| Presbytery’s approval of Larges scruple upheld by Synod PJC |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon, Outlook national reporter | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tuesday, 28 September 2010 18:37 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In a 5-4 decision, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific has ruled that the Presbytery of San Francisco acted properly when it allowed Lisa Larges to declare a conscientious objection to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s ordination standards regarding sexual practice. The presbytery voted 156-138 in November 2009 to allow Larges to be ordained even though she declared a “scruple,” or an objection based on conscience, to the PC(USA)’s requirement that those being ordained practice fidelity if they are married or chastity if they are single. Larges, a lesbian and a graduate of San Francisco Theological Seminary, has sought for two decades to be ordained by the church. In her statement of faith presented to the presbytery’s Committee on Ministry, Larges wrote that the “fidelity and chastity” standard “deliberately and intentionally denies the dignity and lived experience of same-gender loving people,” and gives them an “impossible choice” by not honoring their faithful, covenanted partnerships. She also wrote that the standard “raises one category of persons, heterosexual persons, above all others and thereby makes an idol of heterosexuality.” The synod permanent judicial commission ruled Sept. 25 that San Francisco Presbytery had “conducted a reasonable, responsible, prayerful, and deliberate examination” of Larges. The General Assembly has passed an authoritative interpretation saying that a governing body can allow such exceptions to the rules on a case-by-case basis if it determines that the departure does not involve an “essential” of Reformed faith or polity. The synod judicial commission said it accepted the presbytery’s determination that Larges’ conscientious objection to the “fidelity and chastity” standard in this case did not violate an essential of Reformed faith and polity. The commission also urged the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission — the church’s highest court — to provide “guidance and direction” on the complicated questions involving scruples to the ordination standards. It also stated in the ruling that that “the season is ripe with opportunity for discussion and action to clarify the manner in which the (denomination’s) Constitution is changed and interpreted.” Anticipating that an appeal may be filed in the case, the commission issued a stay of enforcement of its ruling for 45 days. Larges has a position to which she could be ordained, as the presbytery also voted 157-144 last November to approve That All May Freely Serve, an advocacy group for which Larges serves as minister coordinator, as a validated ministry. The five members of the synod judicial commission who voted for that majority opinion were Jim Bennett, Ruth Goldthwaite, Jean Hurst, Ken Robbins and Gail Saxowsky.
Your Responses (11)
Ginger Johnston
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Milton-Freewater, OR 97862 What a lot we could solve by approving gay marriage - and then applying the same standards - sexual expression within a married relationship - to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Ginger Johnston |
Dean Strong
said:
|
Snohomish, WA Regardless of where one stands on the recognition of committeed homosexual relationships and ordination, this ruling fails our Constitution. What is the use of having a Constitution if you don't have to follow it? Amending 6.0106b is the right thing to do if the denomination wants to ordain gay and lesbians in committed relationships. Providing for church recognition and blessing of those relations is also necessary before those ordinations can stand. Otherwise we are in a moral wasteland for all those gay and straight. If gays and lesbians don't have to observe any kind of fidelity, why should straight people have to? We are a people who say that relationships based on Covenants are healthier and better than those based simply on feelings. If our relationship with God was based purely on emotion, we would be in serious trouble; the relationship would be so easily broken. But we do live in Covenant with God, so we can have a relationship even though we sin. I have, by God's grace, been able to remain in a covenant marriage relationship for over 25 years...if it were based only on emotion, it would have been over long ago. As Presbyterians, when we base our "connectedness" on emotion (that is whether we like each other, or whether we "agree"), we split and splinter. The better way is to to work through conflict and controversy as can only be done while remaining in relationship with one another--just as God remains in relationship with us. The standard for officers of the church should be defined and based on our Coventant theology. If the denomination is ready to redefine WHO can be in a covenant, life partner relationship, then lets do it. But this should be done BEFORE we simply say that covenant relationships between men and women, or persons of the same sex don't matter, that they are not an essential tenant of the Reformed Tradition. In affect, that is what this ruling does. |
Mike Fazzini
said:
|
Pittsburgh, PA And so it goes. We continue to wrangle about AI’s and legal precedent. Never mind there is a person of remarkable integrity asking to be ordained out of a sense of deep commitment to Christ. It has always been interesting to me that those who would prevent coupled gay people from ordination fall all over themselves to say how they have nothing against gay people, only sinful “homosexual acts”. It is as if “love the sinner, hate the sin” has some particularly redemptive quality to those who utter it in good conscience never mind that those to whom it is directed feel offended and diminished by its expression. For my part I find this sentiment particularly offensive because it is always spoken from a position of power, that is, those who say it risk nothing. The cost is all someone else’s to bear. Additionally, it is used in justifying and rationalizing a policy that makes a form of bigotry institutional within our Church. It holds people out as different when in nearly every respect they are the same as everyone else. If we can get to, gay people are normal (at least as normal as heterosexual people) why is it that how gay people have sex is abnormal (sinful). Have they been set apart by God from birth for a celibate life experience unless they live it out of integrity in an opposite sex marriage? Can you really believe that? If you are reading this and are heterosexual you must intuit that all gay people want is what you have and would, perhaps, deny them. Out of what does that denial come? Who are we to deny them? What sets us up as their judge, jury and in a sense, until now, (spiritual) executioner? If gay people had the power of self determination (the majority) within the Church ordination standards and marriage would look much different today as would our beloved Church. If we REALLY loved them why can’t we get that? Are we charged with saving them from themselves or with helping them become the best gay person they can be? How it goes is those who have little or no comprehension of the gay experience are left to rule on their behalf. It can be no other way, given our polity. Gays will always be a very small (5-8%) minority. We rule as we do because we ”know” the right and wrong of it. We have studied scripture so what more is needed? “Scripture is clear,” we say. The rest is irrelevant because scripture exists in a vacuum. Ongoing revelation, social and scientific progress, and personal witness cannot be allowed to impact what we “know” through scripture. This is how we behave. This is how we vote when asked. We suffer nothing. It is all someone else’s to bear. Let’s check in with the gay folks, their parents, their children, brothers, sisters and extended families and see how our process is working for them so far. Unless they don't matter, why wouldn't we? Where are they in our process? The level of dignity and grace in the way Lisa has conducted herself over the years is beyond admirable. It is exemplary. Her plight would be a test of faith for any of us. In the end if Lisa is denied ordination I can hear God saying, “I’ve sent you my best and look what you’ve done.” Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. |
chas jay
said:
|
burbank, ca I dare say that Lisa Larges has raised up herself and her lifestyle as the idol. With the acceptance of her scruple, why do we even bother following Christ. We already have several pastors who don't think He's the only way to the Father. Some of you wonder why the PCUSA shrinks more and more. Could it possibly be that it looks more and more just like the world and not set apart from the world? Many of our churches have left the denomination because no matter how they have stood in principal, the disobedience continues and they are ignored. All that's going to be left of this denomination are the rats that sought to change it for their own selfish desires. |
Noel Anderson
said:
|
Bakersfield, CA Added thanks to Donald Baird, Melvin Khachigian, Jean McClean, and Kenneth M. Robbins--it's a shame your good sense wasn't unanimous. Well done, nonetheless. |
Donald Loving
said:
|
Tiffin, Ohio It would be refreshing if the opponents of the ordination of persons who openly tell us all about the facts of their sexual orientation would recognize another fact. The issue is about how the Scripture and the Book of Order (and the Book of Confessions) are to be interpreted. Look for example at Titus 2:3-5. Women who are the mothers of children are exhorted to be chast, so it is pretty clear that "chase" does not mean "celibate" as so many believe that it does. In addition to the fact that both sides of this issue can cite Scripture to support their position, a bigger gulf is between the different ways that the two sides view the Sovereignty of God. One side believes that if the Sovereign God wants to call homosexual persons for ministry in the church that alone is reason enough to allow it. The other side thinks that the "Sovereign God" is beholden to their own particular interpretation of the words of Scripture. One has to wonder at the wisdom of a god who would knowingly be bound by thoughts breathed into the minds of human authors, who then had to write down as best they could what they thought they were hearing, have their words subsequently copied, and edited, and run through canon selection committees, and translated again into many languages before someone now reads them and claims that god is restricted in what can be allowed. This, as I understand it, is not the God who is described in the first four chapters of our Book of Order. |
Bob Forrester
said:
|
Sparta, NJ I am very sympathetic to the sexual confusion that has enveloped our world and this denomination. We center on homosexuality, but in reality there is a vast array of sexual problems and temptations that deeply affect us heterosexuals too. We're all confused and it is not easy for any of us. In that sense we're all in the same boat. The apostle Paul says it best, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23 NIV). The only real answer is to turn to the plain teaching of scripture. It is real, it is authoritative and it has stood the test of time. Lisa Larges claims "the standard 'raises one category of persons, heterosexual persons, above all others and thereby makes an idol of heterosexuality.'" Jesus said "But in the beginning of creation God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9 NIV). Does this make Jesus an idol worshiper? I don't think so. Jesus was closer to God and His intent for us than anybody. This is God's intent, not the world's nor our own deceitful hearts'. Our only hope is captured in the continuation of Romans 3:23: "...and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ." There lies our hope and salvation. It's like an airplane flying on instruments through the mountains in the clouds. The further we stray from centerline, the greater the risk we'll hit the rocks. When we find ourselves off course, we need to make an immediate correction; otherwise we fly out of the protection of God's grace. God bless us all as we find our way back on course. |
Ken Thomas
said:
|
Monroe, NC I am intrigued by Lisa Larges' claim that the current B.O.O. standard “raises one category of persons, heterosexual persons, above all others and thereby makes an idol of heterosexuality.” In her attempt to self-justify, she appears to claim that ANY and ALL restrictions on behavior in any catagory of life amounts to idolatry. She seems to be just restating the old case for "antinomianism" - being against all laws or restraints. That view has always seemed alluring for the rebellious side of our nature. Those who live their lives consistently according to such a credo make for very, very scary neighbors! I have met Lisa, and do not perceive her to be so consistent in applying her philosophy, which is good for those who live near her.... In the realm of relationships, we might call it simply "sexual anarchy", as did our Confession of 1967. To follow Lisa's argument, we should feel free to ordain without reservation all those who practice drunkenness, thieft, swindling, bestiality, and anything else called "out-of-bounds" in Scripture. Such nonlogic and contra-biblical "reasoning" seems to me to be the ultimate grasping at straws to attempt to make a lifestyle the bible clearly and unequivocably calls "sin" to be religiously acceptable. How weak and sad that such a presentation could be given any weight in a Reformed denomination like the PC(USA). Sincerely and respectfully, Dr. T |
Jeff
Winter
said:
|
Martha's Vineyard, Mass. re: Synod court upholds presbytery's approval of Lisa Larges' scruple (posted online Sept. 28, 2010) I want to thank Donald Baird, Melvin Khachigian, Jean McClean, and Kenneth M. Robbins for standing against the storm to ordain homosexually-identified persons. I appreciate that they had the guts to stand for Scripture and the Book of Order. I also want to thank them for filing a dissenting opinion. I appreciate their outward stand for Biblical sexuality. Jeff Winter Martha's Vineyard, Mass. |
Robin Faisant
said:
|
Menlo Park, CA So you named the four dissenters. Why didn't you name the five who voted in favor? |
Rev. Mary Holder Naegeli
said:
|
Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Comment on this story from the Counsel for the Complainants, Rev. Mary Naegeli: While the Synod PJC ruled against the Complainants, the good news from our perspective is that there is a well-reasoned dissent in favor of Complainants' arguments, providing stark contrast to the reasoning of the majority. The decision and dissent clearly state the two positions for appellate review. The 5 to 4 decision in favor of the presbytery rests solely upon the so-called Knox Authoritative Interpretation (Knox AI), supposedly allowing presbyteries to grant departures from any provision of the Book of Order. So, even though the Book of Order says that among our standards [for ordination] is the requirement to live either in fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness, a presbytery can grant a departure to someone who cannot or will not abide by it. So much for a “requirement.” On the plus side, from our perspective, the decision is unambiguous and very focused, based on one blanket authority (the Knox AI) without any moderating influences or reliance on other legal precedent. It also called for an appeal to the GAPJC simply to secure some clarity about the relationships between Constitutional provision, legal precedents, and the General Assembly’s actions (we presume these to be “authoritative interpretations”). But most importantly, a strong dissent was included from four of the commissioners, to say that four of our five allegations of error should have been sustained. They appealed to the plain definition of words, to the Reformed understanding of Scripture and its authority in the Church, the nature of the ordination standard of fidelity and chastity, and the nature of constitutions. We are pleased that such a well-reasoned dissent was included in the document. This, too, goes forward to be considered in the appeal. So, clearly, the Complainants will be appealing this ruling and give the church through its GAPJC an opportunity to come to a definitive resolution on fidelity and chastity and the PCUSA Constitution itself. |
Write a Response
