by the last day of deliberations, merely wanted (1) to adopt something definitive which would forever end consideration of the issue, or (2) to pass the buck back to the presbyteries (in the guise of seeking / encouraging / empowering their input), I wasn't surprised that the Assembly rejected the very reasonable and compassionate compromise recommendations of the minority report in favor of the majority's choice. There was comfort in the remarkably narrow margin. And still it seemed the broader picture failed to emerge among the "victors": the proposed constitutional language in fact represents both a temptation and an invitation to inquisition, in the face of which virtually no prospective church officer could likely escape unshamed. It does not require, but it does allow for persons with gossip in their ears, resentment in their hearts, jealousy in their eyes or simply evil on their agenda -- any old axe that wants grinding -- to interrogate any potential candidate for ordination or even installation, prior ordination notwithstanding (as deacons and elders as well as ministers of Word and Sacrament, let us understand), regarding any behavior potentially viewable as "sinful" within the language not just of Scripture but any of the confessions. And I thought I heard a sad voice saying, "Let that person among you who is without sin cast the first stone." I still believe that cooler, more rational, more grace-minded, Spirit-led heads and hearts will prevail, and the Assembly recommendation will go down to resounding defeat in the presbyteries. And in that expectation I am left with the amusement that borders on hilarity, that in their single-minded rush to resolution, the commissioners of the 208th General Assembly have effectively put the sex lives (not to mention the moral and ethical records) of every Presbyterian under the same unmerciful and judgmental microscope which they have for twenty years poised over the lives of lesbian and gay Christians. The sex police are even now forming, I am sure, and unless the votes of local presbyteries stop them in their tracks, they will soon be burning witches again, and not just those of lesbian and gay orientation. Of course, if the proposed amendment fails at the grassroots, it will fail the very intention most often expressed by the commissioners in Albuquerque -- to settle the issue once and for all. Failure of the constitutional recommendations will leave the church, and its lesbian and gay members who refuse to surrender to injustice, exactly where they were before the 1996 opening gavel. No better off, but no worse, either. The church's lesbian and gay members, and the thousands of Christ-modeling supporters and advocates on their behalf, will be back, like the women and racial minorities before them who suffered the burden of scripturally "proven" second-class status. And as with them, God will prevail. Perhaps one day prospective confirmands will learn from church school teachers of the splendid and courageous, if comparatively lonely and isolated, stance of More Light Churches through the dark night of homophobia that may eventually be remembered alongside struggles against racism and sexism in our frail institution. I, for one, am confident we are nearing a new dawn, one which will not come automatically or, for that matter, easily. I believe the intensity of the opposition is evidence of their own fear -- perhaps even recognition -- that they are losing, that however they try to convince themselves otherwise, God's steadfast will is poised against them. The Balaks of Moab will ultimately have to accede to Balaam's oracle in God's name -- that these people, too, are blessed. Dr. Buchanan, millions of lesbian and gay Christians (not just Presbyterian), many of them either still in the closet regarding their sexuality or despairingly responding in kind to the churches which reject them, share the hope that a leader of conviction, of tact, of sensitivity, of understanding all perspectives, but above all a leader in the all-embracing love and justice of Jesus, will make the best of the position to which the Spirit has led him. You are that leader, and I pray that God will guide and sustain and protect you. I know, sadly, that your life may literally be on the line. Grace and peace, Laurence Reh * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Many Ups and Downs A message to my core family -- PLGC & More Light Churches from Howard Warren Returning from Albuquerque, I am experiencing many ups and downs. I continue to feel that Friday afternoon and Saturday morning: * Waiting for the vote -- rejection again * The Witness done in dignity and integrity * The silence, the eyes, the symbols, the sound of singing * The worship, expressions of tears, anger, humor & hope -- the True Church * The peace we gave one another on Saturday morning as we gathered, not as aliens but as allies. It was like the passion of the Emmaus road experience. So much thanks to Laurene, Scott, the whole fabric of PLGC, More Light leadership -- always there -- always ready. I now move to where I am -- mostly unfeeling, alone except when I am involved with some of you or my beloved HIV/AIDS people. Then I soar for the "real church family" which God has provided. Inside I have left the denomination and now I will journey in that direction; yet I will never leave you, the true church. You are the church and we will always be members of one another. As I look back on General Assembly, I follow my bliss in believing that while we lost the battle, we have won the war. Our enemies, but still our brothers and sisters in Christ, finally did what we have said for decades: They showed their true colors. They have used their hatred of us to raise money to fund their real agenda -- to replace the love of the Very Practical Trinity in the Presbyterian Church with their frozen understanding of the Law/Rule of God, and, as expressed in this amendment, no way will heterosexuals accept this. I hope, with your help, to spend this year working as part of the team to defeat this amendment. Please know that I would love to visit your church and/or chapter to preach, dialogue, and/or do gay/lesbian stand-up comedy routine as a fund raiser. These are my gifts -- please use them. I might need some transportation assistance, but will use my frequent flyer miles as long as they last. Also, I'd love to be involved in a workshop on pastoral care/spirituality in HIV/AIDS ministry. I will, with you, use all my abilities and finances to defeat this obscene amendment. In relation to leaving the church, I am working with my presbytery on early retirement either in September 1997 (when I'll be 63) or March 1998. This will be my formal leaving while remaining in the arms of you, my real family church. In these next years I plan to focus on what is unique about our Rainbow Soul/Spirit so that when the heterosexual dictatorship finally invites us fully into Christendom we can add our uniqueness to theirs and have a full expression of soul/spirit. So write or call: 2807 Somerset Bay, Indianapolis, IN 46240, 317-632-0123 (Damien Center), 317-253-2377 (home). But even more important as we individually make the decision to stay or leave, let's always embrace one another with that passion from Emmaus road. And Now a Time for a Little Laughter Some rumors have come to my attention since the chastity/fidelity amendment was introduced at General Assembly. Is Renewal going to sponsor Cherub Chastity Clubs in each presbytery, which will provide a checklist and pledge of chastity already signed so local church nominating committees will not have to ask "certain questions"? Also, the question of masturbation seems cloudy. When a commissioner asked about it at G.A., the Moderator and the Stated Clerk smiled, but a smile is not definitive guidance (or is it?). What are we single people to do until the next General Assembly? Could the Permanent Judicial Committee or the General Assembly Council give us an interim opinion? I understand that one of the "change" ministries offers this advice: Men, remember the Bible verses about not sowing your seed on the soil and visualize how important a chaste single is as an elder, or deacon, in your church. Women, for the time being, when you go to bed, put wax paper on your hands and tie them together with a rubber (no pun intended) band and think how much father/mother church prizes your purity. -- God's Glorious Gadfly, the Rev. Howard B. Warren, Jr. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOT IN PRINT VERSION A New Church Office: Sinquisidor? Albuquerque's General Assembly decision against the ordination of gays and lesbians, while perhaps expected by some of us (bigotry always has a lingering death), has raised now some more or less unexpected problems. These are not the mumblings of the gay community but rather of heterosexual men, especially in leadership roles in the church. It has to do with the emphasis on chastity. It's an awesome word. One Commissioner at GA even asked if masturbation was out now. Heterosexuals, you see, are included in this part of the decision! And it's like, "Oh, come now, we were out after the gays. Leave us out of this." But the real worry concerns HOW we shall be monitored. Are we to be drilled when invited to be an Elder? Will the Presbyterian church now have Confessionals? And to whom do we go to "tell all"? This suggests we may need another local church officer (unless GA wants to take this one on, too). I have given this some thought, even to a title for this position: Sinquisidor. It does have a nice Middle Ages ring to it, doesn't it? Just how the Sinquisidor will go about determining who is or who is not eligible for office -- that stumps me. Do we give him bedroom privileges -- the right to invade, like police who have arrested gays in their own homes (only now this would, of course, include heterosexuals)? Bedroom privileges would be purely non- participatory for the Sinquisidor, we do hasten to add. Whenever we tighten up on rules, we seem to get ourselves in knots. The next question will be: is the Sinquisidor an ordainable office? And how do we find a sinless person for the role? We need More Light! -- Peg Beissert * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Why Do I Cry at Happy Endings? by Chris Glaser Copyright (c) by Chris R. Glaser. All rights reserved. Permission granted for non-profit use and duplication. I turned on the television while I was preparing dinner night before last. The final scenes of the musical *Hello, Dolly!* were showing on the American Movie Classics channel, and I couldn't resist watching its happy ending in which love triumphs, pretensions are overturned, wealth is shared, classism is overcome, and a woman with chutzpah gets what she needs -- security and home. I cried. I let myself go -- since no one was around -- and I cried hard. Our dog Calvin, who usually licks my face on such tearful occasions trying to make me feel better, simply cocked his head at an angle, looking tenderly at me -- something I can't imagine his Reformed namesake doing. I wondered, why do I cry at *happy* endings? It makes sense to cry at unhappy endings, but why happy ones? A friend who is a therapist once told me that tears are always a sign of pain. What pain is there for me? I contrasted this experience with this past summer's General Assembly. After the vote which sent to the presbyteries the all- but-sealed coffin of gays and lesbians in the church known as the "fidelity in marriage of a man and a woman or chastity in singleness" amendment, I could not muster a tear. My lover Mark remarked on this at the time. I who cry watching the news and even some commercials remained Stoic in facing Presbyterian abuse. That may be the key word: abuse. Just like a child who no longer cries when beaten by an abusive parent, many of us shutdown emotionally when another church decision attacks our spiritual integrity. We look around at newcomers to this abuse cycle -- the young or the closeted or the freshly-supportive straight person -- to see the tears we once shed ourselves. And behind our tearless eyes we know they'll get used to it. Happy endings are what tell us that this abuse is not meant to be. I doubt I'm alone crying at happy endings. The grief that many of us hold back in the face of one more defeat emerges facing the otherwise possibilities. Of course there are other dimensions to my tears. I grew up listening to -- and occasionally seeing -- musicals with happy endings for which I yearned and yet thought were denied me because I was "queer." Now I know that so much of Broadway and then Hollywood musicals were the products of the yearning of gay people like myself who wrote, composed, produced, directed, danced, sang and acted in them. Small wonder that, at least in the gay male experience, musicals were/are so central to claiming ourselves. And yet I also grew to "know" that "there are no such things as happy endings" -- especially for the likes of me. Or, if there are happy endings, they must not include people like me. So the tears embody my loss of innocence, too. The theological parallel to the happy ending is the kingdom, or commonwealth, of God. Here, too, a scripture, a sermon, or mystical glimpse of the commonwealth of God also brings tears to my eyes. It is because I firmly believe that God welcomes lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and the transgendered into the commonwealth of God that I grieve in the "not-yet-ness" of the actual experience, as well as the denial of that vision by other Christians. My tears also grow out of the awareness that happy endings grow out of painful hardships. If only life could be pain-free! But some of us face greater difficulties than others. Before General Assembly I was reading a book written by a seminary friend for my morning devotions. But after the assembly, I found I could not continue to use it -- I felt that the author was too privileged to offer insight into the spiritual depths to which I found myself descending. During that time I also stopped doing my morning prayers and attending church. In part I did not want to be confronted with the wishful thinking that had beckoned me forth into the illusionless wilderness I now experienced. I don't believe I was angry with God. I believe I was angry with myself for still believing in happy endings. It is true that I am living a *mostly* happy ending. I live with someone I love, I have a home and a dog and a place to worship, I am able to write, I am still able to fulfill my ministry within the confines of the margins to which I've been assigned by the church. The unhappy part is that my sisters and brothers are bereft of a spiritual home in the church, that I cannot fulfill my calling to serve a church as pastor, and that I constantly face financial stress living on an income that is one-third of what most ministers earn. I don't have a happy ending for this column, but I do have a happy beginning for all of us, the church: repenting of our bigotry and embracing God's commonwealth that welcomes us all -- regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, disability, age, social or economic status -- to belong and to serve. "Repent," Jesus proclaimed, "for the kingdom of God is at hand." Makes me cry just to think about it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Commentary and Analysis By the Rev. Tom Hanks **Introduction.** After 3 years study of "homosexuality" the 1996 GA predictably passed a negative overture. Had Presbyterians chosen to study "American negroes" for 3 years, we could have expected approval of a similar negative overture against African Americans. When the oppressor is permitted to chose the terms and pose the question, we can expect that the answer will be detrimental to the oppressed. In so far as further study and education can be encouraged, we need to insist (1) that what needs to be studied is homophobia, not homosexuals, and (2) this should be done in context with other facets of injustice and oppression: women's issues, racism, anti-semitism, marginalization of the physically challenged, oppression of the poor, native-Americans, etc.; (3) I would argue that we need to learn how to take what are now commonly called "justice issues" (or issues involving injustice and oppression), and refocus them as Gospel issues and mission issues. It is neither good theology nor wise politics to let the self-styled "evangelicals" maintain a monopoly on fundamental issues of evangelism and mission. From the Lutheran tradition we can be reminded that the distinctive Christian message is Gospel, not Law. However we often come across not as those committed to the Good News of Jesus, but only as those who lay heavy burdens of law on people: laws about the poor, people of color, women, sexual minorities, etc. For homophobia, a good place to start is our prophetic, but long- neglected denominational study guide (prepared almost a decade ago): *Breaking the Silence, Overcoming the Fear: Homophobia Education.* Also Chris Glaser has wisely pointed the way with his new booklet *Unlearning Racism* (Social Action Course for Older Youth: Youth Action Curriculum, Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, 1996). See also his *Worshiping God with All That We Are: the Sacred Nature of Embodiment* in the same series). As expected, the barrage of "majority propaganda" (always the most dangerous kind, according to Jacques Ellul's classic study) was overwhelming and obviously succeeded in augmenting the fears of the "mushy middle" and increasing their confusion. In a denomination where education still counts for something and truth sometimes eventually wins out, it might be worthwhile to submit the majority propaganda to a bit of analysis. For whatever they are worth, I add here some of the more obvious points that might be made in such an analysis. **I. Perhaps the most shocking is the 2-page document, "Responsible Love: A Response to 'The Whole Bible for the Whole Human Family,'"** signed by thirty-one faculty and staff members of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) seminaries, including Elizabeth Achtemeier, Thomas Gillespie, Bruce M. Metzger and Marion Soards. Someone who knows the people better than I should provide a tabulation -- I understand many are administrators, not professors. The document apparently cites explicitly only Biblical text: "What is unequivocally proscribed and condemned as sinful is not an 'orientation' but the act of a man 'lying with' another man and a woman 'lying with' another woman (Romans 1:26-27)." The text in Romans, of course, says not a word about anyone "lying with" anyone, but of those who "changed the natural use for the use against nature," while the language of "lying with" comes from Leviticus 18 and 20 and says not a word about women! One might have thought that in the combined wisdom of thirty-one professors (and staff) in Presbyterian seminaries, someone might have managed to know the difference between Leviticus and Romans, but when professors rush in to play politics, slip-ups can occur. In the context, the same document, which (rather than "Responsible Love") might more accurately be titled "Irresponsible Scholarship," assures the mushy middle that "The testimony of Holy Scripture expresses no interest in sexual 'orientation'" -- as if the human writers had been endowed with divine omniscience about sexual orientation and simply decided not to talk about it. The prescientific character of Scripture in countless areas: cosmology (flat earth covered with a hard "firmament"), psychology ("bowels of compassion") is veiled and the reader is left to assume that the Bible may be confidently consulted like a modern scientific encyclopedia in areas of human sexuality. And even in this context, we are given the insulting image of a God who creates people left-handed and blue-eyed, but "has no interest" in their being (contrary to the anti- abortionists' favorite prooftext in Psalm 139), but stupidly and cruelly demands that left-handed people act as if they were right-handed, and that anyone so unfortunate as to be born blue- eyed should nobly consign themselves to passing through life with eyes closed, lest they offend the deity. Even rapid readers who do not at a glance detect the confusing of Leviticus and Romans may express amazement at another assertion in our documented "Irresponsible Scholarship." Embarrassed by the paucity of potential clobber texts that can be misused to condemn "the immorality of homosexual activity," the document declares with surprising creativity: "the issue does indeed arise in the Ten Commandments: the command to honor one's father and mother presupposes the hallowing of the male-female relation"(!). Even Calvin, who in his commentaries on the Pentateuch managed to relate all of the 613 laws to one of the 10 commandments, did not detect this purported relationship of the clobber texts in Leviticus 18 and 20 to the command to honor one's father and mother, but rather to the prohibition against adultery, which would suggest that the prohibition was directed against married heterosexuals (to strengthen and protect their marriage), not against unmarried gays and lesbians. However, should we follow the lead ("flight of medieval type allegorizing") of our irresponsible scholars, should we also conclude that Jesus and Paul failed to honor their parents when they disobeyed the Genesis command to be fruitful and multiply and remained unmarried? If flights of allegorizing be the chosen lifestyle of our irresponsible seminary professors in their efforts to escape their ivory tower, the demand to honor our parents by getting married and bearing children at least has the advantage of firm support from other Biblical texts (something the more responsible medieval allegorizers always sought). For those who have followed the theological debate in recent years, perhaps the most significant feature of our document from irresponsible scholars is their effort to turn around or put a propagandistic "spin" on the question of natural theology. Karl Barth and his followers have long been criticized for (1) denying any legitimacy to natural theology, but then (2) building a case against same-sex relations on a natural theology basis from Romans 1 and Genesis 1. The irresponsible scholars spin the argument by charging that those who recognize "the givenness of an 'orientation'" are in effect establishing "a source of knowledge of God and his will which is independent of Holy Scripture." This is audaciously backed up with an appeal to the Barmen Confession: "Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear." Jesus' remarkable chosen lifestyle, silence on same-sex relations, and sexual concentration on the sinful divorces rampant in his era, are of course passed over in silence. The 60-year old Barthian debate on natural theology is too complex to enter into here, but certainly recognition of sexual orientation requires no more dependence on "natural theology" (if such it be termed) than recognition of scientific astronomy, left-handedness, blue-eyedness and a host of similar phenomenon. Our irresponsible scholars declare that "The crucial question before our church today is: how do we know what God regards as sinful in the area of human sexuality." Had they read the book of Romans to the end, they would have encountered a more satisfactory answer in Paul than they produce themselves: "love does no harm to the neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (13:8-10). Paul's fundamental guideline, of course, implies in the modern context a growing recourse to reliable scientific information ("natural theology"?): concerns about smoking and excessive cholesterol can hardly be derived from the 10 commandments, nor even from the 613 laws in the Pentateuch. If we expect medical doctors to avoid injecting penicillin into persons allergic to it, is it really too much to expect churches and their pastors to quit dumping good heterosexual wisdom on the ten percent (?) of the population that is LesBiGay? Our irresponsible seminary scholars also seek to ground their condemnation of "the immorality of homosexual activity" not only in the ten commandments but also in the teachings of Jesus: "the marital relation between the man and the woman makes the two 'one flesh' -- a oneness which finds its ground in God's determination to create human creatures in His image precisely as male and female." The fact that Jesus' reference to "one flesh" is only found in the texts that condemn the kind of sinful divorces rampant in his day, however, is not then set forth as sober grounds against the ordination of divorced clergy, elders and deacons. And New Testament texts that set forth the unmarried Jesus as uniquely and supremely the image of God ("He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born over all creation," Col. 1:15) are conveniently forgotten. II. After observing our irresponsible scholars descend from their ivory towers in such daring allegorical flights, it is difficult to imagine how one might "decently and in order" descend any lower. However, where timid seminary professors falter, **The Genevans** boldly show us the way. In a denomination plagued with extremist propaganda from all sides, it is refreshing to discover that objective, unbiased, impartial information is in fact available somewhere besides the Bible itself (and with no danger of contamination from "natural theology"): "The Genevans is an open fellowship of all persons within the Presbyterian Church (USA) who are committed to the belief that Presbyterians make good decisions if provided with reliable, complete information, and sufficient time to assimilate that information." Providentially (as our confessions would have it), I was personing the More Light booth when someone rushed up five minutes before the event with an extra free ticket to the Genevans' luncheon. Now celebrating my 7th year of ministry with LesBiGays without salary or health insurance, I find myself increasingly unscrupulous about free lunches, so I grabbed it and ran. Like Alice entering the unknown wonderland, I rushed in and found a place at the one table that miraculously managed to attract the entire subversive lunatic fringe of the Genevans. I could tell from our beleaguered isle of rainbow buttons in the sea of purity blue that I was with friends. Just as well, since our speaker for the luncheon was that paragon of reliable and complete information presented with divine-like objectivity and impartiality, Marj Carpenter. Her major address was preceded by a brief greeting from the new moderator, John M. Buchanan (which no one could hear). Marj got her biggest laugh from the Genevans with her opening remarks charging them with cutting off the electrical power on purpose so no one could hear John's remarks. Obviously she knew how reliable the Genevans are and what they are up to. Marj's second biggest laugh came after her oft-repeated story about pigeons, who instead of soaring victoriously glided low over the crowd "doing what pigeons will do" when released after too long confinement in their cage (one even toppled out dead, which Marj, but no one else, thought was hilarious). I thought Marj's pigeons would have made a dandy illustration to show why all our lesbigay clergy, elders and deacons already ordained should not be required to spend any more time in the closet, but majority propaganda found another use: "Mission!" The plight of all our closeted ordained missionaries was not mentioned, nor was anything said about the 40 million LesBiGays in Latin America who are still waiting for Marj and her zealous missionaries to discover them. This, of course, is understandable, since in the context of a Genevan luncheon information always must be complete and reliable. In the 2-page ("complete") handout prepared just in time for the General Assembly, "On Homosexuality and Ordination," we can find all kinds of unbiased information: polygamy is described as "a sexual orientation" and of course bisexuality "being dual- gendered, is also polygamous." After reading everything I needed to know about homosexual ordination so wonderfully summarized in two pages (with bisexuality covered free with one phrase), I could understand why one couple after the luncheon explained to me how grateful they were to discover the Genevans, where they could get such nice, reliable, complete information and not be misled by all that biased propaganda from other sources. III. Another handout given to commissioners rushing in to vote was titled "The Bible Declares Homosexual Acts To Be Sin," which cited all the usual clobber texts from the King James Version (failing to acknowledge, of course, that dear old "Saint James" was gay to the point of flaunting it). I overheard comments from some who thought this was that "scholarly document produced by Thomas Gillespie and all those professors at Princeton." Actually it was from the Rev. Dr. Carl McIntire, President of the International Council of Christian Churches. YADs, TSADs and younger commissioners should be forgiven if they could not tell the difference. The Rev. Dr. McIntire's document also was signed by the director of The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, the founding of which resulted in the defrocking of Prof. Gresham Machen. With the "Purity" amendment before presbyteries and defrocking threatening even those of us who are not cross- dressers by "orientation" and who refrain from public nudity, perhaps it is time to declare Prof. Machen *sans* frock a saint in the tradition of St. Sebastian. Then at next year's GA, instead of solemnly laying our stoles on the altar, we might collect and joyfully surrender our frocks in the tradition of "Dassie" (Das Madchen) as Machen's intimate friends called him. **IV. "After Three Years: What Have We Learned?" An address delivered July 3, 1996 by Thomas W. Gillespie, President, Princeton Theological Seminary at the Presbyterians for Renewal Breakfast. Unfortunately, although the GA called for 3 years serious "study," the president of everyone's favorite presbyterian seminary seems to have interpreted it as a demand for repeated viewings of the Gay Agenda video. Ignoring the complex history (summarized in Chris Glaser's autobiographical account), and the current control of terms and questions by his majority propaganda, Gillespie, in classic form, simply blames the oppressed: "In point of fact, the ordination issue is simply an occasion on the part of the gay caucus to get this on the agenda of the church." He laments the response of the presiding Bishop of the Reformed Church of Hungary who exclaimed on hearing of this year's GA debate, "What a luxury! What a luxury!" Perhaps it would be in many countries in Eastern Europe, where protestant churches frequently provided the only safe space for sexual minorities persecuted by totalitarian dictatorships. But in either American or global contexts, is it a luxury to debate fundamental issues of human sexuality and homophobia in a world where AIDS cases now surpass 20 million? In a nation where President Reagan's own commission on violence found gay men to be the most common victims? Where homophobia against gay and lesbian teenagers is the most common cause of teen suicide? In a denomination that bewails its aging membership and failure to keep and attract younger members, but where serious dialogue about human sexuality is still a major embarrassment for most members? As an example of the latter, the floor debate over the "Purity" amendment reached a revealing moment when a commissioner asked the Committee chairperson, Roberta Hestenes whether her amendment's demand for "chastity" would make masturbation grounds for refusing ordination (as it certainly would, if we accept the church's historic definition of "chastity" until well into this century). Our newly elected moderator was obviously surprised and embarrassed by the question and nervously asked Roberta if she wanted to respond. The usually-in-control Roberta exploded emotionally: "Are you crazy?" (whether the reference was to our distinguished moderator, the commissioner posing the question, or both -- exegeting "you" as plural -- was not clear). But YADS and other younger observers could hardly miss the dramatic confirmation of what they must have learned years ago: if you have any specific, practical question about human sexuality, the church is the last place in the world you want to ask it. From the older generation, countless PFLAG parents confirm the finding: the church is the last place in the world you would want to share the news that you have a gay, lesbian or bisexual child. And I suppose only Roberta could explain to us whether she thinks it's crazy to approve of masturbation, crazy to prohibit it, crazy to talk about it in a gathering of elderly Presbyterians staggering under the weight of buttons advertising their "Purity," or (in company with countless medical doctors and psychologists well into this century), that masturbation causes insanity. As a repentant, but still practicing Princeton alumnus, I would prefer to draw a discreet veil over the President Gillespie's further exposition of what he purportedly "learned," which our Presbyterians for Obscurantism rushed into publication before the decisive vote: "It is not one's orientation that disqualifies anyone from ordination in the church; it is sexual practice ... and sexual practice can disqualify heterosexual people just as easily as it can homosexual people." Actually, if we exegete the Purity Overture with historical accuracy to make refraining from masturbation a requirement of ordination, Gillespie's remark in isolation might be read as truly prophetic. As one of our most respected Gay leaders exclaimed after the vote: "We were already illegal -- but now its the heterosexuals' problem -- let them fight it out!" However, if we exegete according to the author's intention (as evangelical hermeneutics insists we do), Gillespie's remark is not prophetic, but shockingly stupid. If we refuse to ordain people who write with their left hand, but accept left-handed orientation, does that really create a level playing field for left-handed persons? If we refuse to ordain people who use their blue eyes to see, but accept them as long as they blindfold themselves, does that make a level playing field for persons with blue eyes, when everyone else is encouraged to play with their eyes wide open? After participating in one Presbytery discussion, Gillespie reports lamenting to his wife Barbara: "I have never been so depressed about the ministry of our church as I am tonight." Undoubtedly many Princeton alums will feel that way about their Seminary and its current president if they read his remarks. After forgetting about homophobia and watching the Gay Agenda for 3 years, Gillespie can conclude emphatically: "It's not about us. It's not about who we are. It's about people who have a problem." He knows this is the correct perspective, because he talked with someone on the Princeton faculty who told him so. What he purportedly learned from this source is that "it's important to use the word 'homosexual' as an adjective and not as a noun." While linguistically this affirmation has some validity, what majority propaganda consistently overlooks is that minority groups always feel more profoundly identified by the characteristic that marginalizes them. Right-handed white male heterosexuals do not go around being reminded throughout the day, or reflecting on the fact that they are right-handed white male heterosexuals, since they represent the "normal." They never pick up a newspaper shocked to read that a "Heterosexual man kills his wife." They never hear an affirmation that "man is rational" and have to ask themselves whether they are being included or excluded. They never face the frustration of picking up a tool designed for left-handed persons, which they can hardly manage to use. And they certainly are never refused ordination for being "unrepentant practicing heterosexuals" nor are they accused of "flaunting it" when they affectionately take the hand of someone they love (or even be kicked off an airplane for "immoral behavior," as recently happened to a gay couple in Latin America). Three years' accumulated wisdom from Princeton continues, with an unexpected confession: "The fact that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality is a fact!" (When I was at Princeton and wrote a sentence like that in a term paper it would come back with a big "X" and the comment "redundant!") However, not only theology, but the finer points of English style seem to be woefully in decline at my beloved alma mater. Reading Gillespie's address reminded me of C. S. Lewis' famous description in *The Great Divorce* of the befuddled and fuzzy discourse of the theologians' weekly meeting in Hell. Gillespie proceeds to reinterpret his "fact" that is a fact into an "argument," which he labels "silliest," because Jesus never spoke about a lot of other serious sins, such as rape. Here Gillespie overlooks the fact that it is a fact that in the Biblical languages our modern sexually explicit terms such as rape are covered by broader, general terms for oppression and violence (see my *God So Loved the Third World: the Biblical Vocabulary for Oppression,* Orbis, 1983). Gillespie then moves on to illuminate us with the latest Princetonian wisdom regarding the origin or the etiology of homosexuality, which is "We simply do not know." He has talked with "many practicing psychologists and psychiatrists who believe it is, in fact, a developmental problem ... at least in males, of arrested emotional development .... And these doctors believe, in fact, that there is a possibility of healing." It certainly is illuminating, although discouraging, to learn that, despite its reputation as a center for scholarship, the seminary still has psychologists propagating old pseudo and neo-Freudian myths that were discredited and rejected twenty or thirty years ago (unfortunately in my case, not before I was pushed by one such psychologist into marriage and a 25-year quest to "heal" my "sickness"!). With reference to the conclusion that homosexuality is genetic or has some biological base, Gillespie declares: "I want you to know that from the scientific point of view there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE convincing to the scientific community that that is, in fact, the case." No bibliography is given, and the discredited pseudo-freudian psychologists are cited as authorities for refuting the evidence from biology and genetics. Lack of scientific consensus is set forth as legitimate grounds for denying ordination to homosexual persons. As is universal in the majority propaganda at this point, the fact that the scientific community is equally lacking in consensus about the cause of heterosexuality and bisexuality and a host of other human characteristics is overlooked. Yet no one proposes that we should deny ordination to heterosexuals until a scientific consensus develops regarding the etiology of their heterosexuality. In addition to reposing the question in nonhomophobic terms, it helps to stop worrying about getting the "correct" answer and simply rule out the incorrect ones that people worry about. You don't become heterosexual by being seduced by your first girlfriend or boyfriend, and scientists recognize that homosexual experiences do not create homosexual orientation. Studies of heterosexual males in prison show that some engage regularly for years in homosexual activity, commonly to placate cruel guards or violent prisoners, but with no affect on their sexual orientation. Similarly, gay men and lesbians often resort to ill-advised heterosexual marriage, thinking to change their sexual orientation, only to find that after decades they are still as "sexually left-handed" (as British Quakers prophetically described it in 1963) as before marriage. If sexual orientations are not "caught like measles," it doesn't make much difference how long the scientific debate continues (even non- specialists can easily check the bibliographies of the psychologists still growing wealthy by promising to "cure homosexuals" and writing books about it). I have yet to pick up one that cited any relevant works from the other disciplines (biology, genetics) in their bibliographies. It would appear to be a classic case of specialists who learn more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing. Unfortunately Gillespie, too rushed to read the books, appears to have chosen that precise moment to consult with them. In charity, of course, we should not be too harsh with Gillespie for seeking to refute biologists and geneticists whose works he has not read, based on his conversations with (elderly -- we hope!) psychologist and psychiatrists still teaching at the seminary. However, regarding scholarly work of the last 40 years unmasking the homophobic presuppositions behind much traditional translation and commentary, Gillespie declares: "I happen to be trained in New Testament studies in the Greek language, and I can tell you that ALL REVISIONIST ATTEMPTS ARE BOGUS. ... The Old Testament prohibits homosexual behavior." Any lay person can see immediately where the real bogus is, since the text in Leviticus alluded to refers only to males. But for White Heterosexual Males (the self-constituted norm) women don't count and their absence commonly is not noted, much less considered significant. Gillespie takes his fellow Presbyterians for Obscurantism to their expected rhetorical conclusion with a rousing citation from Wolfhard Pennenberg, who wrote in *The British Times* that if the church ceases to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm it "will thereby cease to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." Gillespie concurs: "I think we are skating close to the blue ice of division of the church ... and what frightens me most is ... our inability to even agree on how to address the issue, and on what counts as argument in the issue and what doesn't count." Despite the apocalyptic scenario, Gillespie insists that he is not homophobic. Consistently with the perspective of majority propaganda, the oppressed, persecuted minority is viewed as the threat and problem: "What was Pearl Harbor doing there in the Pacific?" Princetonian and Presbyterian history contains countless examples of oppressive majorities blaming uppity slaves, uppity negroes, uppity women, and now uppity gays for splitting the church. However, the Bible generally and Jesus in particular focus on the oppressors, not the oppressed for trampling on the truth and departing from God's will. The Pope has finally repented of the persecution of Galileo, and even the Southern Baptists have repented of their support of slavery and racism. Could the Spirit move even Thomas Gillespie and his allies at the seminary to repentance? Two episodes in recent years bolster my theology of hope for Princeton. Several years ago, when Princeton was just becoming infamous as a hotbed of homophobia, the seminary invited Peter Gomes, the respected African American chaplain at Harvard, to give the commencement address. However, a few months before commencement, a dispute about LesBiGay rights broke out at Harvard, and before it was over, Gomes had come out of the closet as a gay man. Gillespie was under pressure from donors and trustees to cancel the Gomes' invitation, but stuck with his friend. I could not resist attending the Princeton dinner to congratulate Gillespie on catapulting Princeton from the caboose to become the first Presbyterian seminary to have an openly gay clergyman give the commencement address. He laughed and admitted that Peter had done a good job. The following year GA was at Orlando, and while other seminaries had their dinners in the more moderate restaurants near the convention site, Princeton bused us all the way to Disney World to the fanciest restaurant available. They just happened to have chosen Gay Day at Disney world for the dinner! Again, I could not resist paying the price for the meal in order to congratulate President Gillespie on his prophetic leadership. Then last year, Marj Carpenter celebrated her election as moderator by attending ("as I always have") the Hispanic dinner and ended up dancing with a gay missionary. After being pushed from my front row seat into her arms, I explained the situation; I'm not sure which of us was more embarrassed, but we gracefully tripped over each others' feet for a few minutes and both had a good laugh over it! As a journalist by university training, I thought the episode had considerable news value, but the *Presbyterian Layman* [sic] failed to pick up the story. At this year's annual GA meal, President Gillespie introduced his appeal to alumni of the world's wealthiest seminary by paying tribute to the trustee and seminary financial consultant who explained to him that in the hard world of high finance the first 100 million are the hardest to come by. Jesus said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the realm of God!" (Mark 10:23). Hard, but not impossible! Especially with so many faculty, administrators and students following the Spirit's lead and effectively opposing Gillespie's homophobic stance (See their contributions in *Homosexuality and Christian Community,* edited by Choon-Leong Seow, Westminster John Knox, 1996; also in *Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality,* edited by McCormick's Robert L. Brawley, Westminster John Knox, 1996). Even without consulting incompetent psychologists, we may confidently pray that Princeton be cured of its homophobia, and that the Old Light seminary become a center of sound learning where pastors will be sent out to More Light churches, not only in the USA but to the ends of the earth. Tom Hanks, Sunday July 21, 1996 (with contrite apologies to the Westminster Confession of Faith). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOT IN PRINT VERSION A Letter to the Session from Elder Dick Wunder Dear Friends in Christ: Last week I received news that the General Assembly has approved an amendment to the Book of Order that has caused me considerable concern. The amendment consists of three sentences which appear to be fairly straightforward but which seem to me to constitute a radical departure from Reformed faith and practice. My hope is that the session will share my concern and will petition the Presbytery of Utah to swiftly disapprove the amendment. My reasons are as follows. The first sentence of the amendment reads: "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." Under present church polity, the ordination vows require persons to "receive and adopt the *essential tenets* ... expressed in the confessions" and to be "instructed", "led", and "guided" by the confessions. To change that to a requirement "to lead a life ... *in conformity to*" the confessions, constitutes, in my opinion, a radical change. Two examples: The Westminster Confession of Faith states (6.128): "Christians ... may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions." As a Christian pacifist I cannot, in good conscience, lead my life in conformity to this standard. The Second Helvetic Confession states (5.191): "We teach that baptism should not be administered in the Church by women or midwives. For Paul deprived women of ecclesiastical duties, and baptism has to do with these." As a supporter of women's ordination, I cannot, in good conscience, lead my life in conformity to this standard. I refuse to agree that baptisms performed by Ginger Gryswana and Linda Toth are invalid. If this amendment is approved by the presbyteries, I will have to renounce my ordination vows. The second sentence of the amendment reads: "Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage of a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness." I think the General Assembly is badly confused. The parenthetical reference adduced in support of this sentence is from the Directory for Worship, not from the Book of Confessions. Moreover, when I examine the text of W-4.9001, I find no mention at all of "chastity in singleness" and nothing at all in the language regarding marriage to indicate any sort of "requirement". The text is purely descriptive, not prescriptive - - the preface to the Directory for Worship is quite clear about the differences in levels of prescriptive language, none of which language is used in W-4.9001. Moreover, I understand from the legislative history of this amendment that the original wording of this sentence was "one man and one woman" and was changed on the floor of the Assembly to "a man and a woman". But the effect of this change is to turn the sentence into a lie. The original wording is the true wording used in The Book of Confessions. The Westminster Confession of Faith states (6.133): "Marriage is a union between *one man* and *one woman*, designed of God to last so long as they both shall live." (I note in passing that it goes on to state (6.137) that divorce can be permitted only in cases of extreme unfaithfulness.) The clear intent of this sentence -- apparently -- is to elevate the Directory for Worship to the status of the "historic confessional standards," to make even its descriptive language prescriptive, and to authorize its language to take precedence over the language of the Book of Confessions. (I note in passing that the Directory for Worship states (W-5.5005): "Tithing is a primary expression of the Christian discipline of stewardship." Apparently this amendment intends to make such a sentence also binding on church officers?) Again, this seems to me a radical change in church polity, a binding of conscience totally out of accord with Reformed faith and practice. The last sentence of the amendment reads: "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." Wow! The Larger Catechism alone contains extensive laundry lists of sins. Are we really prepared to have the church courts endlessly clogged with challenges of one another's ordinations over some unrepented seventeenth century sin or other? In my own case, for example, I note that The Larger Catechism includes "usury" among its list of sins (7.252). I have a retirement annuity account which is presently earning interest at a rate of more than $1,000 a month -- a clearly uxorious rate by seventeenth century theological standards. I have no intention of repenting of this sin, and therefore in good conscience would have to renounce my ordination if this amendment is approved by the presbyteries. Moreover, I note that another sin listed in The Larger Catechism is that of "commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform" (7.240). The Westminster Confession of Faith states (6.126): "No man may vow to do anything ... which is not in his own power" and therefore "vows of perpetual single life ... are ... *sinful* ...." The clear intent of this sentence of the amendment -- apparently -- is to sneakily undermine and abrogate the denomination's present ban on the ordination of gay and lesbian persons, which requires "vows of perpetual single life" of such persons, since anyone trying to enforce such a policy could then be challenged in the church courts and removed from office on the basis of 7.240 and 6.126. But enough of this analysis. Let's be honest, folks. You know, and I know, that the real intent of this amendment was not to say anything about leading a life in conformity to confessional standards, or about living in a state of marriage or singleness. It's one more attempt by one more General Assembly to try to force its theological opinions about the ordination of gay and lesbian persons on every congregation of the denomination -- but without the intellectual honesty of saying so openly. Its homophobia has so undermined its intellectual honesty that it's willing to *lie* about the wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Truly, in the words of The Scots Confession (3.20): "... we do not receive uncritically whatever has been declared to men under the name of the general councils, for it is plain that, being human, some of them have manifestly erred, and that in matters of great weight and importance." If this amendment is approved by the presbyteries and becomes part of The Book of Order, I will defy it, deny it -- again in the words of The Scots Confession -- as "the doctrine of devils" and will fight it in the courts of the church. Thank you for attending to my opinions. Yours in Christ, Elder Dick Wunder P.S. In his autobiography, C.S. Lewis describes the final stage of his conversion. He had set out for Whipsnade zoo, riding in the sidecar of his brother's motorcycle: "When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did." When I set out to write this letter I had intended to end it with these words: "If this amendment is approved by the Presbytery of Utah I'll renounce not only my ordination but my membership in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)." And when I reached the end of the letter I had come to a different conclusion. P.P.S. It was hard to write this letter with a straight face. The sheer SILLINESS of using language of the Directory for Worship as an authority for binding the behavior of church officers kept distracting me. I finally spent one evening browsing through the Directory and making up parodies of the amendment. I enclose them also. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BOOK OF ORDER PREPARED BY ELDER DICK WUNDER 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 engage in personal worship by reading all parts of the Bible (W-2.2004). Persons refusing to read the entire Bible shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. 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 that public reading of Scripture should be clear, audible, and attentive to the meanings of the text (W-2.2006). Persons refusing to learn the correct pronunciation of Old Testament names in preparation for leading publish worship shall not be ordained ... etc. Those who are called to office ... etc. Among these standards is the requirement of making sure that those baptized are nurtured in the Christian life (W-2.3013). Persons refusing to teach Sunday School shall not be ordained ... etc. Those who are called to office ... etc. Among these standards is the requirement of greeting one another (W-2.6001). Persons refusing to serve as greeters shall not be ordained ... etc. Those who are called to office ... etc. Among these standards is the requirement that Christian marriage be celebrated in the place where the community gathers for worship (W-4.9003). Persons who were not married in a church building shall not be ordained ... etc. Those who are called to office ... etc. Among these standards is the requirement to take part in daily personal worship (W- 5.2001). Persons who refuse to repent of the sin of neglecting daily personal worship shall not be ordained ... etc. Those who are called to office ... etc. Among these standards is the requirement of keeping vigil for peacemaking or social protest (W-5.5003). Persons refusing to take part in protest vigils at the Nevada Test Site shall not be ordained ... etc. Those who are called to office ... etc. Among these standards is the requirement to tithe (W-5.5004). Persons refusing to tithe shall not be ordained ... etc. Those who are called to office ... etc. Among these standards is the requirement of concern for the earth (W-5.5005). Persons refusing to repent of the self-acknowledged use of styrofoam cups shall not be ordained ... etc. Those who are called to office ... etc. Among these standards is the requirement of working for fair laws (W-7.4002). Persons refusing to repent of the self-acknowledged sin of opposing increases in the minimum wage shall not be ordained ... etc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOT IN PRINT VERSION Speech on Overture 96-13 Not Given to the 208th General Assembly by a Person Not There: Jim Asendorf [Note, this overture is similar to the proposed constitutional amendment That was adopted by the assembly and has been sent out to the 171 presbyteries for an up or down vote. -- JDA] I am having a great deal of difficulty with this discussion and with this overture. To begin, I think they are both dishonest. The intent and purpose of the overture is to prevent gay and lesbian people from being ordained or if ordained from being installed. It cloaks its intent in moralistic language designed to receive a grand "AMEN" from all of us. The second dishonesty is that if I honestly tell you I am gay, the church will deny me ordination and/or installation to office; but if I am gay and don't tell, that is live a lie, the church will ordain and install me and receive gladly whatever gifts God gives the church through me. The church will reward my false witness against myself! Now that is, by and large, the practice of the church now, so nothing is being changed except the church has a cudgel to beat over the head people who try to be honest about who they are. One hundred and fifty years ago this Assembly would have been arguing that the darky -- or being respectable Presbyterians we'd probably have said "the nigra" -- was a child of Ham and that God had thus put him into slavery to us white men forever (conveniently forgetting that we ourselves are not Children of the Promise -- but only adopted in by God's grace and by faith). And (lifting the Bible up for all see) it says so right here. Seventy-five years ago we would have been arguing that women, if they had anything to say to the church, should tell their husbands and let the husband speak for them. And (again raising The Book) it says that here too. Besides, if we let them in as ruling elders, the next thing you know, they will want to be teaching elders as well, and God (and we as well) certainly doesn't want them preaching from the pulpit. And they were right. Twenty-five years later we ordained women as ministers of the word. But this tussle about who's in and who's out and how far in we're going to let them is nothing new to the church. When God offered Peter all the flesh of the world to eat, Peter was appalled and told God that He knew better than to offer that which was unclean, but God told Peter that it wasn't Peter's decision as to what was clean and what was unclean. That is God's decision. And Peter went off to the Roman Centurion, acknowledging that according to The Law he shouldn't be there, to offer salvation in Jesus to the Roman. And Phillip was hitch-hiking in the Negev when he was given a ride by a castrated black man, a man not whole, not complete, according to The Law, who was reading Isaiah. Phillip explained to him how Jesus was the fulfillment of Isaiah's words, bringing water to quench thirst forever to those who could accept it. The eunuch mourned that he was excluded by law from this salvation, but Phillip assured him nothing prevented his baptism. So this castrated Ethiopian was baptized. And the council of the High Priest of Israel was furious at the preaching of the apostles and sought to prevent it. They took counsel as to the appropriate action to take against these followers of The Way. When they had decided on death, one of the oldest said, "I've seen Messiahs come and fade away many times. If this is another false Messiah, God will see to the disappearance of the movement. If he is the true Messiah, nothing you do will stop them. Do nothing or you may find yourselves in opposition to God." (At this point I turned away to sit down, then came back as if thinking of something else.) But today we're still wrestling with that problem, aren't we? I expect that most of you, like me, have on clothes of cotton and some synthetic blend, or are wearing a suit of wool and some synthetic material. Many of you, like me, skip bacon with your eggs because of cholesterol rather than Levitical law, and have ham for Passover/Easter. I doubt that anyone observes ritual purification after menstruation or any of the rest of the Levitical Law. Many of us are divorced, and divorced and remarried and even married to someone who is divorced. I see no one whose right hand is cut off or sees only with the left eye so I presume we are all very pure people. And we are now ready to declare that on this one point of Levitical Law we will stand firm. To give it up would destroy the Church, the body of Christ. All of us, on both sides of the question are absolutely positive we KNOW what God wants. And we both declare that its here (holding up the Bible again) in this Book. And we dispute like the Scholastics over angels on the head of a pin about what the words mean. What I don't hear is someone saying, "I know this elder who is gay. He gives good counsel in Session meetings; he suggests programs that extend God's word to our community; he is a peacemaker among disputing factions; and he's lived quietly with his lover for 20 years." Or conversely, "This elder who is gay is disruptive in Session meetings with harebrained ideas, always fighting with someone over who can do things better, never supports any of the programs of the congregation and he's seduced three teenagers." And I haven't heard anyone saying, "I know this pastor who is a lesbian. Her sermons are shallow and hollow, a mockery of Christ. She's vindictive and overbearing with Session. She doesn't visit members, and I think she's having an affair with the organist." Or conversely, "This pastor who is a lesbian preaches Jesus crucified and raised. Her congregation is always initiating some new program of witness to the community. She and her session work together to further the church and enrich its life." In short we have been so busy arguing that we have failed to look at what God has done through gays and lesbians already ordained. We have failed to note the gifts given through The Spirit to gay and lesbian elders and pastors, to note their gifts to the Body of Christ. We tend to confuse election in the Church with election in the nation. The word is the same; the concepts are very different. In the United States we do the choosing, we call out those who will represent us. In the Church it is God, through our action, who calls the person to ordination. Now we stand with Peter -- and that's very good company -- saying: "What are you doing, God? You know better than to let those people into office. And we're not going to stand for it!" And I think that is the final dishonesty. We hide behind the question, "Should The Church ordain gays and lesbians?" But the real question is, "Can we place our limits on whom God calls?" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOT IN PRINT VERSION To my fellow members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): from David N. Grimshaw, D.O. July 6, 1996. I heard today about the decision at the General Assembly on the ordination of gays and lesbians (and other persons). I didn't know how deeply sexuality could be repressed in these days, and I for one am struggling with being a part of such a denial of personhood. Sexuality is a part of everyone's personhood. We are all persons. The first and most important commandment of God to God's people is to love one another. The difficulty we all have is to leave it at that. It is too simple for us, or I suppose, we are too simple for it. I am trying to say that I am heartbroken. Our church is losing its soul and we are all watching, participating with varying levels of involvement. Annie Dillard has a new book called *Mornings Like This.* She has taken the words, sentences, poems and prose of many writers and synthesized another master work of poetry. I was reading this while my wife read the paper this morning, and the words seem appropriate. One poem is entitled "I am trying to Get at Something Utterly Heartbroken." The words are excerpted from letters of V. van Gogh, 1873-1890. *"We who try our best to live, why do we not live more?"* If we have come this far, why can we not go further toward unity over one of the most basic parts of ourselves, our sexuality? *"This is not a thing I have sought, but it has come across my path and so I will seize it."* I think this is becoming an issue now because we are at long last recognizing that our sexuality is not just for procreation, as the Church has declared for centuries, but rather a more basic expression of who we are, a way of sharing God deeply with another person. The essence of God, that which we cannot look upon or express, is in the end, Love. Perhaps the closest we can come to that in our mortal state is in our expression of deep love for another through our sexuality. *"After all, if we do not learn from this, then from what shall we learn?"* It helped me to read this morning in the New Testament, *"Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven."* Surely God is among us now. Again in van Gogh's words, *"It may be true that there is no God here. But there must be one not far off."* Our decision is transparent. We are clearly conflicted, and we magnify it by writing a two-edged directive. Yes, we are to be inclusive. But no, we can not give full personhood to persons who happen to be in the minority when it comes to sexual orientation. In the end, we fail at all, because it is not a decision we can live with. It doesn't resolve our conflict. I would also like to know who it is that is going to do the patrolling of the membership to keep tabs on who is having sex with whom? Love one another. Simply, David N. Grimshaw. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOT IN PRINT VERSION And Now for a Little History The Auburn Affirmation There is an important document in the historic archives of the Presbyterian Church called the Auburn Affirmation of 1925. The Auburn Affirmation emerged out of our then Auburn Seminary in New York City in 1924. It was circulated prior to the 1925 General Assembly, seeking to prevent the Presbyterian Church from becoming a fundamentalist church. It was signed by 1,274 clergy. Three distinct principles from the Auburn Affirmation are worth noting in light of the current situation in the denomination: 1. We, as Presbyterians, are not required to assent to the very words of our Confessions or to all their teachings. Our Confessions disclaim infallibility. They are meant only to be a help in our faith and practice, and so shall they be for us. 2. As to the Scriptures, we recognize they are to be interpreted through the Holy Spirit, and we seek more light from them. But the Scriptures are not finally interpreted by ecclesiastical authority. After all, there is no assertion in the Scriptures that the writers, inspired as they were by the Holy Spirit, were kept from error. 3. As to ecclesiastical authority, the Presbyterian Church guards against the General Assembly from declaring on their own authority without the concurrent action of the Presbyteries. For the General Assembly to so bind the whole church with its own teaching cannot prevail in the Presbyterian Church. We have no pope! Amazing stuff, huh? I got this reference from Hal Porter's sermon of May 26, 1996, "The Absolute Club." If you would like a copy of the sermon, which I highly recommend, send a note to: Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church, 103 William Howard Taft Road, Cincinnati, OH 45219. -- Sonnie Swenston * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLGC OFFICERS AND CONTACTS CO-MODERATORS: Scott D. Anderson (1998), 5805 20th Ave., Sacramento, CA 95820-3107, 916-456-7225, 442-5447 (work), email: hn0029@handsnet.org; Laurene Lafontaine (1997), 1260 York St. #106, Denver, CO 80206, 303-388-0628, PNet: Laurene Lafontaine; internet: EClaurene@aol.com; COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY: James D. Anderson, P.O. Box 38, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0038, 908-249-1016, 908-932-7501 (Rutgers Univ.), FAX 908-932-6916 (Rutgers Univ.), email: jda@scils.rutgers.edu. RECORDING SECRETARY: Rob Cummings, PO Box 394, Jackson Center, PA 16133-0394, 412-475-3285 TREASURER: Lew Myrick, 1225 Southview Rd., Baltimore, MD 21218- 1454, 410-467-1191, 410-516-8100 work, FAX 410-516-4484 work, email: myrick@jhu.edu PLGC Coordinators & Laisons ISSUES: Mike Smith -- see Exec. board. JUDICIAL ISSUES: Tony De La Rosa -- see Exec. board; Peter Oddleifson, Harris Beach and Wilcox, 130 E. Main St., Rochester, NY 14604, 716-232-4440 wk, -1573 fax. BISEXUAL CONCERNS: (to be announced) TRANSGENDER CONCERNS: The Rev. Carla T. Pridgen, 740 Sidney Marcus Blvd., #5106, Atlanta, GA 30324, 404-262-0566. PRESBYNET: Dorothy Fillmore, 7113 Dexter Rd., Richmond, VA 23226- 3729, 804-285-9040 hm, 804-828-1831, fax 804-828-8172 wk, PNet: DFillmore; email: dfillmore.parti@ecunet.org (or) dfillmor@cabell. vcu.edu (NO 'e' on dfillmor!). PLGC'S WEB PAGE: Donna Michelle Riley, Box 323, 4902 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3799, 412-422-1822, 412-268-5550 wk, email: riley+@andrew.cmu.edu NOMINATING COMMITTEE: Dorothy Fillmore -- see PresbyNet. coordinator. PRISON MINISTRIES: Jim Anderson -- see Communications Secretary. LIAISON TO PRESBYTERIAN AIDS NETWORK (PAN): John M. Trompen, 48 Lakeview Dr., Morris Plains, NJ 07950-1950 LIAISONS TO PRESBYTERIAN ACT-UP: Susan Leo -- see Exec. Board; Lisa Bove, 1707 Micheltorena St. #214, Los Angeles, CA 90026, 213-664-8654; Howard Warren, Jr., 2807 Somerset Bay, Indianapolis, IN 46240, 317-632-0123 (Damien Center), 317-253- 2377 (home). EUROPE: Jack Huizenga, Voice of America, Voice of America, 76 Shoe Lane, London EC4A 3JB, U.K., email: jwhuizen@dircon.co.uk, tel: (171) 410-0960, preceded by 011-44 if calling from the U.S. ALASKA-NORTHWEST (AK, WA, No. ID): Richard Gibson, 4700 228th St., SW, Mount Lake Terrace, WA 98043, 206-778-7227; Michael Tsai, 1622 W. Jame Pl. #2F2, Kent, WA 98032, 206-859-5686. COVENANT (MI, OH): Rev. James J. Beates, 18120 Lahser Rd. #1, Detroit, MI 48219, 313-255-7059; Mary Rose, 861 W. Bluff St., Marquette, MI 49855-4121, 906-226-7163, marose@nmu.edu LAKES AND PRAIRIES (IA, MN, ND, NE, SD, WI): Cleve Evans, 3810 S. 13th St., #22, Omaha, NE 68107-2260, 402-733-1360; Richard Winslow, 111 E. Water St., #100, Appleton, WI 54911-5791, 414- 731-0892. LINCOLN TRAILS (IL, IN): Mark Palermo, 6171 North Sheridan Road, Apt. 2701, Chicago IL 60660-2858, 312-338-0452. LIVING WATERS (KY, TN, MS, AL): Michael Purintun -- see PLGC Postings. MID-AMERICA (MO, KS): Merrill Proudfoot, 3315 Gillham Road, #2N,Kansas City, MO 64109, 816-531-2136. MID-ATLANTIC (DE, DC, MD, NC, VA): William H. Moss (Bill), see Exec. Board; Elizabeth Hill, PO Box 336, Grimstead, VA 23064- 0336, 804-741-2982; Brent Bissette, 223 Riverwalk Cir., Cary, NC 27511, 919-467-5747. NORTHEAST (NJ, NY, New England): Gary Ireland, 10 Winter St., Montpelier, VT 05602, 802-229-5438; John Hartwein-Sanchez, 23 Sherman St., #2, New London, CT 06320, 203-442-5138; Charlie Mitchell, 56 Perry St., Apt. 3-R, New York, NY 10014, 212-691- 7118; Amy Jo Remmerle, 1159 Maple Rd., Williamsville, NY 14221, 716-626-5976; Kay Wroblewski, 74 Freemont Rd., Rochester, NY 14612, 716-663-9130. PACIFIC (No. CA, OR, NV, So. ID): Richard A. Sprott, 531 Valle Vista Ave., Oakland, CA 94610-1908, 510-268-8603, fax, 510-271- 0127.email: sprott @cogsci .berkeley.edu; Dick Hasbany, 4025 Dillard Rd., Eugene, OR 97405, 503-345-4720. ROCKY MOUNTAINS (CO, MT, NE Panhandle, UT, WY): Laurene Lafontaine -- see Officers. SOUTH ATLANTIC (FL, GA, SC): Jim Earhart, P.O. Box 8362, Atlanta, GA 31106, 404-373-5830; Laurie Kraus, 5275 Sunset Dr., Miami, FL 33143, 305-666-8586. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND HAWAII: Rev. L. Dean Hay, 2851 S. La Cadena Dr, #71, Colton, CA 92324, 909-370-4591. SOUTHWEST (AZ, NM): Linda Manwarren, 7720 Browning Dr. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109-5303, 505-858-0249; Rosemarie Wallace, 710 W. Los Lagos Vista Ave., Mesa, AZ 85210, 602-892-5255. SUN (AR, LA, OK, TX): Greg Adams, 314 Steven Dr., Little Rock, AR 72205, 501-224-4724; Jay Kleine, 8818 Wightman Dr., Austin, TX 78754, 512-928-4063, 331-7088 work; John P. McNeese, P.O. Box 54606, Oklahoma City, 73120-1404, 405-848-2819; Rickey, 13114 Holston Hills, Houston, TX 77069, 713-440-0353, 713-440-1902 fax, email patrickey@aol.com TRINITY (PA, WV): Rob Cummings, PO Box 394, Jackson Center, PA 16133-0394, 412-475-3285; Eleanor Green, P.O. Box 6296, Lancaster, PA 17603, 717-397-9068; Jim Ebbenga & Kurt Wieser, 203 E. Prospect Ave., North Wales, PA 19454-3208, 215-699-4750. PLGC Executive Board Lindsay Biddle (1997), 3538 - 22nd Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55407, 612-724-5429, PNet: Lindsay Biddle, internet: lindsay_biddle.parti@ecunet.org Lisa Larges (1997), 426 Fair Oaks, San Francisco, CA 94110, 415- 648-0547 Tammy Lindahl (1997) 6146 Locust St., Kansas City, MO 64110, 816- 822-8577 Tony De La Rosa (1997), 5850 Benner St. #302, Los Angeles, CA 90042, 213-256-2787, PNet: Tony De La Rosa; email: tony_de_la_rosa.parti@ecunet.org or tonydlr@ix.netcom.com Woody Smallwood (1997), 1225 Southview Rd., Baltimore, MD 21218- 1454, 410-467-1191, woodybalt@aol.com Lisa Furr (1998), 7113 Dexter Rd. Richmond, VA 23226-3729, 804- 285-9040, PNet: Lisa Furr; email: lisa_furr.parti@ecunet.org Gene Huff (1998), 658 25th Ave., San Francisco CA 94121, 415- 668-1145. Susan Leo (1998), 412 NE Hazelfern Pl., Portland, OR 97232-3328, 503-232-4030, sleoclu@aol.com William H. Moss (Bill, 1998), 1327 Emerald St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5431, 202-397-5585 Mike Smith (1998), 1211 West St., Grinnell, IA 50112, 515-236- 7955, PNet: Michael D Smith; email: Michael_D_Smith.parti@ecunet.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MASTHEAD (Publication Information) MORE LIGHT UPDATE, Volume 17, Number 2, November-December 1996. ISSN 0889-3985. Published bi-monthly by Presbyterians for Lesbian & Gay Concerns, an organization of Ministers, Elders, Deacons, and Members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Elder James D. Anderson, Editor, P.O. Box 38, New Brunswick, NJ 08903- 0038, 908-249-1016, 908-932-7501 (Rutgers University), fax 908- 932-6916 (Rutgers University), Internet: jda@mariner.rutgers.edu (or jda@scils.rutgers.edu), 4 Huntington St., Room 316, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071. Electronic version available via email. PLGC-List: plgc-list@andrew.cmu.edu PLGC home page: http://www.epp.cmu.edu/~riley/PLGC.html Send materials marked "For publication" to the editor. PUBLICATION DEADLINES: 6 weeks prior to issue months. Most material appearing in MORE LIGHT UPDATE is placed in the public domain. With the exception of individual articles that carry their own copyright notice, articles may be freely copied or reprinted. We ask only that MORE LIGHT UPDATE be credited and its address be given for those who might wish to contact us. Suggested annual membership contribution to PLGC: $50.00. Annual subscription (included in membership) to MORE LIGHT UPDATE: $12.00. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *