Those Who Walk Away

As anticipated, the Presbyterian Church USA yesterday set aside its absolutist ban on the ordination of gays, lesbians, and sexually active singles.  With now a majority of our Presbyteries supporting the inclusion of GLBT folk,  I'm relieved.  It's a good thing.

Gays and lesbians should, if they order their lives in ways that honor the Heart of the Gospel, be completely included in Christian fellowship.  They should be welcomed into churches.  If they feel God's calling, and the church tests and affirms that calling, they should be eligible for ordination to all church offices, including that of pastor.  Period.

I am greatly pleased by this, and think it's the right thing for the PCUSA.  And all Jesus folk, to be frank.

But I also know that there's going to be pushback.  As part of that pushback, folks on the conservative side of the spectrum are going to leave.   In the same spirit that a cohort of outspoken conservatives at the recent Presbytery meeting up and wandered off rather than share in the Lord's Table with those they viewed as sinful, there will be a split.

From the model of the early church, I also know this is not the only response when one party is convinced that  Torah law must be maintained.  Jewish and Gentile Christians stood, early on, on either side of just as yawning a chasm of the Law.  The Acts of the Apostles tells that story, of how some Christians felt that the whole of the law must be maintained, and how others...led by the Apostle Paul...taught the primacy of grace.

This was not a minor squabble.  Kosher laws and the mandate to circumcise are non-trivial parts of the Deuteronomic Code.  Or, as it might legitimately otherwise be called, the "unchanging and infallible Word of God, King James Edition."

Yet the ultimate spread of the Gospel was contingent on setting aside those laws in favor of the radically inclusive and transforming love we know in Christ.  If the Jerusalem Christians had succeeded, and Paul had failed to convince folks that inclusiveness and "local option" was key to the spread of the Good News, the Jesus Movement would have died.   What's happening now is a good thing.

As the split happens, though, there will be hurt feelings.  People will leave.  For those who remain, there will be the temptation to demonize and name call, to mutter, snark, or shout "Good Riddance!"  For some of the fiercer partisans in this argument, this is probably already happening.

But demonizing and cursing those who mistakenly stand on flawed principle does not reflect the complexity of those souls.  Neither, honestly, does it reflect the central mandate and teaching of Christ to remain gracious, even to those who have stood against you.

My hope, for those of us who have "won," is that we remember that.  The integrity of this new and hopeful day in our fellowship is contingent on the presence of that grace.

The Challenge of Diversity

This last Saturday at the meeting of National Capital Presbytery, I sat and watched as an impassioned but civil debate unfolded between conservatives and progressives.  The issue:  something we Presbyterians call 10-A.  Long and short of it, 10-A replaces language that was placed in the Presbyterian constitution back in the 1990s, language that explicitly forbids the ordination of gays, lesbians, and any sexually active unmarried person.  It replaces it with language that asks leadership to use confessional and scriptural standards to assess the calling of a leader...and that, as they say, leaves things open to interpretation.

It passed, of course, because NCP is a very progressive place.  What was interesting to me, particularly given my current coursework, was the "diversity dynamic" at play.  I sat near the back of the room, with a young Asian American Elder from my church.  Well after the start of the meeting, a little cluster of Ghanaian Presbyterians entered the room.  They were from a Ghanaian immigrant fellowship, one of the congregational startups in the DC area.  Their pastor, I knew, was one of those folks who is...with his culture...radically opposed to gay and lesbian ordination.  He'd brought the maximum number of elders to the meeting.  When he rose to speak, his rich warm fluid West African voice spoke of bafflement at how such a thing could be.  He also spoke, circuitously but clearly, of the division that this decision would bring, about how African Christians could not stand with a church that did not call same sex orientation sin.  Honestly, he's right.  It wasn't an idle threat, but a statement of unfortunate fact.

And when 10-A passed, and the time came to share in the Lord's Supper, he rose...along with many of the conservatives who'd spoken against it...and gathered his followers, and left.  I'm sure 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 was humming fiercely in their ears.

Well, he tried to take his group.  One Ghanaian stayed, sitting quietly, still in prayer.  The pastor came back, and spoke a few quiet but frustrated-sounding words to the young man.  But he said something softly back, and the pastor went off again, seeming a bit miffed.  The young man didn't take communion.  But neither did he leave, not until the worship was over.

I've been reading lately a great deal about diversity and multiculturalism in the church, and how to be a leader in a diverse community of faith.  The two books I've cranked through in the last two days have been smart, thoughtful, and potentially useful after a bit of translation.  They're a bit...um..."academic," meaning I can't imagine the flow of academese doing anything other than putting a truly diverse audience to sleep.  Liberal academe thinks it's talking the talk, but it has no clue how to really speak across the boundaries.  Not the boundaries of race, but of class and culture.  The common tongue is not our strength.

But what I haven't encountered...not yet...is an acknowledgment that sometimes you'll encounter cross-cultural dynamics that ain't all sweetness and light, or joyously constructive dialectic, or in which the expectations of the "dominant culture" within a community clashes with values that a leader is not willing to set aside.

Some of those expectations are stylistic.  Within my own church context, which is still strongly formed by the Korean evangelical tradition, I've been told for years that I need to be more authoritarian, more emotionally effusive, less deliberate and inclusive, and less intellectual.  I'm still told that.  Well, I will be for the next six months, at least.  I've modified my style somewhat, but there's only so far you can go before you start violating your own sense of personal spiritual integrity.  Ah well.  Perhaps the next pastor will be more prone to screaming tirades when crossed and shouty-weepy sturm-und-drang preaching.  Might help.  Who knows?

But there are differences that go beyond style.  There are church cultures that insist women should radically submit to men's authority, forever perpetuating the curse of the Fall in a community that claims to have been redeemed.  There are cultures that don't see the new thing that God is working in the church for those who were created with same-sex orientation.

A leader in such a context needs to ask themselves:  If those things are alien to my faith, how do I maintain a sense of integrity and still lead people who live out their faith and proclaim the gospel in ways that radically and fundamentally differ from the grace I have experienced in Christ's teachings?

That can be done, of course.  The font of God's love is limitless, if only we seek to drink from it.   But if a community is to function, there are boundaries to how much tolerance can be expressed.  A thing cannot easily take its antithesis into itself.  

For all of my disagreement with their position, I understand why those who rose to leave the meeting, be they African or just deeply conservative, left.  The bonds of community no longer felt like they were sustainable.

Amendments for Algernon

I think I is now too stupid to be Prebematerian.  I knoe we get to vote on stuff.  I knoe we chuse.  It is good to be chusing, I think.  It hleps helps us figure what we all thing think 2gether.  Alot of the time we r gud 2gether.  Wen we r bad we fite about the things we think.  But sumthin make my head all hurt and stuff.

Wut iz that thing?  O thank u for asking!  U r nice.  Next month, I get to vote on two things. 

Thing number won they say is ten-ay.  Ten-ay says we shud stop fighting about who is leading.  I like it.  It sez these things:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

I cut them and paste them all by myself 4 u.  It was eesy and I can sho u if u like!  It has alot of big words, and numbers that only Presypaterbeerians know what they meen.   But a fren tol me wat it meens.  It meens peeple we chuse to leed can figyur out who is reely good and who God wants to tellus about Jesus.  We haf to kno they love Jesus, and we can yous the Bible and other good buks we like and that small Voice to kno they will be True.

The uther thing we used to said insted, the Gee-Six-Bee, was not Good.  It was an angry stingy Bee, and pointed fingurs at sum peeple more than uther peeple, just like my friend Paul said was bad to do.  That is not veri gud.  And nobudy can really do it, or reely knoz wat it meens x ept to be angry at sum peeple.  It was jus there to be fighty, sted ov jus finding where everbudy can be 2gether and do Love like what Jesus said we hav to do.

I like ten ay much better.  So I will vote 4 it to shoo away the bad Bee that helps us be crazy and fighty.

But then they say I need to vote on the enFROG.  I do not no y it is a enFROG.   I don kno about even the old FROG.  Is the new FROG more jumpy and green?  I don't no.  But i no there smart peeple who say our old FROG is too big and bumbledy to jump enymor.    I liked the old FROG, beecaws sumtimes I can't sleeep, an it hlep help me alot.   But x ept for the Gee-Six-Bee, the old FROG was OK.  U cud stil figur it out, an it wuz too fat to get away wen u tri 2 pet it.

So now Presbtyrrearinhands ar talking bout the new FROG.   And the Gee-Six-Bee liking peeples are all mad, becuase they say it is YOuneeversalism.  Frum wat they say, that means Jesus hates u unlez u go to curhrh clurch chruch.  I do not no y that is good, but they say it.  So they will vote no.   And many ten ay peeple wil vote yes, beecuz they say enFROG is better and jumpier.  The enFROG seems nice.  Jump, litl froggie!

Here is y my hed hurts.  Ten ay takes the bad Bee out of the old FROG, the bee that stung it inside and made us sick.  So I will vote for it so we can do what Jesus wants.  But then I red the enFROG.  O nO!  Luk wut I c!  The enFROG has all the wurds of the bad angry Bee still inside!  It pretends 2 b a Two-O-One-Bee, but it is really the same Bee!  O no I do not like the Bee!  I do not want to vote for the Bee!  I do not wnat to see the bad B again, b-cuz I am tired of fighty Bees!

Y wud I vote one thing, and then vote 2 go back and make the furst vote not do n-e-thing?  That iz not smart!  But no won seemz to c!  The people hoo say no to ten ay, they do not want the enFROG, even tho it has the Bee wurds they say they like.  And the peeple hoo say yeah to ten ay, they say yeah to the enFROG, even tho it has the Bee wurds they say they do no like.   Ow!

Ow!  My hed reely hurts frum beeng in Presytafearylands!

A fren telz me it is coggytiff dissypants that makes it hurt.  I don't kno wut that iz, or y I wud wear those dissypants on my hed.  That's not wear pants go!  Maybe they r tite on my hed! 

So I think I wil vote for the ten ay, and not the enFROG. 

Ah.  Better!  My hed feels better, tho I am sad about the new froggie.  He might hav been nice.

Oh!

Wait!

Even better!  A fren tells me that if the ten ay happens, it happens to old fat FROG, and new happy jumpy FROG too!  I did not no it!  No one said so to me. 

Oh my!  Now i can vote for enFROG and ten ay, and not have to wear dissypants on my hed.

But I still prolly not smart enugh to be Preberearichan.   So hard to figur out all the stuff.

Amendment 10-A and the Future of the PCUSA

Some context, before I proceed.  My session is young.  As of this last session meeting, when the last of the old stalwarts of my wee kirk graciously stepped aside, it is potentially the youngest session in all of Presbyteriandom. 

I am forty-two.  When I moderate our monthly session meetings, I am now more than ten years older than the next oldest person in the room.  My session is comprised of young professionals, engineers and IT professionals, teachers and social workers and small business managers and artists.  They are, and should be, empowered to be leaders in the church.  Particularly a young church.  But they are younger than the children of the average Presbyterian elder.

And no, I don't have the data to back that statement up.  But y'all know what I mean.

So this morning, I worked to train up two new twenty-something session members, we finished reviewing the ordination questions and I asked if they'd had any questions surface about their assigned reading in the Book of Order.   They'd read the sections pertaining to ordained leadership in the church and the role of the session.

Anything confusing?  Or troubling?

There was a brief pause, and then one of them...a businesswoman, direct, plain-spoken, practical, thoughtful, conservative, and with a big evangelical heart...said, why, yes, there was one section that gave her pause.

"I don't remember exactly where it was. It said 'adhering to the historical standards of the confessions,' or something like that."

I knew exactly what she was talking about.

I flipped to G-6.0106b.

Is this it?

"Yes," she said.  "It just seems like no-one could ever do this."


And so we talked, about the conflict-context of it, and about how this ill-conceived stumbling block has been the cause of so much division and conflict within our fellowship.  I explained the nature of our Constitutional process.  I told her that I personally oppose it.  And I told her that there was the possibility that this would, one day soon, not be part of our Constitution.

"Thank you," she said.  "That does answer my question."

"So you're cool for tomorrow?"

"Yes."

Tomorrow, I and others will lay hands on that young, thoughtful, spiritual sister and ordain her as a governing elder in the Presbyterian Church, USA.  She is part of the future of my church, if it has any hopes of surviving, reviving, and thriving.

And if you needed a better reason to support 10-A, well, there is none.