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!

Sunday, February 21, 2010

John Knox Says Yes to Gay Ministers


Well at least one. Openly gay ministerial candidate, Scott Anderson, was approved by a vote of 81-25 on Saturday. Scott squeezes through on ye olde scruple rule. Interestingly, Scott was on the Theological Task Force that introduced Mr. Scruple to the PCUSA.

The presbytery of John Knox voted that Scott's scruple was just fine with them. According to the executive presbyter of John Knox, Rev. Ken Meunier:

"Not everyone is on the same page with this issue, but a great number of people have been very impressed with Scott Anderson's gifts for ministry. I believe the vote reflects a desire of persons within the Presbytery to make room for a variety of voices and opinions within the church, and to exercise biblical forbearance toward persons with whom they disagree."
Apparently some busybodies think forbearance is not very biblical and will challenge the decision.



John Knox could not be reached for comment.

14 comments:

  1. John Knox could not be reached for comment because he was out on a date with John Wesley.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A very sick question: If John Knox is spinning in his grave and there are bones and beard left, I wonder what it sounds like?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sounds like a creation story for how cotton candy is made, Bob!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let the BFTSs begin with their sackcloth and ashes routine. Meanwhile people of good will shall be celebrating.

    If it weren't Lent, I'd say "Alleluia!" :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe it was UTA RANKE-HEINEMANN who opined that Lent (and the other holy days) was invented to prevent sexual activity. By the time you go without for 40 days plus Sundays, plus all the Saints days and other holy days, there's only maybe a couple of days (mardi gras?) left over for sex.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When people get to know wonderful GLBT people, minds change. This is Good News indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Curiously there is a letter in the latest Presbyterian Outlook (or at least in the one nearest the top of the pile on my desk) from Paul Capetz. He is angry because the GAPJC in his case said that his scruple was just fine and it was just fine for Twin Cities Presbytery to accept his scruple. Nevertheless he had to obey the constitution including G-6.0106b. Thus if he ever has a sexual partner charges may be brought against him. Yet the subject of his scruple was that he would not obey G-6.0106b. Evidently the GAPJC thinks you can scruple belief but not action.

    The PCUSA can be terribly confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Haha funny stuff! "John Knox could not be reached for comment because he was out on a date with John Wesley." John Shuck said...
    "The Johns got gay married in heaven!" Or maybe they were joined hip and thigh?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Evidently the GAPJC thinks you can scruple belief but not action."

    I think they were just trying to rule on the facts of the case, which is that Rev. Capetz is not currently in a relationship. Either they were trying to construct a very narrow ruling, or they were consciously trying to do get the camel's nose inside the tent.

    To me it seemed like they were saying, reading between the lines, "If he get's married then the BFTSs can bring another suit against him and we'll rule against that one too."

    Given their rather convoluted rulings in the past, which seem designed to piss off the BFTSs, I think there is very little chance that they'd sustain a complaint against him if he were to get married.

    On the other hand, they could just be under the widely-held misconception that being completely inconsistent is the same as being "moderate".

    ReplyDelete
  10. "widely-held misconception that being completely inconsistent is the same as being "moderate"."

    Well, there is some truth to that. Being consistent means you follow a set of rules. Moderates are not into following rules that much, so yes, they will be inconsistent.

    Or at least they will seem to be until you figure out which rules they are following. Everybody follows >some< set of rules. Even people who make a rule out of breaking rules.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think the two are separate and distinct. It is certainly possible to be a consistent moderate. The difficulty arises when people mistake their own inconsistencies for being "moderate".

    ReplyDelete
  12. So John,

    What's up with the pillow? Is that in case the preacher falls asleep in the middle of the sermon?

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's up with the pillow?

    It is to snuff out dissenters.

    ReplyDelete