The woman who was the focus of a complaint against Mission Presbytery for admitting her to candidacy for ordination because she admitted living in a same-sex relationship resigned from the PCUSA yesterday and plans to seek ordination in the Metropolitan Community Church. (Free registration may be required to access this link.) According to the article, the case which was on appeal is now moot and will be dropped.
Hat tip to Presbyweb which linked this article today.
14 comments:
Very sad to see someone called to ministry whose attitude is one of dignity and reconciliation forced to remove herself from the process under these circumstances. Looks like our church's loss will be Metro Community's gain.
And we lose another good person due to bigotry and closed minds.
*sigh*
Sad sad sad all around. I can understand the woman wanting to get on about the business of her call which was likely not to tilt at the PCUSA windmill. When PCUSA is currently very short on new pastors coming in to lead the fold, well, it's just sad.
Actually, PG, we have more pastors seeking full-time calls than congregations that can afford them in the PCUSA.
I really don't think it's bigotry, except in a few cases. I think that there are genuine and sincere differences about how to interpret Scripture in this regard.
Mark wrote, "And we lose another good person due to bigotry and closed minds." Not having met the woman in question, I can't comment on the "good person" evaluation. But, I do know more than one "good" (IMHO) evangelical person has been run from the PCUSA by the closed minds of EPs, COMs, seminary profs, etc.
A "good man" who would be an excellent Roman Catholic priest would probably struggle with his pastoral "fit" if he tried to be the pastor of a typical Presbyterian congregation. In the church of Jesus Christ, there are many denominations, and the best joy in ministry, both for minister and congregation, is when people find the denomination and situation that fits.
Which is not to say the process of getting there does not involve lots of grief and emotional conflict. But the journey is worth the effort.
This womman and the foks that tookl her under care and supported her thru 3 yrs, of seminary knew at the outset that she could not be ordained under our polity. Yet they all pushed the envelope with her. So who actually pushed her out of the PCUSA? If she can find a home in a church with a different understanding of sin a polity that affirms sinfullnes then Iguess that's okay.
Thanks QG. I did not know that. Changes the view.
pj said: But, I do know more than one "good" (IMHO) evangelical person has been run from the PCUSA by the closed minds of EPs, COMs, seminary profs, etc.
FWIW ... my spouse is a conservative seminary student, who comes from a liberal leaning presbytery.
My spouse has taken the position that we do not want to make waves by commenting on any areas of current church conflict, as the comments may come back to haunt us.
Thus this Anonymous posting
QG,
The case will continue. The complainant wants a definitive ruling on the issue at hand, not the particular person in question.
It's still going to the GA PJC, as far as I know.
I don't understand that Toby.
In a civil case in our secular court system the case would be dismissed in these circumstances because there was no actual "case in controversy" since the individual involved dropped out of the candidacy process. There is well established precedent that courts don't issue what amounts to "advisory opinions" (unlike our Stated Clerk!).
If I were on the PJC I would vote to dismiss this case on these grounds and would not issue a ruling where the candidate had essentially renounced jurisdiction.
Maybe one of our PresbyPolity wonks can enlighten me here.
QG - wasn't that one of the central arguments in Roe? That the issue was mooted because the complainant was no longer pregnant? (Meaning, exceptions are made when the justices so desire.)
I could see a benefit to having a ruling on the issue - though I'm 99% certain this will not occur. It provides a natural out.
So right, Will. That's one of the several ways in which Roe v Wade flouted the principle of stare decisus (precedent set by previous courts).
The courts were pressured to do this because the state legislatures abdicated responsibility on this issue. Similarly, I suppose that our denominational courts will have to deal with this issue because our presbyteries are not acting consistently on these issues.
I don't think anyone wants to be the one to make that ruling. Either way it goes, it is a clear policy. I suspect it is not politically expedient to have a clear policy.
Post a Comment