GA220: A Display of Rainbow Grace!

I know. We ended up this assembly with ANOTHER STUDY. True. But what continues to be most amazing about this assembly is not the outcome but the demonstration, the promise of what is to come.

Think about what happened here. We had a vice moderator who resigned because of pressure she received for marrying a lesbian couple. We cringed at how she was treated. And, at a meeting to process the swirl of rumor and fact that surrounded her stepping down, ministers stood up and identified themselves openly as having performed same gender weddings. Ruth Hamilton, David Ensign, Mieke Vandersall, and I made it clear that we, too, conducted and will continue to conduct these marriage in states where they are legal - as being faithful to our ordination vows.

Others will follow as we simply refuse to accept the injustice. More will come...

Rev. Ruth Hamilton, a commissioner to the GA from National Capital, in a powerful statement from the plenary floor called others to COME OUT and identify themselves, their churches, and councils as having been part of the growing number of ministers and churches marrying same gender couples.

Looking for prophetic voices?  We haven't heard anything yet!

I don't know if you remember, but to get someone to even whisper such things in the not too distant past was almost impossible except for a very few. And they often found themselves quickly charged. It seems such threats, whether based in polity or out of efforts at intimidation have lost their salt. 

And, consider that it was at the last assembly that we passed Amendment 10-A that is now ratified and in our Book of Order. We are now ordaining pastors who would have been kept out with G-6.0106b, just two years ago. And today, at the very next general assembly we are in the process of bringing marriage equality to a mainline protestant denomination - the PC(USA). 

Yes, we are behind...but we are catching up in a hurry.

I can't help think about how many years it took to get G-6.0106b out of the Book of Order.  

And marriage? 

Remember, it was at the last general assembly that a parliamentary procedure was used to prevent marriage from even being discussed. We never even got to talk about it, following the exceptional report compiled by the marriage committee. And this year we not only get the amendment to the floor of the presbytery, we come back and nearly pass an amendment to change the constitution to become more welcoming for same gender couples in marriage with a margin of less than 5% separating the voltes: 308 - 338! 

And! In the process of getting to this vote, the commissioners turned back two minority reports, did not limit debate, and dismissed a series of claims about whether or not the amendment was even in order. What followed was more than a four hour conversation on the lives of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender - those who love them, their pastors and families, and what this church is not doing to make us as welcome and safe as we all should be as baptized sisters and brothers. 

The evidence of grace is everywhere. I truly believe that every minute every single person who ever worked for justice and love in this church for the LGBT community is building to critical mass. Call it a crest, a tipping point, an emergence, or the Holy Spirit - it is happening and we have a terrific community building in numbers and strength to take us forward. Just take a look at the YAD's, TSAD's, and others - who even in disagreement came together. Courage, too, was on display.

Yes, there was some snarky stuff that happened, the comments that took the air out of the room, the extreme anger and ignorance that surfaced here and there, not to mention the treatment of the Tara and Neal. It was on display for more and more people to see just what we face all too often - and what no one should ever face in the church, any church, especially not this church.

I also have to mention the powerful sermons of The Rev. Dr. Margaret Aymer Oget and Elder Tony De La Rosa, with thanks to Cindy Bolbach for bringing their message to us all. My friend Joe Gilmore, the pastor of South Presbyterian Church in Dobbs Ferry, NY once told me that he often thought of God pacing the horizon, waiting, waiting for us to catch up. We're on our way God, on out way...and we've got a rainbow scarves around our necks, flowing in the wind!

I came here expecting to leave with it all. And, honestly, we will leave with more than we expected -- and work to do.

Thank you all for your hard work and faithfulness in staying true to this call. We have only just begun, and the clock to the 221st General Assembly has already started. 

In all the ways you may know God, give thanks - as I do for each and every one of you.

Ray

NYS Marriage Equality: The Spirit Smiles

On this day, when Marriage Equality has come to New York State, many people are celebrating the promise they never let go of or stopped working for – that one day in this state of all states – marriage would be available across gender identity.

In effect, in New York, by this change marriage has transcended even the best of marriage definitions from the sum total of all marriage practices in the bible. Marriage Equality acknowledges that marriage is more than just form. It underscores that neither laws nor oppression can stop the march through time of Love, that is God, coursing through all God’s human creation and equally present in the love between same gender loving couples as in different gender loving couples. Equality means that the differences separating such love have been removed. The truth is that the imposition of bygone restrictions should never have existed in the first place – and must continue to be removed wherever they exist. To do otherwise is to stand in opposition – not just to one another – but to God and God’s great and abundant love. In New York State, on this day, the Spirit is truly smiling (however it is the Spirit smiles!).

The Distance of Fear: Ruling in the Trial of The Rev. Dr. Janie Spahr & the PC(USA)

     I am really not used to dealing with anger to any great measure. Sure, I have it from time to time. As a person and a pastor, I struggle to use it in productive ways when it takes hold. Generally, with prayer and the help of friends, I get beyond it and move a bit further in what some of my friends refer to as “character building.”
     However, I have been spending the last several days struggling mightily to understand the anger in me generated by the guilty verdict of Janie Spahr by the Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of The Presbytery of the Redwoods. It been anything but an exercise in “character building.”
     Janie was charged by an anonymous complainant for her officiating at more than a dozen same gender weddings in California during a time when they were legal in the State. The PJC found Janie guilty of violating her ordination vows, the church constitution, and other rulings – while commending her on her prophetic ministry to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community. The accuser was never named nor ever appeared.
     This decision and procedure was enough to generate disappointment and dismay. But there was more to this anger of mine this than just disappointment.
     I have been going over the events of the four days of hearings in Napa, trying to find the reason for the near sickness I have been feeling. A thousand questions I’ve asked of myself.
     Was it the failure of the PJC to notify the defense counsel that a seventh member of the PJC had days before said they would not be able to participate in the trial? Janie’s defense team found this out only hours before the trial began. This changed the PJC from a 7 member to a 6 member board; changing the necessary votes for a verdict of guilty from 5 to 4 (a 2/3rds vote was necessary for the decision). The guilty verdicts were all by a 4-2 vote.
     Was it the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission's (GAPJC) refusal of a request by Rev. Spahr and her counsel? They had gone to the GAPJC for guidance in the marriages before she officiated at them, in which she and her counsel noted that the civil laws of the State had changed, following their last ruling. She had been told she had "no standing" to make such a request. (The ruling in question was the outcome of an earlier hearing against Dr. Spahr. No standing?)
     Or, maybe it was my own sense of fairness that the PJC should have included someone who is openly a member of the LGBT community. Certainly, there was someone in The Presbytery of the Redwoods that could have stepped forward and been fair in their deliberation. Or do we only trust heterosexual individuals to make the best judgments in the church of those who are on trial, in part, for being Lesbian?
     Perhaps my anger came from the absence of any apparent sense of prophecy or awareness of the moment in history that was in the PJC’s hands, or from the dismissal of the heart-wrenching and courageous stories of the same gender couples who allowed themselves to be examined and cross-examined, stepping into a place of great love and vulnerability to witness for all.
     Perhaps it was the prosection who called no witnesses, narrowing the case “into the head” and away from the heart, as she suggested. If this isn’t a matter of both – what have we become?
     All of this contributed to my distress, but still there was more to it. Of course, I admit to holding Janie as best friend, prophet, mentor, and example of who we are and what can be in the church when at our very best. Even the PJC didn’t contradict that. They commended Janie on her prophetic and exemplary ministry and then failed to exercise any of the same prophecy or courage they so lauded.
     I know that’s getting close to the anger, because the quiet voice inside me almost cries out, “How dare they?!”
     And then to say they love Janie as they handed down the verdict. To apologize for the church and all it has done wrong to the LGBT community. To thank the power of the witnesses and their hearts, thanking them for sharing their lives in ways no one has been asked to do in being accepted in this church, and then to succumb to the injustice of a constitution they referred to as confusing and in conflict with itself…was almost too much to process in any rational way. To say we love you in such a way is to really say, “We don’t want you.” It was stunning in all the wrong directions.
     That’s when it started to hit me. I knew from the start that PJC had the power that seldom comes to people to make an incredible change in an unjust system. Had they voted acquittal and stood as tall as the accused, stating for all to hear that there was no way they could find this minister and these couples guilty of anything except faithfulness and enhancing this church – what an amazing day it could have been! Had they ruled in alignment with their hearts and their heads, they could have sent a message to the church, society, and the whole nation that this church, this PC(USA) would not stand for this attack on one of their own (their own) or the LGBT community they considered family, if they had anything to say about it. And, if as I believe is true, they were convinced as they said that this ruling would move the discussion forward – then why do it in such a hurtful way? Why not vote 6-0 in favor of acquittal. I promise you that such a verdict would have produced appeals in a heartbeat. Instead of beating down those you say you love and admire - you would have lifted them up for the first time in this church in a way that truly had meaning.
     In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King said, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” That’s the measure of just how wrong this all was.
     And there it is. Although I have felt opposed, marginalized, mischaracterized, and demeaned, I have never experienced such blatant degradation in all my time in the PC(USA). And what made it worse, what made me angrier is that this decision degraded an entire community of people. It did it in accordance with the law, as they saw it. Did anyone say, "Gospel"?
     And, it’s here that the anger takes a deep dive through what I had just imagined to be fear on the part of others toward our community. This verdict and the subsequent rationale and comments of the PJC and others articulated a deep and institutionalized aversion to us, a feeling of dislike for us that is so strong that it produced this institutionalized reaction. My free fall of anger to utter sadness is hinged here, hinged on the meaning of deep aversion and intense dislike, for sadly this is a definition of hatred. I must have been naïve for I never once thought this was at the root of all our struggles in the church. How could we follow Christ and be so distant, at the same time?
     While I call no one on the commission or otherwise involved hateful, we need to acknowledge that the reason that the LGBT community is not fully integrated in this PC(USA) is because of such irrational sentiments and the distance that fear produces. Not a fear of those of us who are LGBT, I suggest, but a fear of calling this illness what it is.
     So, as Dr. King also once said, “Where do we go from here?”
     Dr. King’s response was, “…we must first honestly recognize where we are now.”
     Where we are now is a church divided. We are not divided by people who are LGBT who want to belong. We are divided by the culture of hate that has invaded us from all around us. We have embraced the hate of sectarian interests and cobbled it together to represent the PC(USA) in judging the lives of our sisters and brothers who are LGBT. Instead of leading by the gospel against the violence and damage of institutionally degrading this community, we have mislead ourselves by our aversion to others. And in the process, to protect our own failings, we have marginalized others.
     Folks, we cannot wait for institutional change to address these injustices that are creeping us closer and closer to no return from hatred and violence. If we as a church cannot rise up with the leadership of those like The Rev. Dr. Spahr and stand by them fully – we will continue to feed the culture that surrounds us with our own witness of fear and acquiescence. We seem to willingly replace justice and prophecy with doing things “decently and in order” – and fail to treat those we accuse with anything like the decency and primary order of ours being the Church of Jesus Christ.
     It is not enough to look at the things which we do well as church, which are many. We also need to enter into the wrong we are doing others – and address them now. If we can accept the disharmony and degradation of others as an acceptable price to pay for the years it will take to right this abomination of exclusion of the people who are LGBT, then indeed we have no idea what this is all about. It may be that the mountain of such pain we have caused over the years has made us immune to the complicity of this sad state in which we now find ourselves.
     From that place, loving us…means nothing at all. It’s enough to make one angry…and very sad.
     But just in case you might be hoping, it’s no where near enough for us to give up. Folks are fond of asking, why don't you find another denomination. The answer is simple, "This cannot be a whole church without us, and we love you too much to leave you."

An Amazing Day for Love and Testimony

Someone out there might say, because people say the darndest things, that the intense and invasive testimony of the eleven couples that Janie married "...was really their own fault. They should have known that being legally married in the State of California when marriage was legal, having their marriage officiated by a faithful Presbyterian minister would cause them these problems. It's their own fault."

And to that I say, "Pooh!"

Every Presbyterian, the real ones, the ones that still honor those who historically have fought for justice and equality across a host of social changes - those Presbyterians - should thank these couples and the minister who married them. They should be here, standing by these couples and the church leaders like Janie Spahr, Jean Southard, Janet Edwards and others who have extended themselves deep into this time of imminent change with faithfulness, courage, heart, intelligence, and above all a commitment to Jesus Christ as "Lord of the Conscience." In other words, Presbyterians.

These leaders have filled the gap left by a GAPJC that refused to honor a request for guidance to The Rev. Spahr following a change in the laws in California that made marriage legal. These leaders again stand alone, filling the gap created by the absence of any past or present leaders from Louisville at these proceeding and the distance of the Office of the General Assembly at this critical trial. Not a word from any one of them...no help, no guidance, not a peep.

Is it any wonder that members of this church who are LGBT feel like their church has left them behind? If it weren't for these leaders being charged for their leadership - who would there be speaking up for the LGBT community?

Now, about the couples who testified. Amazing. To listen to people who are lesbian and gay and who have fought through more than could be imagined to honor their love and then to make themselves vulnerable to questioning and cross-examination to affirm their love is the Power of God at work. For them to open their lives to public display to support the minister who honored their love and to share the gift of their hope with all who are marginalized and excluded by a church that cannot even give its pastors guidance on legal marriages of gay couples...well, it is the Spirit at work in stunning ways.

They certainly strike me as being more like Presbyterians than those who don't even talk to us or get to know us before they bring charges against us. (Which is how these charges were delivered.)

Tomorrow, Thursday, closing arguments will be made by counsel. Following that the PJC will deliberate until they have a decision about whether The Rev. Dr. Janie Spahr violated her vows and the rule of church law by performing legal same gender marriages. The PJC will deliberate. Their decision will say a great deal about who we are, what we believe in, and where we are headed.

What will be certain - what is certain now - is that through these hearings, Janie and these couples have given this church a chance to be faithful, courageous, and prophetic in leading this church through these times instead of into the shadows of what we once were. To the rest of us they have given us a wonderful gift and a blessing of huge proportions.

And I join others in awe of them and with deep thanks for their courage and heart.

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.