The Human Rights Campaign, which is a secular gay rights organization that also has an outreach to like-minded people in the mainline denominations, weighs in on the Lisa Larges decision:
“The decision today sets up another roadblock of confusion for lesbian and gay candidates for ministry,” said Harry Knox, director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Religion & Faith Program. “The Church needs these gifted ministers and it is time to make the denomination’s policy plain. All should be welcome to serve God and humanity through the Presbyterian Church USA.”
As I indicated in my previous post, this decision is nothing more than a procedural item that delays Larges from moving ahead in the ordination process until the next presbytery meeting. Apparently the HRC thinks that Christian churches following their own procedures is a “roadblock” to their political goals. Of course, they are probably just taking their cue from Ms. Larges, who writes at That All May Freely Serve today:
Last week, I sat all day observing the proceedings in a Presbyterian Church trial on whether I could be moved forward in the ordination process as an out lesbian. The decision that came down yesterday was a mixed bag, but the reality is that I am looking at a longer struggle that includes advocating for a change in church policy to include LGBT people, not just ongoing individual fights where candidates for ordination struggle in a system that blocks them at every turn.
Once again I saw little of the Jesus or church I know in the proceedings. No out queer voices were heard at that trial, including mine. Opponents of LGBT equality in the church are rightfully wary of the personal testimonies of queer people of faith, and likewise wary of conversation, dialogue, and any live-and-let-live compromise.
The reason the court didn’t hear any “queer voices” was, as the court made clear in its decision, because they were irrelevant. They weren’t deciding the future of the gay rights movement in the PCUSA, they were deciding a narrow procedural issue. Larges sounds like she wanted to turn the trial into a bathos-soaked, emotionally-driven civil rights rally rather than a judicial process, in order to get what she wanted without any delay. What she needs to do is get a grip, recognize this as nothing more than a delay in achieving an inevitable result in the presbytery, and stop acting as though the SPJC is the modern-day equivalent of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door.
(HRC quote via TAMFS.)
March 26, 2009 at 9:39 pm
You’re looking for logic from these people? They left it years ago. (Get it, ‘left it’…?)
March 27, 2009 at 8:22 am
[Edited by site holder.]
Anyway, I agree, David, that this is a short term setback. It is always a problem to explain the minutia and arcana of our system polity to folks outside of it.
[Alan, Let's try to keep the personal invective in check.]
March 27, 2009 at 8:47 am
David,
I request that Alan’s comment be removed. Personal attacks are not fitting for public discourse.
March 27, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Oh the irony, Toby. This from a guy who claims that other ministers are “just in it for the pension”? That little bit of your snark sound familiar, Toby?
Pot, meet kettle. And BTW, “You’re looking for logic from these people” seems to constitute as much of an attack as my calling your reply “snotty.”
I’ve seen no where that you’re actually interested in public discourse, given that your patented random snark-attacks hardly qualify as discourse of any type.
Or to put that another way, If you can’t take it, perhaps you shouldn’t dish it out in the first place, eh Toby? On the other hand, if you want to actually risk something by engaging, rather than leaving snotty comments everywhere, I’d be more than happy to have a polite conversation. I’ve always been more than polite with you, until you got rude with me, but I’m happy to recognize when someone has repented and forgive them.
Coming from a guy who wants me to “shut up and get out”, I’m not surprised that you want to have my comment deleted. Trying to shut people up seems to have become quite a habit for you.
March 27, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Your site, your rules, David.
While I should remember that it is always verboten to criticize a member of the Consistory on one of these blogs, could you let me know which sorts of attacks are OK? (ie. Obviously something like “these people) gave up logic” are OK. So I wonder, for example, if in a post on African-Americans it’s OK to say “you people”, “those people” or “these people” and claim that they’re all completely irrational, having “given up logic.”)
March 27, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I find it rather ironic that you are complaining of snarkiness.
March 27, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I find it rather ironic that you complain about my response to Toby, and not about Toby’s snarkiness itself.
However, I don’t see anything wrong with the statement you quote. I don’t think random insults, given in a drive-by fashion advance the discourse in any way. Obviously you disagree, so could you tell me how one can have a dialogue with someone who leaves a comment like Toby’s above?
You know, it is actually OK to tell someone you agree with that they’re out of line. I understand that sometimes some people get so interested in fighting that they don’t want to concede that someone on their side might be wrong in any way, or is simply being rude, but if we really want dialogue, then perhaps it is best to have one standard for everyone, and not one for our friends, and one for our opponents.
March 27, 2009 at 3:09 pm
And I have done that, on this very blog, even. I just think that the “don’t dish it out if you can’t take it” comment from you is pretty ironic.
March 27, 2009 at 3:46 pm
” I just think that the “don’t dish it out if you can’t take it” comment from you is pretty ironic.”
Well, you seem to be suggesting that Toby’s comments are just fine, and that I just need a thicker skin to take his snottiness. Take it like a man, is that your advice? Well, in fact, I’m not personally bothered by him or his comments at all. We’ve never met and I’m sure we never will, so who cares about random strangers spreading their rudeness across internet? Instead, my point is that I think he could do better. Apparently you disagree.
I have no problem taking it. Trust me, I’ve received far, far worse from Toby and “those people”. And as I said, I don’t care about that. What I do care about is the impression that we give to people outside the church who may stumble across that sort of juvenile sniping. All blogs are public, and I think that it isn’t such a bad idea for people to, at the very least, pretend like they believe some of the things they preach, unless they’re just in it for the pension, I suppose.
So, while I don’t dish it out, I will call people on being snotty when I see it, only because I do expect grown adults to do better. Yes, I know, I should have learned by now that’s a lost cause, given all the evidence. But I happen to think that such snotty replies are inappropriate from someone who carries the title “Pastor”. Other people may not care about that but I happen to think it is, at the very least, a poor reflection on the church, and I think those of us in the church ought to do better than imitate bad dialogue from the latest TV reality show.
March 27, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Not at all. I voiced no opinion on the quality or appropriateness of his comments. I merely said that I found your objections to them ironic – leaving unsaid my reason, which is that I find your comments equally “snotty”.
March 28, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“I voiced no opinion on the quality or appropriateness of his comments.”
Yes, that was my point. FWIW, I’d find your critiques a bit more worthwhile if they were handed out equally.
March 28, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I find you just as “snotty” as he is – how is this unequal? You are taking offence where it isn’t warranted.
March 28, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Maybe because that’s the first time you’ve been able to bring yourself to criticize his comments?
You have consistently misunderstood what I’ve been saying. I no more take offense to your comments than I do his. I often find it is best not to make unfounded assumptions in these conversations.
March 28, 2009 at 2:46 pm
You are funny, Alan. I’m done here.
March 28, 2009 at 2:52 pm
As are you. I always enjoy our conversations. Until next time! Peace.