Ratification's Challenge: The Good News

The recent ratification of Amendment 14F by greater than a 2/3 majority of presbyteries reflects a powerful statement by the Presbyterian Church (USA) and its members. Added to the the changes in ordination and marriage equality, this ratified revision of the description of marriage - erases the constitutional barriers to inclusion based on gender and sexual identity in the denomination.

It is almost a moment too great to contemplate. Forty years and lifetimes of prayer and sacrifice; decades of marginalization met with steadfast resistance; the resulting study of the bible and texts; the lifting up of God's glorious diversity in one another; and the refusal to let others define us: these reflect only part of the story of prophetic and courageous acts of justice and love by this denomination's members. We have truly made the way clear for the PC(USA) and others to follow in the evangelism that is now ours to share.

But we are not done.

Long before there existed any progressive movement or the advances that have been achieved, the treatment of our sisters and brothers who identified as queer -- was wrong, terribly wrong. And, recent legislation did not make us somehow, suddenly "right."

The changes we are witnessing have to be viewed as the acknowledgment that for years our and other communities of faith have been wrong, sinfully wrong in the way our sisters and brothers who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer+ have been unwelcome. The charges of inhospitality carry a heavy price in the sacred texts, and our queer community has borne the brunt of exclusion and the residual violence - simply because others refused to see what the majority of folks have now come to know.

While one could make the argument that these changes and levels of acceptance and understanding take time, and they would be correct to do so -- I would counter that the levels of love and hospitality, supplanted by fear and judgment is where the original error exists, not in who God created us to be.

Our LGBTQ+ sisters and brothers have brought about more than a change in the constitution of the PC(USA), our sisters and brothers are bringing about a change in the way we love and accept one another. These forty years have been forty years of bringing the Good News to resounding levels that can now be heard by more people than ever before.

The question is: Is the church up to this new thing God is doing?

To be heard, institutions such as the PC(USA) cannot simply rely on legislative changes or practices to point to catharsis. Years of teachings and practices that have caused so much pain, suffering and contributed to the violence of so many -- have to be directly addressed at the highest of levels. It is such an acknowledgment of the wrongs and harms done as a result of the past positions of the denomination that first must be spoken -- before the new welcoming to those who have been shunned can be heard.

This ancient practice of amends and admission of wrongs done is now more critical than ever before. Any prospect for reconciliation that lay ahead will depend upon it, for this is the path that must be followed if we are to eliminate fear and judgment with love and hospitality.

It is a time to admit and acknowledge that the Love of God and one another has been renewed in ways by the Presbyterian Church (USA) that was long-lost and has now been found. A time to welcome, as never before!

Such an admission and invitation, spoken with courage and humility, will open our doors more widely than we could ever imagine. It will change the way the church and its teachings and practices have been misused to harm others for way too long.

This is what the ratification of 14F now challenges us to do.

And, my friends, this is the Good News. Good News for all.

~ Ray Bagnuolo

IMHO: We do not belong at the Olympics.

The following are responses to our participation in the Olympics in Russia. It was begun on Facebook, and posted here for more discussion:

Posted Response on cnn.com to:http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/16/sport/symmonds-russia-law/#comment-1003988145

I have heard the argument that we need to continue in these games for many reasons, including the work of the athletes that would be "wasted" were the US to pull out of the Olympics because of the Russian givernment's violent stance on preventing human expression of gender in any ways that would "promote" or propagandize being LGBTQ. That said, it is a privilege to represent the USA as an athlete or a member of the Armed Forces. Sometimes, that privilege is called to respond in ways that are unexpected or unwanted. No one trains to compete to boycott. No one trains to serve their country to die. Yet, who we are and what we stand for comes with a price. Trying to nuance the inhumanity of the Russian laws with the immunity of a international competition is weak-hearted, self-serving, and much too far from being the guiding light for all oppressed people that we are called to be. A light that includes our Russian sisters and brothers who are LGBTQ. It is time to draw the line and stand with all those who need a voice against the violence and repression of any such nation, who by these actions should never be referred to as a "host." This USA has no place in these Olympics, except to demonstrate that we are as complicit as those we challenge for not promoting democracy and human rights.
Rev. Ray Bagnuolo, NY

One of the responses from a good friend of mine suggested that the participation in the 1936 Olympics and the outcome where the USA "kicked some ... butt" was important. He references the "Hitler Olympics," as has others to make a case for us to remain in the games. You can read the full exchange at www.facebook.com/welcoming

My response was as follows:

My friend, I always appreciate your comments, but I must disagree with you here. I continue to be baffled by the references to Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Olympics as indicative of what our response could be in this situation. Trying to make some connection, I will say that I think this argument and the Holocaust-references boil down to a question of atrocity. For some privileged, white, heterosexual folk - the weak international response to a host nation being fiercely opposed to people who are gay may not seem like anything around which to rally in a decisive way. Yet, for people who are LGBTQ, the response might be different. It is for me. And, in the end, I only speak for myself. 

However, because I see the violence that is regularly and horribly directed at gay people - because they are gay, I live with the perspective of perhaps a different sense of atrocity. Enough to disagree with those who say, "Let them play." 

As a nation, either we are the nation we were during Hitler's draconian rule over Germany - or we are different. Had we known that Hitler's Final Solution was being hatched and planned for even at that time - would we still have gone to Germany to play? 

Now, I am not elevating the conditions for people who are LGBTQ to the atrocities of the Holocaust, but you and others keep bringing this up. So, I will ask the question: Do we need to get our hands on the doors of the ovens at Auschwitz to remember that we learned this lesson? And, if we are a different nation, if we are a nation that has the courage we say we do - do we stand up for the least among us to prevent the next worst things that just may happen to concretize your reference?  Do we make it clear that we are a nation that knows that witness is far from a cop out - but an act of deep conviction, pride, and protection for those we say are equal? A witness that makes sure we do not barter away our fidelity or our backbone, making sure that folks looking for such things might find them here, as they might in other countries. 

I am not trying to change any country, their laws or their practices. I am simply saying that something has to rise above expediency - or who we are is mired somewhere other than in our hearts and our history.

Moving a Church Forward with Love and Justice for the Gay Community

Standing on the Side of Love & Justice

Monday, October 31 2011 @ 09:32 AM More Light Presbyterians are committed to the achievement of spiritual, ordination and marriage equality for LGBT persons within our Church and equal rights in civil society. More Light Presbyterians continues to work with others toward marriage equality, including changes in the Directory for Worship, and requests for Authoritative Interpretation. MLP supports the freedom and discretion of sessions to extend hospitality to same gender loving couples seeking to join their lives in the commitment of marriage. MLP claims that same freedom and discretion for teaching elders to preside at marriage services for same gender loving couples, especially as more states move to legalize these marriages. We oppose all attempts by any entity to rescind the gains for justice punctuated by the passage of G-2.0104. Adopted by the MLP Board of Directors in Rochester, NY on September 2, 2011 Reflecting upon MLP's Statement of moving forward for marriage equality in the PC(USA), just a few comments at this point.   The courage and spirit of people who are LGBT, their families, friends, and allies have given great momentum to the change in this church. A change long overdue. The long-term exclusion of sisters and brothers is starting to be replaced with real equality. I am grateful to MLP, it's leadership, and all who support it in its dedication to BOTH constitutional change that makes marriage equality an inherent part of our form of government AND authoritative interpretations which free our ministers to marry same gender loving couples in states where legal.    We move forward in justice and love, welcoming all to join in this raising up and affirming the power of this church, the PCUSA, to witness and practice God's Love, in which no exclusion or injustice can survive, becoming a church in which people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender are welcomed with the same love and grace with which the Creator gave us life.   We know of the terrible pain and suffering that gay folk have been subjected to, in part because we who are gay have lived through too much of the inherent violence of exclusion ourselves. We recognize that we who are gay, our family, friends, and allies are looking to the leaders of this church and the pro-LGBT movement for real and honest change. And, we also recognize that we - all of us are the leaders. Please get involved. Bring your voice, your pen, your presence and votes at presbytery meetings to continue the momentum and progress of the 219th General Assembly.   Need help getting started? Contact MLP at www.mlp.org or drop me a note.   Ray

A little clarity goes a long way...

There's a story, a true story I am told, about an unfortunate fellow who spent a bit too much time sitting at the local pub. Time and again, night after night, he would wander home drunk. Many times he made the mistake of attempting to get behind the wheel while intoxicated. One night, much too loaded to drive, he opened the car door, got into the car, and discovered that his steering wheel had been stolen. Yes, stolen. Totally besides himself that anyone would do such a thing, he immediately got on his cell phone to call the police and report his steering wheel stolen.

A short time later a patrol car arrived. Both officers approached the driver, who remained seated in the car, window down. When the officers asked him what seemed to be the problem, the driver replied, "The problem? Look! Someone stole my steering wheel. They actually stole my steering wheel!"

The officers exchanged glances with one replying, "Sir, your steering wheel hasn't been stolen. It's there in the front seat, where it's supposed to be. You, on the other hand are seated in the back seat. And now you are going to be seated in our back seat."

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is often pointed to as having a lack of sanity. Until something happens to change the way one thinks, very often, things remain the same. Many people who recover from alcoholism or substance abuse report such events as "moments of clarity" in which they, themselves, see how they have been wrong in their judgment, assessment, perception, and choices. There is no underestimating that moment. It has been known to change not only the life of an alcoholic or an addict, but that of artists, poets, great leaders, believers, and even those who once were oppressors.  

We are in a time in the PC(USA) of greater welcoming for our sisters and brothers who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT). The ratification of Amendment 10A, now part of the Book of Order as G-2.1014, makes it possible for gay men and women to be considered for ordination, just as anyone else would be. For those of us who are gay, we know that the exclusion never had any real basis. The fact that we love and marry members of our same gender is a difference without a distinction. Our lives are our lives, just as others lives are theirs. If there is a distinction that has mattered it has been that over and over, time and again, we have been questioned from baptism to burial about being gay. We have suffered serious consequences from the accusations and innuendos of others who believed that such an assault would make us "go away."

These days, as in the past, but more so these days - I pray for a moment of clarity for others to see what they have missed in the lives and faithfulness of their sisters and brothers who identify as being LGBT. We know there is nothing to fear in getting to know someone who is gay - other than discovering having been wrong about opposing gay folk in the first place. Perhaps some fear that were that discovery to take place,  they would then be faced with changing their position - or remaining silently complicit in the great harm they were allowing to continue. Given such a prospect, it may be easier for some to just keep saying the same things over and over - and believing them to be true. It may be easier, but it certainly isn't fair, just, or Christian, in my opinion.

Sadly, fair, just, and Christian are not often the order of the day. Recently, I got a response from someone named Mary on one of the videos I have posted for "It Gets Better." She wrote, "GOD HATES HOMOSEXUALS" [Her capitalization.] She went on... "Turn or burn..."

As many times as I get something like this, it still bothers me a bit personally - I mean these people don't even know me! But, more - it bothers me because I feel terribly sad for whatever it is that fills someone like Mary with the idea that God could ever be a "hater" of God's own creation - and that she wishes those with whom she disagrees to be relegated to a hell of her own making. Whatever our differences, perhaps we can agree that this is not the way to go forward, and perhaps you will agree, as well, to pray with me for those like Mary who are so soul-sick that they twist God into their own personal executioner.

Clearly it was a good thing that the driver in my opening story was not behind the wheel. His sad experience hopefully produced one of those moments of clarity for him to do things a bit differently in the future. Maybe we, too, can find such clarity, eliminating the clouded vision of the old, innacurate, and mythic stereotypical perceptions about people who are gay, ending the sickness of bickering, exclusion, and harm. If we do, perhaps we in the PC(USA) can come to believe in God in ways that restore us to the sanity that reminds us we are called to love one another, working together as children of God.

May it be so.

 More posts on my new blog www.july10a.net

More than the ratification of 10-A

The continuing struggle for the full welcoming of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) faithful into the work and worship of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has become a cycle unto itself. The wheel of change continues to spin, with arguments for and against full inclusion. Messages often blur as the motion of the debate goes around the center upon which it turns.

Any movement relies upon a working structure, whether in the laws of motion or the polity of a church. However, in the PC(USA) a breakdown appears to have occurred, in which parts of its design have become litmus tests of its members’ faithfulness. As a result, the center and central mission of the PC(USA) has come under question based on how welcoming we will be depending upon a vote for or against this amendment. The answer is once more perceived to be wrapped up in a decision on ratification of Amendment 10-A, currently before the presbyteries. Simply, the answer to the question of our faithfulness cannot be scripted by any amendment. The ratification of 10-A can only bear witness to the deep faithfulness that long preceded any debate, overture, or constitution, for that matter. The ratification will bear witness to how we choose to love one another, reflecting how we see God’s love for us. This is about much more than the ratification of 10-A.

Surely, study, examination, and review are important to the foundations and direction of the PC(USA), those it serves, and the world in which it witnesses. Problematic is that in any community of faith such methods only go so far. They cannot travel to the fullness of the heart or its design by God, let alone define God’s intentions. No one can. The mystery of God’s presence in the heart is limited in human understanding. Rather, God offers us an invitation to the mystery and wonder of giving of one’s self, one’s community, one’s world unto the care of God through the longings and listening of the heart, as well as the study and examinations of the mind. In short, a response to God as Love calls us to love and welcome others – including every baptized brother and sister into the full work and worship of the PC(USA). To do otherwise is to ignore the heart and the mystery God has given us; a heart yearning for us to trust more than to study. Any study that points otherwise must be flawed.

Perhaps, this time, there will be enough constitutional arguments and shifting within the PC(USA) for the ratification of Amendment 10-A, making this church a prophetic witness and model for others to follow. Certainly, thoughtful individuals who are expert, scholarly, and faithful in the ways of the PC(USA), its Constitution, and its traditions have provided ample paths to making such a choice.

Whatever the exchange, no argument or position can claim God or Love for itself, alone. Further, no argument can claim God or Love to exclude what God has created. Lastly, what no argument can claim is that God as Love would ever accept or tolerate the violence that is inherent in any decision toward marginalization and oppression of those God has created and those God continues to call. We avoid the discussion of violence, perhaps because given the choice in such terms would easily end the separation we now practice. None of us wishes to be complicit in hate crimes or their foment, and yet, our language of distance, amplified by being a “church,” indeed has impact that causes others harm.

When all debate is exhausted and biblical scholars have made their considerable contributions, the last question to answer in choosing whether to ratify Amendment 10-A will be “How do we Love?” Or, perhaps, “How do we welcome others to God?”

The choice in favor of Amendment 10-A is a choice of Love. There are enough arguments to provide ongoing debate, even suggesting a pause. That will always be so, until our faithfulness goes beyond the debate, into the Love that precedes all – all. These guiding questions for final consideration in voting for ratification are suggested:

a) Can we be faithful by excluding our baptized sisters and brothers who are LGBT from the full work and worship of the PC(USA)? Is ours a God who excludes those God has created?

b) Can we be faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the Church by fostering a climate of violence towards our LGBT sisters and brothers, affirming others’ hatred and homophobia with our decisions to marginalize?

c) Can we be a faithful reflection of God as Love by using our Constitution or fears to create a class of people less welcome or worthy than others?

Were that this was simply a matter of making a decision about loving one another as God loves us. It may be that such love is still growing in us, but with a decision to ratify Amendment 10-A, it may be much closer than we think in leading us to the family and witness we are meant to be.
---

Ray Bagnuolo is an openly gay minister of Word and Sacrament. He currently serves Jan Hus Presbyterian Church and Neighborhood House and its inner city ministry in NYC. He was one of the few openly gay Candidates for minister of Word and Sacrament examined and cleared to seek a call since the passage of G-6.0106b, refusing to abide by the G-6.0106b as a matter of conscience during his examination in 2005. Ray also serves on the Board of More Light Presbyterians.

Download pdf File

The Corrosive & Distorting Power of the Closet ~ by Karen Kavey

Dear Ray,

Thank you so much for your recent YouTube "It Gets Better!" video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy20WU1xzTI

Your words and those of all the participants who have stepped forward with such powerful witness and encouragement will help countless young people.

In honor of the project, I would like to write a bit about the corrosive and distorting power of the Closet.

As you know, the "Closet" is a metaphor used to describe how people hide important parts of themselves, typically their sexual orientation or gender identity. We know that many LGBT folks cannot be open; the world is just too unsafe for them right now. Families and friends of LGBT people can also find themselves in a kind of Closet, as they may fear that telling the truth will expose them and their loved ones to harm.

The Closet can protect people, but it also inflicts great harm on the world, as those within it are rendered silent and invisible. Individuals and communities may express hostility to LGBT people or indifference to homophobic prejudice because the Closet prevents them from seeing the pain that they cause. Others may even exploit the power of the Closet, knowing that their hostility will further drive LGBT people and their loved ones into silence.

Regardless of a particular person's motive, those who do not appreciate the corrosive power of the Closet fail to realize that it leaves us all with an incomplete and distorted view of our communities and the world.

The influence of the Closet on members of the church (both LGBT and straight people) has been particularly powerful.

The Closet has always impeded understanding in our faith community, replacing thoughtful study with a series of repetitious and divisive interactions. Ministers who have freed themselves or helped free others from the Closet and all those ministers who courageously dare to treat LGBT persons as equals face censure, lawsuits, and other forms of pressure. The message to those who remain in the Closet is painful and tragically clear: Stay where you are, silent and invisible.

Clarity, mutual understanding and the Closet simply do not go well together.

Certainly the power of the Closet is understood by those who use it strategically and by those who have felt its weight and burden, keeping them anxious and intimidated.

However, I think many Presbyterians are unaware of the magnitude of this power, given the Closet's silencing effect. And most importantly, it is not clearly understood that the power of the Closet is NOT a spiritual one.

It is a potent secular and cultural force, based on fear; it relies on the human need to survive and negotiate within one's world. All institutions that exclude LGBT people, both adults and teenagers, use the Closet as a tool.

And it is not a benign tool.

Insisting that some people feel shame and guilt for a core part of their identity and existence (much less for living and thriving on an equal footing) is - at its heart - an act of aggression.

This is true whether or not one acknowledges (or is aware of) this dynamic or whether its negative consequences are intentional or unintentional.

Teaching young people (be they heterosexual or LGBT) that there are two groups of humans - one group that is entitled to full equality and inclusion, and one group that is not - is especially damaging.

The outcome may even, as we have recently witnessed in these teenage suicides, be deadly.

For the Closet's existence is based on powerful manipulation; BUT it is also a means of control that is diminishing in the world at an increasingly rapid pace.

It is breaking apart in a seemingly sudden way. And as it fades, it releases its relentless grip on all of us: gay and straight, open or not, conservative or liberal or in-between.

For we have ALL been influenced by the Closet, as it has distorted our view of the world and of each other.

As the Closet crumbles, we will see how this change will affect our lives, our denomination and the lives of the younger generations who will, we hope, live in a world without it.

Those who have opposed equality within faith communities (and within the secular world) are perhaps beginning to realize that some of the "success" they have enjoyed historically may not have been due to the strength or accuracy of their ideas, but rather owes much to the Closet, which has left countless people silent, invisible, and afraid.

Elie Weisel has stated so clearly:
"Silence never helps the oppressed. Only the oppressor."

Understanding the basic fact that most people are heterosexual and some people are not will be a necessary part of the way forward. Without the distortion of the Closet, this fact is becoming more apparent with each passing day.

I agree that thirty years clearly is a long time for Presbyterians to study this reality and still be so baffled and at odds with each other.

The confusion has probably been compounded by the oft-repeated, defensive notion that "No one is being forced into the Closet around here! We don't know what you're talking about."

This is actually just another layer of the classic "Silent Contract" of a troubled relationship: "Don't 'name' what has actually been happening."

Because we know that whenever it IS safe, people (both LGBT folks and their families) are usually open. When LGBT people and their loved ones are intimidated into silence, it only adds insult to injury to pretend that no one is being manipulated.

In spite of all this, I remain optimistic! Thanks to you, and your courageous colleagues, the world will be a safer place for the upcoming generations. The "It Gets Better!" initiative is creative, life-affirming and generous.

Perhaps in some way it will help the church break free, recognize the Closet for what it is, and make it a relic of an ungracious and often cruel age, replacing age-old distortion with clarity and a spirit of openness.

Warm regards to all,

Many thanks,
Karen Ellen Kavey
Non-ruling Elder, PC(USA)
Confirmed May, 1958.

It Gets Better: Ray Bagnuolo, Minister PC(USA)

Reaching out to members of the LGBT/Q Community to offer hope and alternatives to hurting oneself, especially in light of recent suicides of young people who were LGBT/Q following bullying and outings.

View more amazing videos by searching "it gets better" in your browser or on you tube
or click here.

In response...in response

In response to
Another Step In The Journey
Synod PJC Decision In Parnell And Others v. Presbytery Of San Francisco

http://blog.gajunkie.com/2010/10/03/another-step-in-the-journey--synod-pjc-decision-in-parnell-and-others-v-presbytery-of-san-francisco.aspx

And in response....


Thank you for this posting. It is especially helpful to read through it all as an accurate and fair reporting and analysis of what is impacting this church we serve and the lives of people touched by it's decisions.

In a time when much-needed attention is being brought to the deaths of young gay people, choosing suicide as a remedy to the intense and unbearable bullying and violence they are subjected to for being gay, the PC(USA) is being called. Called to grapple with how people, sisters and brothers who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) are to be welcomed in this church. Called even more, and in more difficult ways, to acknowledge and accept that we (the church we serve) have unwittingly become complicit in the violence as a result of our decisions and those of the broader church, in sending out messages that add to the hatred of LGBT folk and the rampant marginalization and oppression to which we are subjected.

This is not a conversation that most of us want to have, however, it the one place where, as painful as it is, I believe we can start out in agreeing that God and the teachings of Jesus and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit would ever call us to practice anything that causes such terrible things to happen to people we increasingly come to know as family, friends, loved ones, and baptized sisters and brothers. That same call of the Trinity, I believe, would never call us to exclude or marginalize or oppress others to make our church more "pure."

It seems to me that such things are among the most egregious violations of what we hold essential, and we need to change, I wish by heart and love alone, and if not by amendments and ratification.

I say all these things as a Christian, a man who is gay, and a minister of Word and Sacrament, ordained in 2005 as an an openly gay man who refused to abide by G-6.0106b. There were no hidden agendas, a 45 day wait before ordination to allow any charges to be made, and none came.

In practice, good practice, we have already changed. These efforts toward continued exclusion and growing hostility are perhaps increasing because we are approaching a time when we will be a church of hospitality in new ways, ways that will challenge and bless us and provide a place for all. From hostility to hospitality. That, surely, is the way of the Irit, as well.

How anyone can talk about these faithful candidates without understanding the grace they are bringing our way, seems to be more the difficulty of those who cannot or will not accept the impact, if not the intent, of their actions.

We can be a church that embraces our differences, as well as one another. We should, by now, be pretty good at that. God knows the world needs us to be so.

Gay Redux - They just keep trying...

Is it a lingering continuation of the late 19th Century apocalyptic millennialism and its charge that the growing feminism was going to bring down the world, no less? Is this all so unfamiliar…


From: Catherine Keller’s Apocalypse Now and Then, A Feminist’s Guide to the End of the World: (Some quotation marks removed for clarity. Further references available on request)

(circa 1890) At that moment, we witness for the first time the potent and now so familiar pairing of conservative gender essentialism with apocalyptic biblicism. A popular fundamental magazine wrote that when woman assumes ‘the prerogative of power which belongs to the man and seeks to dominate the world or all of its activities, as she is doing today, she then possesses the spirit of the beast and is like an angel of light fallen from heaven.’

This rare acknowledgment of the dragon’s female side seems to encode the response of the new backlash against the New Woman’s answer to the last. DeBerg demonstrates that in many of the pamphlets and articles listing signs of the end times – riots, violence, and crimes were prominent – ‘the most space was given to a discussion of the social behavior of the New Woman: the ‘easy-going manner in which women of highest rank and culture have allowed the old-fashioned rules and restraints which governed society to be relaxed.’ In these last dreadful days, women will be tempted to take part in this or that social reform, to give their sex the ballot and place them on political equality with men, for their own protection, and to reform society. Political emancipation was a sure sign of the end. Women assuming leadership roles outside of the home but above all in religion embodied a foreboding sign of the approaching tribulations: ‘but the prominence of women in a sphere inconsistent with nature and with the meekness and quietness, which are the ornament of the Christian woman is one of the signs of the times. Quite logically, if the world is constituted of the proper harmony of the two spheres, then when woman leaves her sphere the world will fall apart.

It is no longer about G-6.0106b...

Letter to the Editor of the Layman
Responding to: Stockton Presbytery Joins John Knox Complaint
[Re: Ordination of Scott Anderson]

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

Not too long ago, the receptionist at our church called me late at night. There was someone in our foyer in hospital garb, slippers, and a catheter hanging from his arm. We came to find out that he had been in a local hospital for detoxification from alcohol and somewhere in the process simply disconnected himself from the IV and walked out, leaving everything behind. It was a cold night and he came directly to the church. He was pretty disoriented, but we got him some clothes from our clothing distribution room, food from our pantry, contacted the hospital, and got him help in removing the catheter from his arm. We kept him company, making little sense of his ramblings, but after a while, we convinced him to go to a local shelter and get some rest.

He is one of the hundreds we serve each month in our worship as outreach.

A few days later, I saw the gentleman at our weekly dinner program, where we serve almost 100 people a week who have either no food, no company, or no other place to go. I asked him how he was doing, and in conversation asked him what made him come to us when he left the hospital. Without missing a beat, his answer was: "It was where I knew I could find God." For him, on that night, God was a welcome, food, clothing, and help in finding a place to rest. His faith did, indeed, set him free.

It didn't matter that as the pastor of the church I am gay. In fact, being gay in the PC(USA) no longer matters any more than being straight does. People will argue about that, but we, as a church, have already deleted G-6.0106b. It's gone in our hearts and in practice. True, some still find comfort in the same kind of teachings that once held women and people of color to be second-class in God's eyes. However, the reality is that we already work together and serve God as a community of great diversity that includes gender identity fully.

I honestly do wish to continue to dialogue with those who disagree, because I believe they are being faithful in their own ways and we need to pray and talk together. However, those who are unable or unwilling to accept the truth that this artificial division between us is no longer valid cannot be allowed to prevent others who believe differently from full inclusion in this church. The lives of faithful people cannot be divided along gender identity any more than they can along the lines of the sexes or color.

In a short time, we will all gather in Minneapolis for our General Assembly. We will worship together, work together, share meals, cabs, and conversations. We will pray and seek God's will. And, the "we" will include many of us who identify themselves as gay, whether spoken aloud or not. We will agree and disagree. Sooner or later, it will be apparent that, in fact, G-6.0106b has been deleted in the way God has moved this church and its people. Sooner or later, the constitution will catch up. In the meantime, none of us can be held hostage by what we know in our hearts to be wrong.

Like the gentleman who found us on that cold night, there are too many people "seeking God" for us to deny any qualified candidate from ordination based on G-6.0106b.

Scott Anderson is clearly qualified to be ordained. To hold G-6.0106b against him or anyone else is to hold this church hostage to an aberration in our constitution. We no longer allow the few who still hold onto prejudices against women and people of color to hold us hostage to their beliefs, nor should we allow those who have yet to embrace the gay community to marginalize or exclude us.

It is no longer about G-6.0106b.

Sincerely,
Ray Bagnuolo, Minister of Word and Sacrament
Serving Jan Hus Presbyterian Church and Neighborhood House
New York, NY

A Reponse to Scott Anderson's interview...

The following is a response to a recent interview of Scott Anderson by Janet Edwards on her blog A Time to Embrace:

Dear Janet,

Thanks for this interview and thanks to Scott for his dedication to the radical message of the gospel, made even more radical because we have moved so far from it in so many ways. I couldn't agree more about fighting, especially over Scripture. Still...

... if Jesus could flip the tables of the moneychangers on end...how much more might he respond in the face of our sisters and brothers paying the price of exclusion and bearing the brunt of the complicity of a church in its teachings? Teachings that impact the broad society, and in this instance, foster marginalization and violence toward our sisters and brothers who are LGBT, all done in his name? I think the tables, at least, would fly again.

As I see it, for a church to be relevant, it must take the same risks that Jesus did, risks which ended up having him executed. We're not there, maybe never will be in taking such risks. But the path to such steadfast love is too often littered with the selfish needs of others. In this case, the needs seem to include a requisite comfortability with the LGBT community before we are fully embraced. So, the church accepts, as a matter of course, the destruction of others' lives until enough people are comfortable for a church, this church, to finally say, "Welcome."

I believe that it must be the church that leads the way, and not for the benefit of you, Scott, or me, really, but for all those who see this church as unwelcoming. For those we are turning away. How can we be who we say we are and continue such practices? How can our leadership from the local congregations to the moderator's office do anything other than publicly and unequivocally call for change now, letting others hear the voice we follow in so many ways? What on earth or in the heavens are we afraid of? Maybe, better question, what are we afraid of losing for speaking out with such conviction and risk?

This is not just about polity. It is about witness and about execution: an execution now being done by some in the name of Jesus.

That's got to be enough to turn some tables over...

Ray Bagnuolo, Minister Word and Sacrament
Ordained and openly gay in 2005
Serving Jan Hus Presbyterian Church and Neighborhood House
New York City
Board Member of More Light Presbyterians, speaking only for myself.

Lie Away and Awake at Night

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" may soon very well be gone. Happily so. Still, again, we have followed the accepted path of huge and irreversible tragedy in the lives of others to get there - waiting for the time when the marginalizers and others are comfortable enough to be willing to change.

I wonder often about the people we sacrifice as a society, later referring to them as ahead of their time, bold, prophetic, pioneers, and such. Euphemisms to cover up our own guilt, if even recognized. I think about how these leaders were harassed, imprisoned, marginalized, oppressed, separated from families, friends, and equal opportunities for work and worship.

I don't understand the appetite for such human sacrifice, however well the plodding and unwinding road toward justice might be. I keep thinking about the people of color, the women, the LGBT community and other marginalized groups and their allies who fought for justice and suffered the consequences. Who are those people now, in the eyes of society, church, or state? Are they still criminals or are they now considered heroes or heroines? What have we learned from them? Is it simply to continue to follow their tried and tragic paths to justice?

Do we need to put our hands upon the oven doors at Auschwitz to know we don't need to ever go so far again?

Whether you think there is such a thing as lies of omission or not, it may very well be that deceit at its core, is something more damaging than any lie. When deceit is institutionalized and encouraged, we quickly slide into the nearly irreversible soul-sickness of fear and distance - from ourselves and others.

Whether it is the violation of the first oath of honesty that a seviceperson who is LGBT takes when they deny themselves to satisfy the state; whether it is the crafted avoidance of honestly identifying oneself as LGBT at the time of ordination in service to the church; whether it is the lie that tears apart the relationships formed for appearances - each moves us further away from any chance of change by honesty, before the sacrifices and tragedies reach numbing proportions on their way to being heralded as future brave hearts.

I believe it is true that the laws of state and church do in fact follow the same path: by the time the law is written and passed the changes have occurred for the majority of people. That's what is happening in "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and in the church, as well.

While I have always expected the church, especially the Christian church, to live more closely to the right and radical teachings of Jesus, I would accept the boldness of the state to take the lead, knowing that faithful hearts live in all places. What is it that keeps us so locked in our ways?

I think it's fear. It's all about fear and what people are willing to do to get what they want. There's a good chance that if fear is driving us on toward a goal...it's the wrong goal. It may be that losing what we believe we're supposed to have in favor of being who we are - is the difference between lying away and awake at night - or a just and peaceful sleep.

Ex-gay? Ex-loving.

Chances are that if you are a person who is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender - and you have struggled within the church - chances are, somewhere along the way you heard these words: "We love you but hate your sin." Nothing directed toward people who identify as LGBT could be more disingenuous, more filled with hubris than combining love for another with hatred of some part of their being.

Hamartia or ἁμαρτία, the Greek word for sin frequently used in the Second or New Testament has the meaning of "missing the mark." The idea that distance from God is what needs to be shortened in our faith and personal journeys removes the dialectical premise that Love either replaces sin or leaves one in the throes of sin, pitied and "loved" from a distance.

It is this play of the fear of sin on people and their faith that funds those out to eliminate homosexuality from the face of the earth, or to simply, sadly, leave the "sinners" behind.

The ex-gay and reparative therapy movement is smart and subtle enough not to alienate most people, since more and more we all know someone who is family and gay. So rather than take on families and love within families, these groups rally together in huge megalithic collaborations and create just enough doubt, enough fear, and enough compassion to justify peoples’ oppression of anyone who is LGBT that does not abide by or follow their path. And, are you surprised that the oppression is all couched in the shameful use of the love of Jesus Christ to achieve such goals?

Quoting from Kristin J. Temba's response to Professor Mark Achtemeier's "And Grace Will Lead Me Home," in which he tells his story of transition to supporting folk who are LGBT, Kristin outlines the somewhat frightening association and collaboration of well-funded groups out to turn Christian America straight. “One by One,” the group of which Kristin is a part, was founded in 1994. Since that time, it has found partnership with, among other anti-gay groups, “Love Won Out” (Focus on Family) and NARTH (National Association for Research of Therapy of Homosexuality). What none of these groups acknowledges is that the success rate for reparative therapy, according to the APA, is in the 1-2% range. What none of these groups acknowledge is that their primary therapeutic models, however they are designed, are about suppressing feelings. What none of these groups acknowledge is that public leaders of the ex-gay groups have themselves been unable to maintain their ex-gay status, often resigning in disgrace and then being replaced the next day, as if nothing had happened. (I won't name folk here, that's not my intention. A simple search will find the information, if you are interested.)

Also what none of these groups will acknowledge is what any person who is LGBT already knows, that there are people trapped in heterosexual relations because of pressure to conform. This is what the ex-gay movement is willing to accept and misrepresent so that they can create enough doubt in the public's mind to stop our church from being fully welcoming, without special caveats, to our sisters and brothers who are LGBT.

If we wait to be convinced of what we should do, change will not occur. That is the strategy of any group seeking to maintain the status quo - "Keep the debate going, have more studies, approach justice - but don't quite embrace it, and above all keep the church free of LGBT folks by whatever means, to whatever degree you can, especially from ordination, especially from marriage. Be willing to scare people into condescension without any guilt or consequences. Surround yourself in God to hold your assailants quiet.”

It is interesting that in the discussions taking place around the country about overtures to delete or change G-6.0106b that the ex-gay groups, well-funded, well-practiced, and so smooth...are in the mix of the discussion. To me, it's like bringing creationism and evolution into this critical reformation. And if you don't think that's an effective strategy, how many of you 100% believe in evolution? I would bet that there is some hedging of that for many that comes out as, "Well, you know, God can do whatever God wants to do. So, I'm pretty sure, but who knows." Just a little doubt, the smallest of doubt - the least of fear - has always been used to oppress others. This is no different.

I believe we have been given the wonderful ambiguity of God’s great creation, not to parse or compartmentalize it. It has been given to us to embrace. All the rhetoric, all the papers, all the Gagnons and Tembens and others who create the doubt - are only able to do so because we allow them. And, I am certainly not out to try and change any of these folk. But why are they so intent on changing me and others like me? Homophobia comes to mind.

It has all gotten so complicated that the answer is simple, really. What do we believe and where are we willing to stand in finally making this church a welcoming church and model for the Good News and others to follow. Are we so afraid of risk, that we are unable to see that our membership, relevance, and yes - treasuries, are all in decline because of our fears toward our sisters and brothers and tenacious embrace of the status quo? Are we so blind that we don’t see how these actions of exclusion make us complicit in the violence they engender? Is it any wonder people flee us...

You know, when Jesus set his face to Jerusalem, I am one of those who believe that he didn't know exactly what was going to happen. However, I do believe he knew it was going to be serious and dangerous. Yet, he went. He stayed on the path because of his love for us -- all of us -- and the attempt to shorten the distance, the hamartia, between all of us and God.

It's my belief, that any vote against the deletion of G-6.0106b is the opposite of Jesus' path that we profess to follow.

When did we come to be so fearful of one another? How did we forget that being Christian was not about "ex-ing" anyone, but about risking it all to love one another, in the name of Jesus Christ?

Ray Bagnuolo

January 8, 2010

Draft of Preliminary Report of the Special Committee to Study the Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage

The Full Report

This is worthwhile reading and study. The committee clearly worked carefully and well in the short period of time that it had to do this work. Thank you to them all.

Like Scripture and many other considerations related to the church's behavior, the report will read differently depending on who it is doing the reading. I am unsure of the wisdom in making no recommendation by the committee. It may have been that that was their charge. I need to think and pray about this a bit more and hear from others.

The following excerpt is an example of the division in interpretation, even of the report. "Those who defend marriage" could be thought of as those who defend marriage between a man and a woman. "Those who defend marriage" could also be viewed as those of us who see "civil union" for LGBT as a "second-class" option and unacceptable, defending it for all.

"Those who defend marriage as it has been understood see the compromise of civil unions as a dangerous and myopic redefinition of marriage that loses its social dimensions and encourages the impermanence of these arrangements. They would argue that marriage is the only significant institution supported by civil authority that protects children as they grow; the impermanence of the parental relationships is one of the major causes of a host of ills that beset the most vulnerable and weakest among us. European experience has demonstrated that diluting marriage into a private contract for the sake of one population can dilute it for the whole population.

While there may be significant small populations for whom a civil union is a useful contract, civil unions cannot serve to make peace between those who view homosexual practice differently."

-p. 22 of the report

Reply to Conversation and Posts on Outlook

Blog Response to: Outlook Article: "Marriage and Civil Unions Task Force...so far"

As a minister, ordained as an openly gay man, serving the needs of God's whole family, I welcome the input of the committee.

I wonder at what stage the committee will be?

Will it be at the women should not be in church stage of the Bible? Will it be at the 'slaves should learn from their master' quotes attributed to Jesus stage? Or will they be beyond the the stages that try to keep the status quo based on fear of those who are different, yet sisters and brothers.

Will they be beyond the stage of using Scripture to exclude people, once again, until the Christian heart expands in love and wisdom, finally turning away from Scripture passages that kept women quiet, slaves in their place, and same-gender relationships the target of fear? Finally, after directly or indirectly being implicit in the violence of such restrictions and fear.

The only path is forward, with full and comprehensive benefits in the church that our heterosexual sisters and brothers are afforded. To draw the line on the "behavior argument" is to draw a line in the sand of creation and God's love. That line will be washed away, for it is a human-made line. A "fear line," an argument, not an act of God's love toward one another.

I am not who I am based on behavior, but I am who I am based on how God has created me, which includes being a man and being gay. I pray that how I behave reflects God's love in all the fullness of my being and that must include the intimacy of marriage for same-gender loving couples.

The healing we are called to bring into this broken world is beyond us still, because some still cower in fear of who we are as the full Body of Christ. Simply, we have not been able yet to fully accept one another in our diversity. Simply, then, we still have not learned to fully accept God in the lives of our sisters and brothers, without playing God.

God is beyond slaves, the muting of women, and the full work, worship, and benefits for our LGBT folk in the Church of Jesus Christ.

What is it we are waiting for? Better, what is it we are afraid of?

Ray Bagnuolo

No one said you couldn't send in two...

Comments on Civil Union and Marriage

Ray Bagnuolo, Minister of Word and Sacrament

I don't often link any other societal challenges to the efforts for a more just and inclusive church for our sisters and brothers who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT). I find that any reference to human and spiritual struggles of other groups immediately shifts the discussion to the supporting argument. Given the choice, most people will choose to discuss almost anything other than the marginalization or second-class status of people who identify as LGBT. I speak not about gay people but as a gay person involved in our church's struggle.

However, I will break with my practice in this way: consider the Bible's prohibition of women from serving in the early church and the Bible’s acceptance of slavery.

1 Corinthians 11:5:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in church."

Matthew 10:24-25:

"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!"

There are other references, in fact many - a simple search will produce the ones that don't immediately come to mind.

We all know that over time these teachings of Paul and statements in Matthew attributed to Jesus (along with other verses of Scripture) have been explained away in a variety of ways. Simply, these early teachings and practices were wrong and abhorrent. They still are where practiced today. My question, though, is, "Was God wrong?" I mean if these were accepted practices of the early church, as terrible as they were, now that we reject them - how did we come to know that God changed God's mind about them or that God was wrong. Or did we just figure out that God didn't mean it in the first place? Or were the Scriptures wrong, mistranslated, or worse - did Jesus actually agree with slavery? Really...

Who drew the line? How did we know when and where it was drawn? How many centuries did women and slaves suffer until we all agreed that the Bible was wrong long before the practices changed. And what about the people who were rebuked, punished, stoned, jailed, returned to their "masters" (like Jesus and the Centurion's slave). What about all the violence, harms, and damages that were done in the name of faithfulness to the Scriptures and teachings of Jesus? How complicit are we in the tragedy that became institutionalized while we waited to step up...? How quickly would we undo these things if we could go back, way back?

Something was as wrong back then about women and slavery as it is wrong now about folk who are LGBT. Regardless of how the Bible was used then...these practices were always wrong. Regardless of the how the Bible is used today against LGBT folk...these practices are always wrong. Further, just as the solution to women's rights and slavery was not to have slaves free half the time or women free half the time - neither is the solution for embracing same gender covenantal relationships in the half-step of civil unions. In fact, such a decision to many of us is as insulting and hate-filled as the Three-fifths Compromise of our country’s early history. We need to get this right.

After all, can we really hinge our love and justice on the same rationalizations that kept women and slaves quarantined from God as full and free creations of God? Who is wrong here? The Bible or God? Is God going to change God's mind again? Should we just wait some more? How will we know when it is time? Will we continue to make this church less representative of a welcoming God and more representative of a comfortable few?

Honestly, as you can probably tell, I am unwilling to be considered as anything less than a full creation of God and baptized member of this church. It continues to be difficult for me, knowing myself and other sisters and brothers who are LGBT, to comprehend how our welcoming into this church should even be a cause for discussion.

Still, I am as grateful for your work as I am certain that we need to stand up for full marriage for all our sisters and brothers in this church and the society into which we bring the Good News of the Church of Jesus Christ.

P.S.

For the record: I don't believe God had it wrong. I believe we did, and I believe we have it wrong now. May you agree.

Comments to the Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage

Friends: The Committee has asked for feedback as they prepare their report. The press release can be found at The Presbyterian News Service. Please consider writing to the committee.

The following is what I forwarded on July 20, 2009. Thanks for your courage and your voice in commenting.

Comments to the Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage
Ray Bagnuolo, Minister of Word and Sacrament
Gay Member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Community
July 20, 2009

Questions:

• How could the PC(USA) not honor marriage for people of the same sex in the very same way we do such relationships between a man and a woman?

• How will we be faithful to God and to our sisters and brothers in this Body of Christ and undo the harm that has been caused by years of marginalization of the LGBT community in the PC(USA).

• In light of the young children finding love and safety in homes with parents of the same gender, how could we relegate them to the status of a “diminished family” in the eyes of the church? How could we ever expect such families to find God in our midst, when we see less of God in theirs?

In the lives of the LGBT community in the PC(USA), the same sections of our constitution always present the biggest challenge. I will ask you to set them aside in your work. I recommend that you accept the premise that the constitutional barriers will be resolved, so that you may be bold and just in your recommendation. Please avoid recommendations that generate more studies, more arguments, and muted leadership in the face of continued exclusionary violence to our LGBT community.

Witness the work of The Theological Task Force on Peace Unity and Purity of The Church in attempting to resolve the ordination standards practices. The Task Force did much good work, but did its recommended methods of opening a path for ordination of folk who are LGBT succeed? Considering that since the time of the report not one openly gay candidate has been called, examined, and ordained to minister of Word and Sacrament, I would say no. In fact, if my statistics are correct, the last openly gay candidate who was called, examined, and ordained was in November of 2005, months before the acceptance of the task force’s report at our 217th General Assembly in 2006. Since then, of all the candidates that have been called, examined, and ordained as ministers of Word and Sacrament – not one has been openly LGBT.

And, that is not because there are none to be called. It is because G-6.0106b continues to be used to discriminate against the LGBT candidates and the majority of presbyteries find the work around of the task force too weak and uncertain. It would have been more prophetic had the Task Force recommended that G-6.0106b be deleted. The impact and the results might have been substantially better, especially considering the recent voting on the ratification for the substitute to G-6.0106b, Amendment 08-B, that was sent to the presbyteries for ratification by the 218th GA.

The recent near-passage of 08-B supports the growing recognition by presbyteries that the constitution can no longer be used against our baptized sisters and brothers who are LGBT. The inherent risk-taking of Christian love is real; Christian love and all its risks have always been the praxis of welcoming, justice, and true hospitality in our church – except, institutionally, when it comes to LGBT folk. There is no way to compromise Christian love. It doesn’t work, as far as I can tell.

I believe there are lessons in these past experiences for the task ahead of you. Even now, some of what has been suggested as possible recommendations for the committee sounds like compromised approaches; considerations that if embraced fall under the heading, once again, of the LGBT community “waiting and less than.”

For example, one solution offers a blessing to same-sex couples, but not marriage. Another is to forego marriage (with or without a blessing) and support the civil union idea. A third is even a recommendation that we do away with marriage altogether, suggesting that the church should have no interest in the “marriage business” in the first place.

Fears? Absolutely. Such “shadow solutions” are all about fear and worse, when it comes to people who are LGBT.

Consider the lengths some suggest we should go to in preventing same-sex marriage. The idea of actually eliminating church marriage altogether to keep it from same-sex couples is glaringly indicative of how deeply ingrained the disease of homophobia has become in our thinking. As for eliminating marriage in the church – fine. First, grant it to all. Then we can talk about its elimination. Equality for all first. Then consider change as a whole community.

Yes, the PC(USA) has made some progress, but in too many cases it turns out to be more binding than loving. As a minister of Word and Sacrament, I can “bless” holy unions as long as I do not use the language of/or mislead the same-sex couple to believe that I am conducting their marriage. In truth, I have no way of parsing the mystery of God’s love in such covenantal relationships – nor could I be faithful to my ordination by doing so.

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.

May you have the courage to be the prophets you have been called to be.

For Pete's Sake!

Actually, his name was Peter.

Peter Dellegrazio. Later, Peter DeLeo. He was a soulmate and friend. He had a spirit and charm that burst across a dance floor and sparkled in any conversation. Think Danny Terrio. Think George Stephanopoulos. He's been gone now for more than fifteen years, taken away physically by the virus, but never more than a thought away for me and many others who loved him.

Peter would have been with us in our struggle for justice. He was that kind of guy. A native Chicagoan, he bristled at the marginalization of any group, especially within the LGBT community. He came to his "pride" like many of us, following struggles that tested everything about us. Like many in our community, Peter made it through, and became stronger and more caring with each hurdle overcome. Some folks become bitter along the way. With Peter, it seemed that the upheavals made him more loving and compassionate, in other words - stronger. He knew people in a way that knew their suffering and their spirit, never thinking of them as issues or causes. He reached out all the time, seeking ways to help others avoid the mistakes and the pain, without losing the heart or the welcoming smile. He could enter a struggle and move beyond it, offering others a path to follow to a place of new horizons, rather than rotting in place.

Peter did what we have been doing through these last months of the ratification process on 08-B. He stayed with the people and never sought to move ahead by excluding others. It was a gift he had. I'm not sure he saw it in that way or thought of it as God-given. I knew, though, and I still know today. He was full of God and full of God's Spirit.

I'm not surprised that Peter comes to mind as I begin to gather my thoughts around the process we've just been through. A good deal of the heart I know today comes from our friendship, and this has been all about heart for me in the most personal and Eastern of ways.

Throughout the entire time of ratification and working with MLP and other progressive partners, I could feel the pulse quickening across the nation as we came closer to becoming a unified church. The sheer number of presbyteries that shifted positions in favor of 08-B was astounding and heart-warming. We who worked for ratification sought our full inclusion without losing our identity. We went forward with the Gospel in action, modeling the church we were hoping to become.

With others, I had the privilege of calling hundreds of ministers in presbyteries across the country, as they prepared to vote. While the conversations took different directions, they were among the most powerful of interactions I have had in all my time as a minister of Word and Sacrament. I could feel the connection we shared in our faith, beliefs, and experiences, even in the midst of strong differences. The are many stories, including the retired minister who seemed surprised to be contacted by anyone. He was well into his eighties and had long ago thought others believed his usefulness as a minister had retired with him.

When we got onto the topic of voting at his presbytery, he was clear that he would never favor the ordination of gay people. And, he went on to explain why at some length. I listened mostly, feeling saddened at his own marginalization, regardless of his voice or opinion. As we prepared to say good-bye, I thanked him for sharing with me, and I asked if there was anything I could do for him. Quietly, he said, "Well, I sure would like to preach once in a while; I wonder if I'm still on the pulpit supply list at the presbytery."

I told him I'd find out for him and wished him well. After the call, I dialed the presbytery office and got a hold of someone who knew him, explained who I was, and why we were making calls. I told them of the minister's request. There was a moment of silence on both sides for a minute, then the person on the other end said something like, "Well, look at you!" She said she'd give him a call and that they'd make sure he was given some of the attention he deserved, which had somehow been forgotten. She was thankful I had called and wished us well.

Looking back, I hope he went to the meeting and voted his heart. I hope he has since been preaching.

I think that too much is made of winning or losing, frankly. The paradigm is broken, as long as it somehow creates the belief that this division in our church can be resolved by votes. However, G-6.0106b has been voted in and it appears that the only way to remove it is to vote it out. I hope we don't make such a mistake again, "voting in" such a fear-based amendment into the church that is the incarnation of Jesus Christ in its mission and relationship with the world.

As we go forward, I need to say that I am not in favor of a revised G-6.0106b. I supported 08-B, but I still feel "B" should be gone. Gone. There should be no special conditions or "safety nets" for calling qualified individuals who are LGBT. There should be no special requirement for LGBT folk, just as there should be none for heterosexual folks. In short, the requirements to serve in the full work and worship of the PC(USA) should be the same for all God's folk! Period.

Clearly, we will continue this work on many levels, including advocating for same-sex marriage and changes in the language that discriminate against LGBT folk in any parts of our constitution. Already an overture to change or delete B is before one presbytery and more will follow. Times have changed and the votes, with steady prayer and perseverance, will come. The redirection of energy and ballots to the Theological Task Force on Peace Unity and Purity over the previous 8 or so years is no longer affecting the clear movement toward a time in the near future when G-6.0106b in its current form will be gone. In fact, the work of the Task Force and the recent decision of the GAPJC to allow scrupling of G-6.0106b leave the door open for LGBT folk to be called in friendly/progressive presbyteries.

That said, it is my hope that dozens of churches in the country will call qualified LGBT Candidates to educate, challenge, and unify the church through their examinations, becoming certified and cleared to accept such calls.

It calls for risks, yes. Being Christian has always called for risks in this world...

We are on the brink of a way of being the Church of Jesus Christ in the PC(USA) that can heal the anguish and marginalization of our sisters and brothers that no secular or political organization could ever hope to achieve. By creating a church that welcomes all God's people as full members, not only will our diversity become ever more our strength in mission, but our Love and Spirit will be witness to the Gospel and who we are in relation to God and one another.

Thank you to all who gave careful prayer and discernment in the entire process of ratification, including those with whom we might disagree. I abide by the belief that our disagreement is never enough for division if our Love is centered in the One who sends us forth, together.

For Pete's sake, and many others, let's leave the struggle behind and enter into a union of faith and community, differences and all.

Peace,
Ray Bagnuolo
Minister of the Word and Sacrament
Gay Member of the LGBT Community
Called Pastor and Head of Staff to Jan Hus Presbyterian Church, NYC
Board Member of More Light Presbyterians

A Response to Rev. Janet Edwards' Essay in the Washington Post

See Janet's Essay

God has God's ways.

I learned that first-hand, again, when I was ordained as an openly gay man in the Presbyterian Church in 2005. It can happen, even in the PC(USA), but there are only a handful of us at the moment. The opposition and barriers to ordination for LGBT sisters and brothers has been very effective. The ratification of this amendment would have made it possible for the many LGBT folk who God has called to serve others as ministers of Word and Sacrament in a world that is too-broken by such divisions.

The fear that prompts some to marginalize others for their own comfortability is strong, well-entrenched, and a true soul-sickness. In all the arguments to prevent LGBT folk from being ordained, we never hear of LGBT folk trying to exclude others to achieve a gracious and, yes, radical hospitality. In fact the message is always the same: we do not want to exclude our sisters and brothers; we believe we can be together, in spite of our differences; we believe that we can find a way to be together in love, not for our own benefit, but for those we are called to serve. This IS being faithful.

In making dozens of calls to ministers who support and oppose the ratification of 08-B, in almost every case I spoke with folks who are truly trying to be faithful and open to the Spirit. There was an equality in the presence of God in every conversation that affirms what I think we all know - it's time to move beyond the separation and to be open to ways to be faithful together. The only "right" or "wrong" has to do with hospitality not sexuality.

It may be that we have been given this struggle to overcome it, not by votes, but by extending and trusting in Love. It may just be that this struggle is the path God has given us for unification -- not division. I believe true healing will be the result of such a union.

When that happens, and it will, the world will be changed in ways that are beyond any telling. A church that "gets it right," that chooses love over marginalization and embracing one another in our differences will do more to carry the Good News than a church that bickers, divides, and is complicit in the violence that is part of any oppressive system.

With many others, please pray with us for such a time.

Thank you to my friend Janet and all those who struggle for the marriage of Justice and Love and the courage to be steadfast in their calls to serve all.