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!

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Desperate Busybodies

Presbyterian fundamentalists have come up with a new scheme. The folks at PFR have dreamed up a plan for a non-geographic synod. Why? Gay cooties, of course:
In June 2008 a simple majority of the 218th General Assembly proposed the removal of G-6.0106b (biblical standards of fidelity and chastity) to the presbyteries, requiring, for the fourth time in a dozen years, the time and energy of people across the PC(USA) be expended on debating the clear teaching of Scripture.
OK, that is the usual "holier than thou" pious bible talk. All the above sentence means is: "We don't want equal rights for LGBTs and we are scared that the next time it is voted upon we are going to lose."

So they invented a plan in which they will retain all of the benefits of being PC(USA) without having to follow the constitution of the PC(USA). The appropriate response to these people is this: if you don't like the PC(USA) then leave. Shoo. Bye bye.

They are running scared. They know that GA 2010 is going to send some form of delete-G-6.0106busybody to the presbyteries and the presbyteries will vote it out. It's as good as gone.

I am looking forward to next summer.

19 comments:

  1. OK John. The other day you tried to label yourself a Luddite, which I disagreed with. These people are the modern Luddites, refusing to consider the current state of biology, blindly holding to outdated understanding of the human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOL. Actually, these folks are quite sophisticated and well-funded. Anti-gay rhetoric is a money-maker. These guys are all about the bottom line, power and property.

    This group's ancestors made its money on "segregation now, segregation forever." Same prejudice, different group.

    ReplyDelete
  3. yep: bottom line says it all... doesn't appear in my bible, tho, unless u count the hundreds of times Jesus spoke against accummulating and abusing it!!
    power to ur hand.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Gay cooties" That's hilarious.
    Why don't they start their own non-geographic General Assembly instead!
    Speaking of outdated and backward--What amazes me is that there are STILL PCUSA churches who have no women on their sessions. One of my fellow students went to a church this summer for her internship and the congregation there did not believe women should be ministers. I think that is an outrage. Yet no one is hounding them, bringing them up on charges, etc. So what makes these fundamentalists think anyone is going to MAKE them have a gay pastor? We don't even insist on gender inclusivity yet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "So what makes these fundamentalists think anyone is going to MAKE them have a gay pastor? We don't even insist on gender inclusivity yet."

    Exactly. As sad as it is, we all know there are plenty of churches that will never allow a woman minister in the pulpit. I'd also bet my lunch money that there are any number of churches in the PCUSA who would never hire anyone but a white pastor. (In spite of a PCUSA pastor recently declaring on his blog that racism in the PCUSA is dead. Yeah, someone literally said that. I'll be kind enough save to poor deluded guy the embarrassment of pointing out who he is.)

    Anyway, terrible situation obviously, but those sorts of situations are the cost of the freedom we have in the PCUSA, including the freedom to make boneheaded racist & sexist decisions. And where are the serial litigators going after those sessions?

    Wait, forget I asked. Clearly that group of old straight white men aren't interested in defending the rights of women and minorities. They just want to go after anyone who dares ordain anyone but straight people.

    So when someone talks about opposing LGBT ordination, remind them that no one can force them to vote for anyone to be ordained or installed. Then enjoy the fun as they attempt to find some other made-up reason to oppose it.

    As for non-geographical presbyteries, how can a group of people who constantly use the phony excuse of "connectionalism" to justify being church-wide busybodies, fusspots, tattletales, and scolds possibly join a Presbytery that, at most, might meet once a year? That's connectionalism?? Connectionalism is now based, not on theology, not on shared mission, but simply on a shared hatred of gay cooties?

    Clearly they're throwing out their desire for connectionalism in order to avoid gay cooties, so I ask you, what, other than an obsession with gay cooties, is it they really believe? They say that ordination is important, yet they're more than willing to break their ordination vows in order to leave the denomination. They say connectionalism is the excuse to be busybodies, but they're willing to throw that out in order to form anti-gay presbyteries (and I hereby suggest using the more accurate term "anti-gay presbytery" instead of "non-geographical presbytery"). It's getting impossible to tell what they really believe since they contradict themselves so often. But the one thing is clear, gay cooties are their overriding concern for every decision they make.

    Makes you wonder about the phrase "The guilty dog barks loudest", eh?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Those busybodies had better mind their Ps and Qs now.

    The Senate just extended the Hate Crimes legislation to protect gays.
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hate.crimes/

    Congrats, gays. You finally have at least one of the same rights other Americans enjoy.
    Hopefully this will prove at least some sort of deterrent to those who hate enough to abuse.

    We're getting there. Slow, but we're getting there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “delete-G-6.0106busybody”

    Love it John!

    Alan, I loved the Max Plank quote you pulled out earlier today over here.

    "In spite of a PCUSA pastor recently declaring on his blog that racism in the PCUSA is dead. Yeah, someone literally said that."

    I know who you're talking about. I gasped when I read it. How utterly naïve!

    Then there's this little gem I just read on another blog:

    "But are political issues like the State of Israel, or the ordination of practicing homosexuals disconnected from Christology?
    -
    Hardly. The homosexual issue is so clear I won’t even go there."

    Can you guess who wrote that one?

    Why bring up Homosexuality at all if you're not going to go there? Just had to get in a dig I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's another group to look at with some familiar faces.

    http://www.biblicalpresbyterians.org/

    This time they promise they're going to act.

    Check out their Essentials of the "Reformed" Faith.

    It's fairly Calvin until the last bullet. When will these people ever learn?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good call, Cap'n, we are getting there.

    @Arthur

    "biblical presbyterians"

    God help us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. When the true believers start using the word "biblical" you better watch out. Guard your property, your money, and your rights.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting web site. Lots about Biblical authority. Nothing about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In fact, sexuality seems to be there more often than Jesus. When they list sexuality as one of the essentials for their faith, but not Jesus Christ ... sorta makes you wonder, eh?

    I guess we see their totem.

    But hey, if they want to form a group and have some potlucks and talk about sex, that's OK by me. Any excuse for a potluck is a good excuse for a potluck, I suppose.

    As long as they mind their own business and leave me out of it, we'll get along fine.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Thank God and Greyhound you're gone," or so goes the old country song by Roy Clark. Perhaps we should send them copies?

    ReplyDelete
  14. We have constitutional processes by which people can leave the denomination. They are welcome to do so at anytime.

    ReplyDelete
  15. First, I agree with Allan as I have stated elsewhere. The AAEEO requirements are regularly ignored. My female colleagues report that they get interviews, lots of interviews, so it looks the the AAEEO requirements were followed but they don't get called.

    Second anyone who says racism is dead in the PCUSA is willfully blind. I see racism all the time from the GA level, which makes ethnic church a priority but refuses to fund them, in presbyteries, to the local church, including the church I serve. I'm working to overcome that racism in the local church (and the black folk will soon be able to outvote the white folks!) but there are those who want the congregation to be all white even if the congregation dies.

    I'm working, as are some of the white members for the congregation to become a truly multicultural church but this scares some people. My daughter says the real issue is change.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Second anyone who says racism is dead in the PCUSA is willfully blind. "

    Well, yeah. What's amusing is that person ended up having his whole troop of ditto-heads agree with him, so while I hope this isn't a common view, it seems not to be restricted to just one guy either. And, as usual, no one on the conservative side dared to contradict anyone for fear for getting expelled from the Country Club.

    Not surprisingly, people with their heads in the sand about racism also hold so-called "classically Presbyterian" views about the ordination of LGBT folks too.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A historical note:

    Prior to the Old School/New School split there were several presbyteries in New York City and Philadelphia. They were based not on area but rather on theological orientation.

    Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Not surprisingly, people with their heads in the sand about racism also hold so-called "classically Presbyterian" views about the ordination of LGBT folks too."

    Alan, does this make me an anomaly?

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. I would think it might make one consider carefully what that says about one's views on equality for LGBT people.

    I'm not sure I'd be too happy having much in common with such, as you say, "willfully blind" people. If they're "willfully blind" on the issue of racism, what else might they be "willfully blind" about?

    ReplyDelete