This post refers to upcoming votes in presbyteries on ratifying Amendment 10-A, which modifies the language of G-6.0106b, the amendment in the Book of Order mostly used to keep folk who are LGBT out of leadership roles. Bagnuolo, an openly gay ordained minister who refused to abide by G-6.0106b as a matter of conscience during his examination, talks about a vote for one another and the need to finally become the welcoming church we have long been called to be.
Sorry...the audio and video are a little out of synch. Trying to figure out why. I'll post just an audio file a little later. Thanks for bearing with me as I learn how to do these videos.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
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.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Let's leave the BOP out of this...
[Response to the leadership of the PLC calling for churches to hold back per capita as a protest against health coverage for same gender couples. PLC Article]
Is it possible that no one associated with the PLC knows or loves anyone who is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT)? I cannot believe that every member of the PLC or reader of the Layman would encourage holding back health care for same gender partners to be part of an increasingly sad attempt to divest a group of people from the PC(USA) at any cost - even denying them the same basic care others get simply as a matter of their employment. What will be next?
I have said it before. I do understand the difficulty for many in welcoming people who are LGBT into ordination and marriage. If you have been brought up to believe certain things and then are faced with challenges, challenges that turn everything upside down, at first, it is a daunting consideration.But isn't that what Christianity has always been? Hasn't the gospel message consistently called us forward into assembly and unity that at one time or another were most unlikely? And haven't we always been blessed by such growth in ways that carried the message of Jesus and the Gospel forward through more than 2000 years?
We, we who disagree in such ways, do need to work this out. However, disagreement to the degree of holding back per capita to prevent coverage for employees who are LGBT has to cross the line for most, except perhaps the most vocal, prolific, and conflicted of professors and authors who make a living off the dehumanization of others. That is quite an extreme group in our church, and I would expect anything of them.
But for the rest of us, we can argue and disagree while we address the basic health and human concern of all of those who work for the church, people who are not proselytizing their own form of witness, but just doing the work we have called them to do - in jobs that span the gamut.
The attempt to link this type of insurance and care to the idea of being immoral - is, in fact, itself and immoral act of attempting to "cleanse" this church of the LGBT community in every way possible.
As I said, if there is no one in your life who you know and love that is LGBT, who goes to work every day - to do a good job, support a family, contribute in some way to the greater good of family, church, and society -- if there is no one in your life who you know that is such a person - then they who are those in your life are afraid to tell you so. Because this idea will surely hurt someone you know and love. This church - or any part of it - cannot call us to such a thing. It is immoral, indeed.
Please, let's make our arguments where they belong - with one another on the theology and polity regarding ordination and marriage, not on the back of people who work for us.
Respectfully,
Ray Bagnuolo, Minister of Word and Sacrament
Gay Member of the LGBT Community
New York City
Is it possible that no one associated with the PLC knows or loves anyone who is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT)? I cannot believe that every member of the PLC or reader of the Layman would encourage holding back health care for same gender partners to be part of an increasingly sad attempt to divest a group of people from the PC(USA) at any cost - even denying them the same basic care others get simply as a matter of their employment. What will be next?
I have said it before. I do understand the difficulty for many in welcoming people who are LGBT into ordination and marriage. If you have been brought up to believe certain things and then are faced with challenges, challenges that turn everything upside down, at first, it is a daunting consideration.But isn't that what Christianity has always been? Hasn't the gospel message consistently called us forward into assembly and unity that at one time or another were most unlikely? And haven't we always been blessed by such growth in ways that carried the message of Jesus and the Gospel forward through more than 2000 years?
We, we who disagree in such ways, do need to work this out. However, disagreement to the degree of holding back per capita to prevent coverage for employees who are LGBT has to cross the line for most, except perhaps the most vocal, prolific, and conflicted of professors and authors who make a living off the dehumanization of others. That is quite an extreme group in our church, and I would expect anything of them.
But for the rest of us, we can argue and disagree while we address the basic health and human concern of all of those who work for the church, people who are not proselytizing their own form of witness, but just doing the work we have called them to do - in jobs that span the gamut.
The attempt to link this type of insurance and care to the idea of being immoral - is, in fact, itself and immoral act of attempting to "cleanse" this church of the LGBT community in every way possible.
As I said, if there is no one in your life who you know and love that is LGBT, who goes to work every day - to do a good job, support a family, contribute in some way to the greater good of family, church, and society -- if there is no one in your life who you know that is such a person - then they who are those in your life are afraid to tell you so. Because this idea will surely hurt someone you know and love. This church - or any part of it - cannot call us to such a thing. It is immoral, indeed.
Please, let's make our arguments where they belong - with one another on the theology and polity regarding ordination and marriage, not on the back of people who work for us.
Respectfully,
Ray Bagnuolo, Minister of Word and Sacrament
Gay Member of the LGBT Community
New York City
Friday, September 24, 2010
In Response to Re. Kim...
For the original post by Rev. Kim please visit:
Dear Pastor Kim,
While I appreciate your comments and all conversation related to the ways in which our current polity affects our sisters and brothers who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender - your suggestions for more study and your seeing no end to the "debates," are in fact the problem that has brought us to this place.
A few clarifications, if I might, speaking for me and those who might agree with me, I am not an "issue." I am a living, breathing human being, created by God as I am - gay, ordained as an openly gay man, serving all those who come to me as best as I can, and frankly - outraged - with the PC(USA) and it weakness and inherent cowardness in standing up for full inclusion. I may be a problem for some in the church, but I am not an issue. I cannot be objectified and talked about at arm's length as though I were not here. That has been part of the problem.
Second, whose side is Jesus on? Whew. That sure is a way to solve this all. It's clear to me, actually which side Jesus is on. Jesus is on the non-violent, loving side. Those still fighting to keep us divided by G-6.0106b and other "standards," are actually complicit in the violence that continues to be experienced through hate crimes and other exclusionary measures toward gay people that are rampant in our society. And, the voice of the church and the limited interpretation of the gospel that would exclude gay people is culpable in that violence. On which side do you think Jesus would side here?
Additionally, there is no one that I know in the community of LGBT people in the PC(USA) that wants to keep others out, i.e. excluded, [in order to] to settle our differences. In fact, the LGBT community continues to try to work together and honor each other in ways that are far from returned by those who call upon the gospels as reasons to marginalize our community. On which side of that do you think Jesus would place his affirmation.
Look, we need to move on, embrace on another with all our differences, and stop studying and delaying the call to love, non-violence, and leaving the judging to God. If we are making a mistake, let's err on the side of love. That I think Jesus would agree with.
In peaceful outrage, because this call for more than study and time -
Ray Bagnuolo, Minister of Word and Sacrament
Dear Pastor Kim,
While I appreciate your comments and all conversation related to the ways in which our current polity affects our sisters and brothers who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender - your suggestions for more study and your seeing no end to the "debates," are in fact the problem that has brought us to this place.
A few clarifications, if I might, speaking for me and those who might agree with me, I am not an "issue." I am a living, breathing human being, created by God as I am - gay, ordained as an openly gay man, serving all those who come to me as best as I can, and frankly - outraged - with the PC(USA) and it weakness and inherent cowardness in standing up for full inclusion. I may be a problem for some in the church, but I am not an issue. I cannot be objectified and talked about at arm's length as though I were not here. That has been part of the problem.
Second, whose side is Jesus on? Whew. That sure is a way to solve this all. It's clear to me, actually which side Jesus is on. Jesus is on the non-violent, loving side. Those still fighting to keep us divided by G-6.0106b and other "standards," are actually complicit in the violence that continues to be experienced through hate crimes and other exclusionary measures toward gay people that are rampant in our society. And, the voice of the church and the limited interpretation of the gospel that would exclude gay people is culpable in that violence. On which side do you think Jesus would side here?
Additionally, there is no one that I know in the community of LGBT people in the PC(USA) that wants to keep others out, i.e. excluded, [in order to] to settle our differences. In fact, the LGBT community continues to try to work together and honor each other in ways that are far from returned by those who call upon the gospels as reasons to marginalize our community. On which side of that do you think Jesus would place his affirmation.
Look, we need to move on, embrace on another with all our differences, and stop studying and delaying the call to love, non-violence, and leaving the judging to God. If we are making a mistake, let's err on the side of love. That I think Jesus would agree with.
In peaceful outrage, because this call for more than study and time -
Ray Bagnuolo, Minister of Word and Sacrament
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)