| Presbytery votes to permit Larges ordination; stay of enforcement sought |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon OUTLOOK national reporter |
|
By a very close margin, San Francisco Presbytery voted yesterday (Nov. 10) to permit the ordination of Lisa Larges, a lesbian who has sought for more than 20 years to become a minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) During a late-night meeting that Presbyterians followed coast-to-coast via Twitter, the presbytery voted 156-138 to allow Larges to be ordained. And it voted 157-144 to approve That All May Freely Serve, for which Larges serves as minister coordinator, as a validated ministry. Mary Holder Naegeli, a minister from San Francisco Presbytery who has been involved with earlier legal challenges to Larges’ efforts to be ordained, released a statement to the news media on Nov. 11, saying that “enough signatures were collected at the close of the meeting to secure a Stay of Enforcement while a remedial complaint is filed with the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission.” Naegeli’s statement also says that until that complaint is resolved in the church court system, Larges cannot be ordained. The vote to permit Larges’ ordination is seen as groundbreaking in part because Larges has declared a “scruple,” or a conscientious objection, to the section of the PC(USA)’s Book of Order that limits ordination to those who practice chastity if they are single or fidelity if they are married. Following a procedure recommended by the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the PC(USA), Larges declared a formal objection to the “fidelity and chastity” requirement and asked that the presbytery ordain her with that understanding. 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. In a statement she presented to the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry, Larges declared the “fidelity and chastity” requirement to be “a mar upon the church and a stumbling block to its mission,” and said she could not in conscience comply with it. In answer to questions presented during her examination by the presbytery last night, Larges spoke of her efforts to walk along side those who disagree with her on how to interpret Scripture and of the call to ministry she has continued to sense through her 23-year journey to be ordained. A 1989 graduate of San Francisco Theological Seminary, Larges – who is blind – has served as a deacon at Noe Valley Ministry in San Francisco. She also works for That All May Freely Serve, a group advocating full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in the PC(USA). After the vote, some Presbyterians celebrated, while others mourned. As the reaction echoes through the denomination, a challenge to Larges’ ordination is almost certain to be filed in the church courts. The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission has not yet ruled on the central question of whether conscientious objections to the “fidelity and chastity” requirement should be permitted. And already there have been challenges to the process in Larges’ case as it’s worked its way through the system, including an effort to keep the presbytery from taking the vote it just did. On January 15, 2008, after discussing the matter in closed session, San Francisco Presbytery voted 167-151 to approve Larges as “ready for examination, with departure” – meaning it acknowledged the scruple she had declared. Some ministers from the presbytery appealed that decision and the permanent judicial commission of the Synod of the Pacific nullified that vote in a March 2009 decision. The synod court ruled that the presbytery’s debate and vote in January 2008 did not constitute an examination of Larges and that it violated a requirement that those being examined appear personally before the presbytery at that meeting and make a brief statement of personal faith. So the synod court sent the matter back to the presbytery for reconsideration. But three ministers from the synod appealed that ruling, asking the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the highest court in the PC(USA), to determine that San Francisco Presbytery should not conduct the examination. The ministers filing the appeal stated in a brief that the “burning question to which the church needs a clear answer” is whether a presbytery is prohibited from waiving mandatory church-wide ordination requirements, and specifically the “fidelity and chastity” language. The GAPJC ruled instead that the synod court was correct in determining that the presbytery examination was the correct time for San Francisco Presbytery to consider the objection that Larges wants to declare. And it determined that the presbytery did not err in declining to remove Larges from its roll of candidates. The court ruled that the presbytery must follow the required process “to determine whether the Candidate has expressed an interpretation of Scripture that represents a serious departure from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, and if it determines that she has, it must then decide whether the departure infringes on the rights and views of others or obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.” That’s what happened during the Nov. 10 presbytery meeting — with the presbytery narrowly voting to accept the departure from the standards that Larges presented. The vote last night marks the third time that Larges’ candidacy has been directly considered. Previously, she was a candidate for ministry in the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, the part of the country in which she had grown up. But, after she informed the presbytery about her sexual identity as a lesbian, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission ruled against her candidacy in 1992. She later transferred her candidacy to San Francisco. That presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry voted in 2004 against recommending her for ordination, but allowed her to continue on as a candidate, aware of the passionate, ongoing debate within the PC(USA) and across Christianity over gay ordination, a debate which continues today.
Lisa Larges' statement of faith to San Francisco Presbytery: Lisa Larges' statement of departure from G-6.0106b: |
Comments
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. It is possible to be non-parish clergy. This is not something specialy imagined simply for Lisa--the PC(USA) has multiple validated ministries.
The Sexual Orientation issue is just that - it has no bearing on the Gospel message of the Old and New Testaments. The Sexual Orientation issue is about getting the permission of heterosexuals for homosexuals to enjoy sex with their own kind in the privacy of their bedrooms. If the Sexual Orientation people think they can 'wear down the judge' you didn't read the passage very well. He neither feared man nor God. Those who speak against using scruples to SNAKE around the chastity in singleness issue are not arguing with a judge who doesn't care about your opinion of him - They are arguing with God himself. Church leadership has quoted the Bible until they are blue in the face. It is GOD's word that is judging not man. If Sexual Orientation people are incapable of seeing the arguement in this light, why would they think current church leadership would allow anyone to enter into ministry with the inability to understand God's word?
The Sexual Orientation issue is not with Presbyterian Church Polity but WITH GOD. If you do not understand or refuse to see, what do you think GOD will do with the issue when you die? He who has ears will hear, he who has eyes will see.
Being that I'm gay I've always taken an interest in G.0601b especially since I also happen to be an ordained deacon in the PC (USA). In studying the BoO, the Confessions, and the Bible, I discovered the contradictions between these documents and the opinions of various Presbyterians on how the contradictions should be resolved. I guess one might say contradictions are not good and certainly they can make life a little more difficult. But it seems to me Christianity is full of contradictions ranging from the virign birth to the resurrection of Jesus. Faith is a contradiction to human existence, is it not?
Back to the debate the simple truth is that the PC (USA) has had the opportunity for several years to make it quite explicit in the BoO that self-affirming homosexuals (or whatever term one chooses) are forbidden to be ordained. Maybe the AI of 1978 helped some with that, but now it is no longer relevant per the last GA and it was never part of the Constitution even though some liked to think so. So all we have now is G-6.0106b. The word homosexual does not even exist in the BoO. Am I the only one that finds that so strange since this is something that continues to be debated in our denomination? The simple truth is most people in the PC (USA) don't want to deal with this issue and keep hoping it goes away. They are in denial.
Another fact is that deacons and elders as well as myself who happen to be LGBT are ordained throughout the PC (USA) without us having to declare a scruple. The focus in the PC (USA) seems to be on the Ministers implying that G-6.0106b is more important to enforce for certain officers rather than others. Another contradiction.
Ms. Larges has done all of us in the PC (USA) a great favor in her scruple by not only bringing the issue of LGBT ordination to the forefront, but also the question of how Christ, the BoO, the Confessions, and the Bible all relate in our faith. And those who likewise iniated a stay to the action of the presbytery in approval of ordaining Ms. Larges may have also done a favor in asking the higher bodies bring clarification on the matter of the scruple. Though I'm not sure if that is really their intention. I expect they are more concerned with the LGBT issue or just sex rather than the question of how we resolve the mix of the BoO, the Confessions, and the Bible.
Quite honestly I don't expect any clear resolution on the matter of how the scruple should be resolved since it is much more than a question of sexual relations between adults. It is actually a question of much more relevance in how we as Presbyterians address contradictions. Maybe I and others (liberal, middle, and conservative) will be pleasantly surprised. Or maybe the next GA will fix this?
Earl Apel
Cincinnati, Ohio
It is much like me getting a job at "Uncle Joe's Crab-House", or maybe the local Bucks County Democratic Committee and in the course of my work I happen to pray, hold hands, maybe even do a Bible study or two with staff and co-workers. Or I even carry a sign or two at a local election and hand out stuff. Is my work now worthy of "validation" or now a work recognized as requiring the 124 hours of undergraduate work and a M. Div. to do?
Can I compel the Presbytery to give me a hearing based upon where I feel God has placed me?
As with everything else in our unhappy little club few things get settled by the courts or bodies charged to oversee the process or render guidance. I might as well read "Measure for Measure", act 2, sceen 5 for clarity in the matter.
People are greatly mistaken about what God values in His followers, it is not a great speaker, or one that can move the emotions of large crowds, those that serve in mega churches are no more valuable to God than a simple person who plants the seed of salvation in another person through his gentle words. "Lisa's incomparable gospel preaching and watching her sensitive leading of groups of diverse Presbyterians in spite of her visual disability" and similar praises of Ms. Larges are not a valid point in supporting her ordination. Christ sacrificed his life for us and He asks for sacrifices in our lives as well. The Lord values the poor in spirit, the meek, those who hunger for rightousness, those who are ready to lose their pride at the drop of the hat. If God came down and told me that I'm not allowed to wear yellow, I should be ready to discard all my yellow clothing to follow Him, I understand that living a chaste life as a homosexual is a much bigger sacrafice then changing your wardrobe, but the point is we are to follow God, not the church, not man, not our own interpretation of His word, it is clearly spelled out that God does not approve of a homosexual lifestyle and if Ms. Larges is eager to serve Him at the pulpit, she should also sacrafice her lifestyle to abide by His word. Read Romans 1:18-26
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
groups of diverse Presbyterians in spite of her visual disability. it's clear that God's Spirit has profoundly blessed her ministry. It's long past time for her ordination.
RSS feed for comments to this post