Shuck and Jive

Opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent the views of the congregation I joyfully serve. But my congregation loves me!

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Running Amok with Rev. Jim

Rev. Jim "Yosemite Sam" Yearsley has misunderstood his assignment. He was clearly instructed by the LayMAN to write a letter to the Civil Union and Christian Marriage Committee and then dutifully report to them what he had written. Instead Rev. Jim sent the LayMAN a letter about me.
If there is a more appropriate appellation than “Shuck and Jive” for the heresy spewed by Mr. Shuck, I cannot imagine what it would be. For those unfamiliar with the term, “to shuck and jive” refers to intentionally misleading words and actions.



Another way to state it might be “pure bulloney!”





This guy’s blog is – as much as anything else – a great indicator of how much this denomination has lost its way. In any presbytery even pretending to hold traditional reformed theology or even faithful orthodox Christian belief as its standard, he would have already been brought up on charges.

I’m guessing that relative truth, syncretism and humanist secularism is far more the norm in Holston. Either that or the few conservatives there are so thoroughly cowed and fearful for their pensions that he is allowed to run amok.
Rev. Jim Yearsley
Tampa, Fla.
I am flattered. Do you suppose he wants to gay marry me? Sadly, I don't think I am his only love. He already tried to run amok (to no avail) with Rev. Janet Edwards.
"To ignore Rev. Edwards' gross misconduct and heretical behavior would be to turn a blind eye to the cancer that inflicts our denomination."
Ho hum. He needs a new pick up line.

Here is an excellent letter by Rev. Ray Bagnuolo. This is the conclusion but check the whole letter and do write your own!

Endorsing some tethered solution of civil unions and a blessing is lukewarm, at best, and insulting at worst, elevating the “heterosexual status,” once again; feeding the homophobic and violent fringe of society with another diminished status for those we call sisters and brothers in Christ. I don’t believe we can have it both ways. We cannot be sisters and brothers in Christ, with some “just a little less sisters and brothers in Christ.”

Lastly, as an openly gay man ordained as Minister of Word and Sacrament, I can assure you that we who are your LGBT sisters and brothers are not issues. We are not the “ordination issue” or the “marriage issue.” We are living, breathing, loving, baptized members of this church and our community. Our lives continue to be directly affected by the decisions of this church.

It is my opinion that your recommendation should not be based on whether the church can accept it. Your recommendation should be based on what faith demands it to be. Let the acceptance and wrangling that follows be what it may, but let your voice be one for all those marginalized who need to hear and know that they have not been forgotten and are loved in the PC(USA) as equals.
Responses can be sent electronically or mailed to Civil Union and Christian Marriage Committee, Office of the General Assembly, Room 4621, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, KY 40202-1396.

8 comments:

  1. Remember, there's a heretic under every bed and around every corner.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Things all went bad when we started to ignore the usury law and then the shrimp eating followed and continued to pork... Then of course, the whole "slave" thing. What would Lot and his daughters say if they could speak to us from their sex cave? Really John, gay marriage could not be far behind. And there you are, leading the charge. Can I gay marry you? Oh wait- that would be bigamy. Can we be gay bigamists, even if we are not gay? Please?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gotta love the class of someone who writes to the Layman only to bash you. That guy's quite a piece of work. One would imagine that someone of advanced years was taught manners at one point in his life, but apparently not.

    God save us from your busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds!

    I wonder, do his cronies find his condemnations gutsy, or do they find them either impotent or lazy or both, like I do? That is, given his experience in filing charges, his "Oh gee, perhaps maybe someone should file charges against this Shuck character" doesn't amount anything. Words are cheap. If John is a heretic and should be removed, why doesn't Jim do it?

    His cronies should hardly congratulate him for simply writing something should be done. Heck, anyone has a keyboard these days and typing a few words is neither gutsy nor difficult. Having the backbone to actually do something, now that's more difficult. If he doesn't have the guts or the gumption to try to make the charge stick in a denominational court, then perhaps he should reconsider making them in the first place.

    I will say however, that of the 14 or so of Janet Edward's accusers, Yearsley is the only one who wasn't either too cowardly or too lazy to show up at the trial -- including those accusers who live right there in Pennsylvania.

    This is just another example of what I don't get about so-called conservatives. They spend their lives demonizing us as the heretics and apostates of the left, but if they really believed what they were saying, wouldn't such a reality demand real and immediate action, instead of just limp hand-wringing, and impotent letter writing?

    Here we are in a denomination supposedly full of heretics and sodomites, and Yearsley's right here with us. I know what that says about us, but I wonder what he thinks it says about him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Alan.

    What these good folks do is engage in sliming.

    Charges are to be filed when someone allegedly does something against the rules. When the fundies can't actually find that, they slime.

    Fran, I'd gay marry you anyday! : )

    Monkey, there is one behind you RIGHT NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, I will truly have to keep up with this blog on a regular basis. Some of my best friends are Presbyterian heretics. Others are UCC heretics. I used to be UCC, but am now a UUA heretic.

    I'm wondering if Dr. Monkey is the same as the old Rev. Monkey that used to hang around BeliefNet?

    My blog is way too serious for y'all, but you are welcome to visit.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John,

    You know one thing we always loved about you was your ability to keep things stirred up. Way to go! What is that LayMAN ever going to do about you?

    We've been thinking that maybe we should start a publication called The GayMAN for others to respond to The LayMAN. Oh Wait! I guess you beat us to it. Your blog is already doing that !!!

    We find it ironic that it is called The LayMAN. We lay men and we aren't sexually frustrated...LOL.

    We were gonna ask you to gay marry us too but then we remembered....you already did that back in 2004! ..LOL.

    See you this summer :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tony and Mike,

    Your wish is granted. About ten years ago anonymous folks came up with a spoof called The GayMan

    Much of it now is dated Presbyterian insider humor, but you get the idea! Looking forward to this summer. Going to get my bus ticket this week...


    Sea Raven! Welcome! Wrong monkey. This one is no Rev and a darn fine simian.

    All right, folks, check out Sea Raven's blog!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Isn't making a satire of the Layman called the Gayman redundant? :)

    Given all the recent scandals in the news, it seems pretty obvious that anyone who obsesses as much as they do about gay people is probably just engaged in the not-so-subtle attempt at misdirection.

    ReplyDelete