The Layman's Gone to Meddlin'

Several people asked me if I'd seen the Layman's ad in the Wall Street Journal at Monday's session meeting. Well, no, I hadn't because I read the WSJ on my IPad and don't see the ads, just the text. 

Then during the meeting the Moderator, Dave Peterson, told us that the same ad was going to run in Wednesday's Houston Chronicle and that he had already contacted the Layman with his objections. An FAQ sheet was distributed to the elders and to the staff in anticipation of questions from the congregation that might be prompted by the Houston area ad. 

The session then passed a motion that MDPC "continue to hold to and abide by the standards for ordination in the 2010 edition of the Book of Order, Form of Government G-6.106b for its elders and pastors." We also passed a motion stating that the first priority of the church continues to be the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I've been taking a blogging break because I have nothing constructive or original to add to the commentary about the adoption of Amendment 10A. I've been thinking about writing a response to these Layman ads because--as we say down here in Texas--they've stopped preaching and gone to meddlin'.

But then I saw that the perfect response has already been written by Steve Oglesbee, pastor at Clear Lake Presbyterian Church, Houston. Thank you, Steve! I couldn't agree with you more.

And now QG is going on hiatus until mid-June while El Jefe and I are on tour in Israel with our church group. We should return physically tired and spiritually refreshed.

Ordination Standards to Go to Presbyteries

Ordination Standard Change to Go to Presbyteries for Vote:

From the Presbyterian Outlook:

"Commissioners to the 218th General Assembly have voted to change the denomination’s constitution to approve the ordination of gay and lesbian persons, a change that will require ratification by a majority of the 173 regional presbyteries over the next year.

Two other actions adopted by the assembly will take effect immediately.

First, the commissioners approved by a vote of 375 to 324 a proposal from the Presbytery of John Knox that allows ordination “examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination.” This takes effect immediately.

Second, the commissioners voted to send to the presbyteries for ratification language to replace the present rules that requires those being ordained and/or installed into ordained office to live “in fidelity in a marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”

See the full story here.

I think this means that presbyteries now have local option on the issue of gay ordination and if the presbyteries then vote to delete the fidelity-chastity clause then the standard is removed and the issue of local option becomes moot. But I'm not sure, so if anyone can correct my interpretation, please let me know.

In Which We Learn Not To Rely On Annotations

PresbyPolity wonks will be interested in this post at A Classical Presbyterian which contains the decision of the General Assembly's PJC in a case (Stewart v. Mission Presbytery) challenging the advancement of an openly lesbian inquirer to candidate status. The inquirer withdrew from the process to seek ordination in another denomination during the appeals.
Although the case was declared moot for that reason, the GAPJC pointed out in its decision that the case cited by the presbytery as a precedent in its defense was based on the summary in the Annotated Book of Order which misstated the case, and thereby mislead the Committee on Ministry, the presbytery and the synod to the extent that each body relied on that annotation in this case. The cited case, Sheldon v. Presbytery of West New Jersey, in fact appears to support the plaintiff in the Stewart case rather than the defendant.

Toby posts the entire decision, so you can read it and interpret it for yourself. It's a reminder that the summaries in the Annotated Book of Order are not authoritative, and that the case that is cited in the annotations should always be read in full before relying on it. That's something we were taught early on in law school.