* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                        MORE LIGHT UPDATE

                     November-December 2000

                       Volume 21, Number 2

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                           HIGHLIGHTS



Limits on Ministry? Racial/Ethnic Welcome? WOW 2000. Marriage. 

WOW 2000. Saying Goodbye. More Light Church Has the Answer. 

Parents. Polity 101. Poetry. Book Review. Events.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                          FULL CONTENTS



SEXUAL ETHICS

CHANGES

OUR COVER: More Light Presbyterians at West Hollywood 

     Presbyterian Church

OUR NATIONAL FIELD ORGANIZER: On the Road with Michael Adee

WOW 2000!

     Witness Our Welcome: History was made in DeKalb, by Michael Adee

     A WOW Sermon, by Todd Freeman, Bethany Presbyterian Church, Dallas.

     WOW: The Very Much Later Acts of the Apostles, by Chris Glaser

JOBS: Clifton Presbyterian, Atlanta, Georgia

EVENTS

FEATURE STORIES

     Limits on Ministry?

     Irregular and Extraordinary by Harold M. Brockus

     Responding to Amendment 00-O: Issues to Consider

     Same-Sex Marriage, by Jack Rogers

     Racial/Ethnic Welcome Also on the Line

PRESBYTERIAN PARTNERSHIP OF CONSCIENCE, by Bear Ride

PARENTS

     The Homosexuality Debate (A Parent's Perspective) by Russ & 

               Anita Calhoun [NOT YET IN PRINT VERSION]

SAYING GOODBYE

     Amendment B Takes Its Toll Again: Paul Capetz

          Paul's Stole

          I want to send a condolence card, poem by Micah Schlobohm

     Celebrating Doug Atkins

     Robert Bruce

ANOTHER POEM! X Marks the Spot (Some Queer Notions)

OUR CHURCHES: More Light Churches Have the Answer!

     What happens when churches lose their target? by Jay Losher

POLITY: Latest G.A. P.J.C. Decision Regarding Amendment B

BOOKS: Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of 

          Scripture, reviewed by Tom Hanks [NOT YET IN PRINT VERSION]

MLP OFFICERS

MLP Board of Directors

MLP National Liaisons



The following directories are NOT in the print edition!

MLP Chapters

     Seminary and Campus Chapters

     Presbytery & Regional Chapters

MLP State Liaisons

MASTHEAD (Publication Information)



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                 *We limit not the truth of God

                 To our poor reach of mind,

                 By notions of our day and sect,

                 Crude, partial and confined.



                 No, let a new and better hope

                 Within our hearts be stirred:

                 for God hath yet more light and truth

                 To break forth from the Word.*



 -- Pastor John Robinson, sending the Pilgrims to the New World,   

1620; paraphrased by the hymnwriter George Rawson, 1807-1889.



                          SEXUAL ETHICS



      "More Light Presbyterians (MLP) envisions that 

      Christian sexual ethics marked by covenantal 

      fidelity shall be the standard for all 

      Presbyterians, irrespective of sexual orientation." 

      -- MLP Board, September 1999.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



           For all ministers, elders, deacons, members

         and friends of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)



                    More Light Presbyterians          

                 4737 County Road 101, PMB# 246

                    Minnetonka, MN 55345-2634



                        MORE LIGHT UPDATE

                    James D. Anderson, Editor

                           P.O. Box 38

                  New Brunswick, NJ  08903-0038

         732-249-1016, 732-932-7501 (Rutgers University)

              FAX 732-932-6916 (Rutgers University)

                Internet: JDA@mariner.rutgers.edu

                   (or JDA@scils.rutgers.edu)

        Email discussion list: mlp-list@scils.rutgers.edu

      (to join, send email to: Majordomo@scils.rutgers.edu;

           in body of message put: subscribe mlp-list;

            to leave list, put: unsubscribe mlp-list)

                MLP home page: http://www.mlp.org



     Masthead, with Publication Information at end of file.



    Note:  * is used to indicate italicized or boldface text.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



CHANGES



Rob Cummings, after many years of heroic service, is leaving the 

MLP Board.  He will focus his attention on "More Light" in his 

part of the Synod of the Trinity, and will continue to help with 

MLP communications.  Hey, Rob, you're super wonderful -- we will 

all miss you!



Gene Huff takes over as MLP Recording Secretary.



Board member Marco Grimaldo has a new address: 93 E. Main, #402, 

Newark, DE 19711.



Welcome Tony De La Rosa back to the board.  His listing is: Tony 

De La Rosa (2001-I), 4545 Bedilion St., Los Angeles, CA 90032-

2001, 213-926-2787, tonydlr@ix.netcom.com.



Board member, national communications secretary, and MLP 

webspinner Donna Riley has moved from Princeton, NJ, to 

Washington, DC.  Here's her new contact info: Donna Riley (2002-

G), 318 East Capitol St. N.E., #5, Washington, DC 20003, 202-547-

7135, dmriley@alumni.princeton.edu



Board member Pat Rickey has a new email address: 

RickeyMLP@aol.com; his fax number is: 281-440-1902.  Also, his 

street is HOLSTON Hills, NOT Houston Hills!



Board member John McNeese has closed his P.O. office box.  Please 

change address and phone to: 1300 Brighton Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 

73120-1404, 405-848-7498.



Change board member Bear Ride's address from church to home: 1680 

N. Holliston Ave., Pasadena, CA 91104, 626-398-9936, bears@usc.edu



Change board member Robin White's address and phone to: 300  

Birkwood Pl., Baltimore, MD 21218, 410-235-2429 home, 410-435-

4330 work.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



OUR COVER: More Light Presbyterians at West Hollywood 

Presbyterian Church, one of the earliest More Light 

Congregations.  Photo from Michael Adee.



Other photos have been contributed by XXXXX and Jack Hartwein-

Sanchez.



**Please send us your photos!**



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



OUR NATIONAL FIELD ORGANIZER



                           On the Road

                        with Michael Adee

                  MLP National Field Organizer



As I travel the country, literally from coast to coast, visiting 

Presbyterian churches and seminaries, being with MLP Chapters, 

and attending conferences, I hear people saying that they are 

striving to be faithful to the Gospel, to live "into the Gospel," 

and to live out the Gospel in their church, in their communities.  

This notion and commitment to live out the Gospel and/or to live 

"into the Gospel" has captured my attention and  imagination.



Feminist theologian, author, and one of the speakers at WOW 2000, 

Carter Heyward has said, "the root of Christian vocation -- the 

call to love radically, passionately, and steadfastly -- with our 

whole heart, soul, mind and body -- is the foundation of Jesus' 

own faith and work, and his invitation to the rest of us to 'go 

and do likewise.'"



"Go and do likewise."  I witnessed the faithful living out and 

sharing of the Gospel in Tulsa, Oklahoma -- some call it the buckle 

of the Bible belt.  College Hill Presbyterian Church, one of our 

new More Light Presbyterian Churches, hosted a "More Light 

Weekend."  Put together by Margaret Duncan, Rev. Radford Rader, 

pastor, and their church's More Light Committee, the weekend 

program included a luncheon for area clergy and church officers 

on what it means to be "More Light" and a half-day workshop on 

pastoral care for LGBT people and our families.  I also offered a 

session on Christian Sexual Ethics and a program for youth.  A 

highlight of the weekend was a special worship service to 

celebrate becoming a More Light church.  Clergy and lay leaders 

from 10 area churches participated in the weekend programs.  

People drove in from Stillwater and Oklahoma City to be there.



Learning from James Hicks, McCormick Seminary student and leader 

in the Acts 10:15 Chapter on campus, as he taught the Fourth 

Forum Class on Sunday morning at Fourth Presbyterian Church, 

Chicago, was an extraordinary experience.  Among the dozens of 

other Sunday morning Christian Education classes at one of our 

largest churches in the PCUSA, Fourth Forum is described as "a 

class for gays and lesbians and their friends."  Rev. Carol Allen 

offers pastoral care support to the group and often joins them 

for movie night or dinner.



Painting in 103 degree temperatures in Dallas, I joined a happy 

group of over 20 people on a "work day" at Bethany Presbyterian 

Church. Organized by Ken Miller, pastor Todd Freeman, and Daniel 

Alatorre, parish associate, it was an ambitious project.  

Hispanic and Anglo, younger and older, women and men, gay and 

straight -- people working together to take care of their church 

building.  One gay couple, who had not yet joined the church, 

delighted in being part of this Christian fellowship.  They had 

found a church home.  They were genuinely and fully welcome and 

accepted here.  It was truly a remarkable day full of many 

graces, lots of laughter, and a great feeling of accomplishment 

when the last paint brushes were cleaned up.



The MLP Chapter in Grace Presbytery hosted a post-G.A. discussion 

meeting and panel at Trinity Presbyterian Church, Dallas.  John 

Martin presented the history of how our church has dealt with 

sexuality for the last two decades.  Jean Martin chaired a panel 

of G.A. commissioners who reported on their experience in Long 

Beach.  Over 50 people from 10 churches attended.  I shared my 

impressions of G.A. particularly related to Amendment O, the 

ministry gag order that would not allow the blessing of loving 

relationships, and Amendment A, the membership amendment that 

would remove reference to the historic achievements of 

racial/ethnic persons gaining full membership in our church.  

There were many questions about G.A. 2001 and how ordination of 

LGBT people would be dealt with there.



Peter Gomes, Harvard Chaplain and author, has said that, "It is 

an important thing to recognize that to be a follower of Jesus is 

to do so -- not on the merits of the follower -- but on the basis 

of the One who calls.  And, just who are we mortals to question 

the calling that our Lord has made to his gay, lesbian, bisexual 

and transgender children?"



"Go and do likewise."  There are still some mortals, as Gomes 

says, in our church, and in other denominations who question 

God's call to LGBT people.  If only those who question, those who 

do not understand yet, would travel with me to College Hill 

Presbyterian Church in Tulsa, Fourth Presbyterian Church in 

Chicago, or Bethany Presbyterian Church in Dallas.  And, of 

course, the hundreds of other churches faithfully living into the 

Gospel by having open minds, hearts, and doors.  Then they would 

understand and see the faithful living out of the Gospel in the 

church and in community.  Then they, and all of us, would be free 

"to go and do likewise" as Jesus commanded us.



It really is that simple.  More and more churches are stepping up 

to declare themselves as "More Light" churches.  For example, 

Community of the Servant-Savior in Houston, Texas, and Faith 

Presbyterian Church, Dunedin, Florida.  New MLP Chapters have 

started in Charlotte, North Carolina, in Michigan, and in New 

Castle Presbytery, Delaware.  You cannot stop the Gospel, it will 

find its way, with us, or in spite of us.  And so this movement 

of justice, love, and inclusion grows person by person, church by 

church, chapter by chapter.



Many thanks to all of you who support MLP through your prayers, 

memberships, donations, leadership, and service.  I count this a 

sacred privilege to be serving God and working with you in this 

partnership of living into, and out, the Gospel. -- With hope and 

grace, Michael



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



WOW 2000!



                       Witness Our Welcome



                   History was made in DeKalb



                         by Michael Adee



History was made in DeKalb, Illinois, for the Welcoming Movement, and 

the Church, August 3-6, 2000, during the first-ever, historic 

ecumenical gathering of LGBT people and our allies at WOW 2000, 

"Witness Our Welcome 2000 -- God's Promise is For You."



Over 1,000 people from a reported 27 denominational backgrounds, 

and over a dozen countries gathered for worship, 

prayer/meditation, fellowship/friendship, education, music, 

celebration and solidarity.



Presbyterians were the second largest denominational group 

participating, with leadership provided by us on the planning 

team, central coordinating committee, workshop development and 

facilitation, preaching, speaking, and teaching.



MLP held our national annual meeting at WOW with an overflow 

crowd of more than 100 participating.  Highlights of the 

"business" included approval of new and continuing Board Members 

-- Ralph Carter, Marco Grimaldo, Eunice Poethig, Pat Rickey, Erin 

Swenson, and Robin White; the announcement of the 2001 National 

MLP Conference, May 25-27, Austin, Texas (save that date and plan 

now to be there!), with the "torch" being passed to Gerald Gafford 

and Jim Rigby who are coordinating the Conference.



Sixteen persons received MLP Scholarships that provided support for 

their participation.  Special thanks to those of you who gave 

donations during the offering at the National MLP Worship Service 

at G.A. in Long Beach for this important outreach.



Remarkable speakers and welcoming movement leaders included 

Carter Heyward, Melanie Morrison, Michael Kinnamon, John Selders, 

and our own Chris Glaser, Janie Spahr, and Erin Swenson, who 

offered profound challenges and inspiration.  Special guest 

speakers included Irene Monroe, Urvashi Vaid, Joan Martin, Mary 

Hunt, and Erin Law.  Bible study teachers included Stephen Ray, 

Eske Wollrad, and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.



We were surrounded, literally, by the Shower of Stoles, with 

Martha Juillerat, Director, her partner, Tammy Lindahl, and their 

team of volunteers present.  The Stoles offered a powerful 

witness and reminder of all of us in this Welcoming Movement, 

past and present.



Our own Dick Hasbany put together an incredible series of 

workshops in four tracks.  Susan Craig and Bear Ride, Todd 

Freeman, Daniel Alatorre, Howard Warren, Sylvia Thorson-Smith and 

Mike Smith, Michael Adee, Chris Glaser, Martha Juillerat, and 

Erin Swenson facilitated workshops.  Janie Spahr, Cliff Fraiser, 

and Don Stroud of TAMFS offered a workshop about their program, 

That All May Freely Serve.



Issues and concerns about racism, sexism, ableness, and class 

were part of the plenary messages and conference discussions in 

addition to LGBT concerns such as inclusion, equal access to 

ordination and service in the church, and addressing homophobia 

and heterosexism in both church and society.  There was a special 

youth track and program for LGBT/Q and allied youth and young 

adults.



Over $40,000 was collected during the Saturday Night Banquet for 

the Welcoming Movement to use to plan for the next WOW 

Conference.  Our Lisa Larges, who was key in the planning of WOW, 

was given recognition for creating the idea behind the "WOW" 

name.  The planning of the next WOW will be facilitated by the 

denomination program directors of the Welcoming Movement.  So, 

send your ideas and recommendations to me for the next WOW.



There was much that was quotable, much that was memorable, much 

that was challenging, much that was inspiring at WOW, no question 

about that.  During the Saturday night Banquet Celebration and 

keynote, Michael Kinnamon, a national leader of the Disciples of 

Christ, summed up "the movement" this way:



     "GLBT people in the church are not a problem to be solved, 

     an issue to be dealt with, or a crisis to be handled 

     cautiously.  The welcoming movement is an opportunity for 

     the church to deepen its understanding of the Gospel, an 

     opportunity for Gospel-faithfulness, and an opportunity for 

     the renewal of the church."



And so we are, and have, this grand opportunity. -- Michael Adee.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                          A WOW Sermon



WOW 2000 was an incredible experience in so many ways! I want to 

share my sermon that reflected on the Conference. -- Blessings, Rev. 

Todd Freeman, Bethany Presbyterian Church, Dallas.



            "We Are Not An 'Issue' to be Dealt With"

              Reflection on the WOW 2000 Conference

                         August 13, 2000



                      Matthew 27:57-28:2

                     Psalm 18:1-3, 31-32, 46

                      1 Corinthians 10:1-4



Biblical authors used many different images to help explain their 

understanding of God, Christ, and the church. It doesn't take a 

geologist to recognize the image and theme of rocks and stones in 

all three of today's Scripture lessons. Solid rock, what does it 

do? It provides a sturdy foundation. It is a place of security, 

protection and stability.



The Old Testament Hebrew psalmist makes a familiar reference to 

God as being like a rock. The New Testament Apostle Paul refers 

to Christ as a rock as well. By association, then, we are to look 

to God and Christ to provide a sturdy foundation for our lives, 

to be a place of security, protection and stability.



Rocks and stones play significant parts in many other stories in 

the Bible, like the small stone David used to defeat Goliath. But 

perhaps the greatest starring role for a rock or stone in the 

Bible is the one rolled in front of and then away from Jesus' 

tomb. You may be wondering, Why a Resurrection story today, four 

months after Easter? Because it was a Biblical text used last 

week at the WOW 2000 Conference in DeKalb, Illinois.



WOW, short for "Witness Our Welcome," was the historic, 

first-ever ecumenical gathering of representatives from the 

Welcoming Church Movement. Instead of having our usual annual 

More Light Presbyterians conference, we combined with folks from 

other denominations with inclusive, welcoming programs, like the 

United Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Disciples of Christ, 

United Church of Christ, Brethren/Mennonites, American Baptists, 

and the United Church of Canada. There were also people in 

attendance from the Metropolitan Community Church, the 

Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, Roman Catholic, Quaker, 

and even a few Southern Baptists!



"Welcoming Churches," like ours, are defined as "congregations or 

communities that have publicly declared that they welcome persons 

of all sexual orientations." This congregation did that 21 years 

ago! There are just over 1,000 Welcoming Churches in the U.S. and 

Canada. Ten percent (an interesting figure!) are More Light 

Presbyterian churches. The 101st congregation publicly declared 

their inclusiveness just a few months ago.



Over one thousand participants from across the United States and 

several other countries attended this conference, including the 

Rev. Daniel Alatorre, our Parish Associate for Hispanic 

Ministries and myself.



We were graciously hosted by Northern Illinois University, 

serenely located among the corn fields about 60 miles west of 

Chicago. There's something poetic, and perhaps prophetic, about 

holding such a progressive conference in a small Midwest town.



Needless to say, the "cream of the crop" from each denomination's 

Welcoming Movement were selected as speakers (like our own Chris 

Glaser), preachers (like our Janie Spahr), and music leaders. The 

conference was more than just educational and fun, however. It 

was a profoundly spiritual event that was empowering, stimulating 

and challenging.  More on the challenging part in just a moment.



Of the four sermons that were preached at the conference, the one 

that affected me most profoundly was delivered by the Rt. Rev. 

Steven Charleston, a Native American evangelical Episcopal 

priest. He has served as national staff officer for Native 

American Ministries in the Episcopal Church, professor of 

theology at Luther-Northwestern Seminary and diocesan bishop of 

Alaska. He is currently the president and dean of Episcopal 

Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass. This summer he authored the 

Cambridge Accord which invites Anglican bishops worldwide to 

speak out against rising violence against LGBT persons.



Steven Charleston reflected on the struggle for inclusiveness in 

the church and how the movement has argued its case using the 

best of legal, political, and scientific reasoning. But he 

reminded the gathering that as necessary as those arguments are, 

the fight for equality in the church is ultimately a spiritual 

struggle -- it is a sacred struggle. I couldn't agree more.



The crowd applauded with great enthusiasm when he boldly declared 

that no longer should we tolerate the Bible being used to 

persecute LGBT persons.



Then he moved on to the metaphor of stone. I think many of us 

were a bit surprised when he focused upon the stone rolled before 

Jesus' tomb after his crucifixion. As he preached, it became 

quite clear what a powerful image it was for all of us involved 

in the Welcoming Church Movement.



A stone rolled before a tomb effectively seals the one inside in 

darkness. Darkness and fear have entombed so many of us. Being 

closeted in darkness keeps us from the light -- such as the light 

of full participation in the church. The darkness is 

dehumanizing. How many of us carry the scars of entombment? How 

many of us who are out of the tomb find shadows always nearby.



>From a spiritual aspect, it is only by faith in God and by the 

power of God that the stones of fear and hatred and ignorance and 

bigotry are rolled away. Our calling, as followers of Christ, 

means that we must also work to remove the stones that entomb 

those who persecute and oppress us. They, too, are living in 

darkness and fear.



During the conference it also became clear that there is a stone 

that needs to be removed from the Welcoming Church Movement 

itself -- the stone of racism, and behind it, in part, the ever-

present issues of power and control. It was correctly noted that 

the conference looked a lot like the recent Republican National 

Convention. There were lots of people of color on the platform 

and in the pulpit, but most of the 1000 participants were white.



One African American woman was especially hurt and became quite 

angry by a set of events that transpired on the opening evening. 

We heard about it the next day. At the morning session she was 

allowed to express her hurt and anger in front of the entire 

gathering -- it was a sobering moment. Many people understood why 

she was upset, many others didn't have a clue, but that was 

all right, too.



Overcoming racism doesn't mean always saying and doing the right 

thing, rather it simply begins by understanding that many things 

we say and do are racist and hurt others. Racism, indeed, is 

deeply ingrained, even among those of us who strive so hard at 

being inclusive.



Perhaps that's why the workshop that Daniel Alatorre and I led 

later that afternoon was packed. Because of our unique 

multicultural ministry here at Bethany Presbyterian Church, we 

were asked to lead a workshop that dealt with how one church (us) 

became multicultural and how that might act as a model for other 

Welcoming Churches.



We began by asking the group if they came from a congregation 

which was at least 95% Anglo. Everyone but 5 people raised their 

hands. Those from multicultural churches were located in New York 

City, Washington D.C., and San Francisco. They all wondered how 

in the world we were making it happen in Dallas, Texas!



Daniel and I shared the Bethany story, which began over two years 

ago when Daniel and his family first visited Bethany and proposed 

hooking up with our congregation in some way. It was helpful to 

many in that workshop that we shared the initial fears that we 

had, as individuals and as a congregation, and some of the fears 

we still have. Without a doubt, the fact that Bethany has been a 

Welcoming Church for over two decades plays a major role in our 

ability to acknowledge and face the racism within us and to work 

to move beyond it.



The incident with the African-American woman's negative 

experience at the conference provided something else very helpful 

to us all. It showed a model of how to face our own diversity and 

differences, especially when people get hurt. Instead of hiding 

it or trying to squelch it, it was brought out into the light for 

all to see. It was dealt with honestly, directly and quickly. 

What a wonderful model, not only for us and other Welcoming 

Churches, but for the entire Christian Church!



At the opening evening of the conference we were given a 

definition of an "inclusive community." I think it might 

be wise to commit it to memory and take it to heart.  "An 

inclusive community practices a discipline that extends its 

boundaries to consider another person's experience." In 

the process we learn more about ourselves, the other person, and 

the issue at hand. As a result we can choose to renegotiate our 

boundary.



I believe that is what we have done, and must continue to do, in 

making sure that the doors to this church remain wide open -- wide 

open to all people, regardless of race, ethnic origin, gender, 

marital status, handicap, age, sexual orientation, or worldly 

condition -- just as our More Light Statement declares.



In order to accomplish this we must covenant with each other for 

the time it takes to listen and share, especially with new 

members, visitors, and our Hispanic brothers and sisters. We can 

do better. We must uphold respect for those in community. We must 

share with each other our image and experience of God without 

judgment. After all, affirming our differences is what gives our 

flame its color. And we must operate out of a sense of abundance, 

not scarcity. God's grace is enough -- enough to give it away 

to others.



There is a final item that I want to bring to your attention that 

I found very meaningful at the WOW 2000 Conference. From it comes 

the quote from which this sermon is entitled.



The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon held prominent leadership positions 

in the World Council of Churches and is a foremost proponent on 

ecumenism -- that's all the denominations and faith traditions 

working together and learning from each other. He was nominated 

for the position of general minister and president of the 

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in 1991, but was not 

elected, for the most part, because of aggressive opposition to 

his position of advocacy for LGBT concerns.



During a banquet on the closing evening of the conference he 

stated in a most powerful way, "The presence of 

gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered persons in the Church is not a 

problem to be solved, an issue to be dealt with, or a crisis to 

be handled cautiously. The Welcoming Movement is an opportunity 

for the church to deepen its understanding of the Gospel, an 

opportunity for Gospel-faithfulness, and an opportunity for the 

renewal of the church."



How exciting to see the role Bethany Presbyterian Church is 

playing in providing so many of these "opportunities" for 

our denomination!



As God rolls the stones away, may we all come out from what 

entombs us in darkness and fear, and move boldly into the light. 

More light! -- Amen.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



          WOW: The Very Much Later Acts of the Apostles



                         by Chris Glaser



Here are Chris' remarks from the Closing Plenary Panel of the WOW 2000 

Conference, August 6, 2000.  They will also appear in the Fall 

issue of the super wonderful ecumenical magazine *Open Hands*, 

published by More Light Presbyterians and other leading movements 

of welcoming churches. This re-printing here is a special dispensation 

for those of you who haven't yet subscribed to *Open Hands*!  Do 

it today!!  Call 773-736-5526 or email openhands@rcp.org. -- JDA.



[BOX: Copyright (c) 2000 by Chris R. Glaser. Permission granted 

for non-profit circulation if duplicated in its entirety with 

attribution and description of the author provided at the end.]





                         A reading from

            The Very Much Later Acts of the Apostles:



When the days of the WOW 2000 Conference were come, all the 

Welcoming Programs were together in one place. And suddenly from 

heaven there came a sound like the rush of non-violent wind, and 

it filled the entire Holmes Student Center of Northern Illinois 

University where they were meeting. Fired up with diverse 

perspectives, opinions, and strategies, God's glory rested on 

each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and 

began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them 

ability.



Now there were devout Christians from every denomination under 

heaven represented there. And at the sound the crowd gathered and 

was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking their 

language. Amazed and astonished, they asked, "Are not all these 

who are speaking lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and their 

straight allies? How is that we hear, each of us, in our own 

language? --  Lutheran, United Methodist, Disciples, UCC, MCC, 

United Church of Canada, Brethren and Mennonite, Episcopalian, 

Roman Catholic, Orthodox, AME, Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, 

Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, Other Sheep, Unitarian 

Universalist, and more, and still others who are youth and even 

those who are unchurched. In our own words we hear them speaking 

of God's glorious deeds, of God's good news in Jesus Christ. Are 

they drunk or just nuts?" *(Based on Acts 2:1-13.)*



Acts 2:1-13 on which this "Very Much Later Acts of the Apostles" 

reading was based was one of two texts from Acts I used in the 

very first sermon I preached that included gay and lesbian people 

in 1972, twenty eight years ago. I was in college and working as 

a youth minister in a United Church of Christ, and I was 

describing my first visits to the Metropolitan Community Church 

of Los Angeles and Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San 

Francisco. When I stretched my own and my listeners' comfort in 

speaking from the threshold of my closet about something so near 

and dear to my heart, I never would have imagined an event such 

as this. Those who are discouraged by occasional and even 

continual setbacks in our movement must hold onto how far we have 

come!



Tucked away in our conference text of Acts 1-15 but not 

highlighted is the story of the man born unable to walk, placed 

at the steps of the temple to beg, a text I have more recently 

used to explain the experience of LGBT people in the church. In 

Acts 3 the name of Christ gives him the ability to walk, thus 

enabling a person not welcome in the temple because he had a 

disability (and thus was "unclean") to not only walk into the 

temple, but to leap and praise God -- to dance his way into 

God's sanctuary. And that's the miracle of the Welcoming movement 

in the church -- empowering formerly "poor beggars" like us 

outside the "Beautiful Gate" of the temple with the opportunity to 

enter and praise God. But like that man, whose whining voice 

adjured passers-by for alms, exploiting their guilt, it will take 

us awhile to lose the whining tone to our own pleadings of the 

church, and to speak firmly, unapologetically, God's truth. This 

gathering has been another step in that direction.





*Another reading from The Very Much Later Acts of the Apostles, in 

which echoes of Acts 6 and the ministry of deacons, especially 

that of Stephen, may be heard:*



Now during those homophobic days, when the disciples were barely 

keeping the church together, LGBT people and their allies 

complained against the largely straight church because their own 

ministries and their own marriages were being neglected in the 

daily distribution of good works. So the hierarchy decided, "It's 

not right that we should neglect the Bible in order to serve 

these queers. So let ten Welcoming programs of good standing, 

full of the Spirit and of wisdom, do the work for us while we 

return to prayer." Thus the word of God continued to spread; the 

number of the disciples increased greatly, especially in urban 

areas with large LGBT populations.



Each of these Welcoming programs, full of grace and power, did 

great wonders and signs among the people. But some Christians, 

full of law and institutional power and privilege, argued with 

these Welcoming programs. But they could not withstand the wisdom 

and the Spirit with which the Welcoming programs spoke. Then they 

secretly instigated some people to say and report in reactionary 

denominational tabloids, "We have heard them speak blasphemous 

words against Jesus and God." They stirred up the people and 

brought charges against them in church courts and governing 

bodies, saying, "These Welcoming programs never stop saying 

things against the church and the law; for we have heard them say 

that Jesus will destroy the church and will change our customs." 

And all who sat on these church courts and governing bodies 

looked intently at these welcoming movements, and they saw the 

faces of angels.



The next sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word 

of the Sovereign. But when the non-welcoming straight Christians 

saw the crowds of LGBT Christians and welcoming straight 

Christians, they were filled with jealousy; and blaspheming, they 

contradicted what was spoken by Joan Martin, Mary Hunt, Carter 

Heyward, Michael Kinnamon, Janie Spahr, and so many others. Then 

we all replied, "It was necessary that the word of God should be 

spoken first to you non-welcoming straight people. Since you 

reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of the Gospel we 

have to share, we are now turning to lesbians, gay men, 

bisexuals, and the transgendered community. For so the Sovereign 

has commanded us saying, "I have set you to be more light for 

LGBT people, their families and friends, so that you may bring 

salvation to the ends of the earth." When LGBT people heard this, 

they were glad and praised the word of God; and many became 

believers. Thus the word of the Sovereign spread throughout the 

region. And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy 

Spirit.  *(This paragraph is based on Acts 13:44-52.)*



We have enjoyed revisiting the early mission of the church during 

this WOW conference, as described in the first fifteen chapters 

of Acts. Yet there is another mission field described in chapter 

16. At the beginning of this talk I mentioned one of two 

scriptures from Acts that I used when I first mentioned the 

inclusion of gay people in the church. The second is the story of 

Paul and Silas in jail, when the earthquake comes and unfastens 

their chains. The jailer, thinking his prisoners have escaped, 

prepares to kill himself. But Paul shouts out in a loud voice, 

"Do not harm yourself, for we are all here." I used the story to 

illustrate that, though LGBT people now may experience freedom, 

we still remain within the church. This may lead to the 

conversion of our jailers, our oppressors, as it does in the 

text. That's a further step of our mission, our evangelism. We 

proclaim our Good News of God's welcome not just to LGBT people, 

but to the whole church.



For those of us who come from a Reformed heritage, personal 

salvation is not what we seek. Personal salvation or liberation 

may even be selfish. We seek salvation for the world, and in this 

case, the church. The commonwealth of God is in our midst. WOW!



[BOX: Chris Glaser is the editor of *Open Hands*, the quarterly 

magazine of the Welcoming Congregations Movement. He is the 

author of seven books, including *Coming Out to God*, *The Word 

Is Out,* and *Coming Out as Sacrament*. Visit his website at 

www.ChrisGlaser.com.]



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



JOBS



                      Pastor/Head of Staff

             Clifton Presbyterian, Atlanta, Georgia

 

Small, welcoming, urban church with an active hospitality mission 

to homeless men, eagerly seeks a partner in our adventure of 

faith.  We are an intimate and inclusive More Light community 

of "open hearts, minds and doors where people with differences 

unite in Christ."  Our worship is creative and informal with lay 

leadership and an emphasis on music.  Our strongly held values 

include social justice and community.  Anticipate our CIF to be 

posted by Fall 2000. -- Clifton Presbyterian Church, PNC, 369 

Connecticut Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30307.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



EVENTS



November 2-3, 2000, Thursday-Friday. Covenant Network conference, 

Pittsburgh. Walter Brueggemann, professor of Old Testament at 

Columbia Theological Seminary, and William Placher, professor of 

religion at Wabash College, will keynote, addressing the topic of 

"Biblical Authority and the Church," the theme of the conference. 

They will be joined on the podium by Brian Blount, associate 

professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. For 

more information about the conference, call Pam Byers in the San 

Francisco office of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians at 415-

351-2196 or visit the organization's website at 

www.covenantnetwork.org.



November 3, 2000, Friday. University YMCA at the University of 

Illinois. Mel White speaking: Gay and Christian? Contact Rebecca 

Crummey for details: 217-337-1500.



November 8-12, 2000, Wednesday-Sunday, Janie Spahr visits 

Presbyterian Promise, Presbytery of Southern New England.



November 10-13, 2000, Friday-Monday. National Conference of 

Catholic Bishops. Soulforce Training, Lobbying, and Touring in 

D.C. (November 10-12). Silent Vigil, Press Conference, and Civil 

Disobedience (November 13). Watch webpage for details: 

http://www.soulforce.org. Contact KaraSpeltz@aol.com for details 

until the web page announcement is up.



December 1-3, Friday-Sunday. Rekindling the Flame: Fun, Romance, 

& Communication for Gay & Lesbian Couples. Led by Sharon 

Kleinberg & Patricia Zorn, "personal partners" and "therapists 

over 20 years.  Couples receive a 10% discount. Rowe 

Conference Center (affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist 

Association), Kings Hwy. Rd. Box 273, Rowe, MA 01367, 413-339-

4954 or 4216, fax 413-339-5728, email: Retreat@RoweCenter.org.



December 27-31, 2000, Wednesday-Sunday. Urbana Missions 2000.  

This is an *unofficial, unauthorized* call for mission-minded, 

born-gay, born-again Christian believers to attend Urbana 

Missions Week at the University of Illinois Campus, Urbana-

Champaign, IL.  All evangelical, fundamental, holiness, or 

pentecostal Gays are urged to be there among the 19,000 students, 

pastors and missionaries.  You can meet Christian workers from 

over 200 mission boards or denominations who are working in 800 

languages world-wide.  Register on-line: www.urbana.org, or 

write: Urbana 2000, Box 7895, Madison, WI 53707 -- Bro. Gale, Gay 

Fundamental Evangelical Christians, Station A, Box 2095, 

Champaign, IL 61825-2095.



January 11-14, 2001, Thursday-Sunday. Living Stones: The Life 

that Gay and Bisexual Men Breathe into Christian Community. Led 

by Dale English, Chris Glaser, and John McNeill. 6:30 p.m. Thurs. 

dinner through Sun. lunch. $305 ($155 registration deposit). 

Kirkridge Retreat and Study Center, 2495 Fox Gap Rd., Bangor, PA 

18013-6028, 610-588-1793, fax 610-588-8510, www.kirkridge.org.



January 14-21, 2001, Sunday-Sunday. The Thornfield Workshop on 

Sexuality for "Helping Professionals." Led by Alison Deming, 

Carol Dopp, Dick Cross, Brian McNaught, William Stayton, Pamela 

Wilson. In partnership with the Center for Sexuality & Religion. 

6:30 p.m. Sunday dinner through following Sun. breakfast. $1200. 

Kirkridge Retreat and Study Center, 2495 Fox Gap Rd., Bangor, PA 

18013-6026, 610-588-1793, fax 610-588-8510, www.kirkridge.org.



March 1-4, 2001, Thursday-Sunday. At the Crossroads She Takes Her 

Stand: Voices of Sophia Annual Gathering. Tucson, AZ. In a land 

of frontiers, or borders, of challenging boundaries and border 

skirmishes -- cultural, national, intellectual, personal, and 

spiritual -- the Gathering will celebrate the role of Sophia in 

these conflicts, confrontations, relationships, and crossings.  

Wisdom here illuminates boundaries as she redirects and redefines 

movement and understandings.  For information contact Mieke and 

Nancy, miekenan@datatone.com.



May 25-27, 2001, Friday-Sunday. Annual More Light Conference, 

Austin, TX.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



FEATURE STORIES



                       Limits on Ministry?



                   Irregular and Extraordinary



Going against a long-standing Presbyterian tradition of 

encouraging congregations, ministers, elders, deacons and members 

of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to be creative, even 

adventuresome, in reaching out to and nurturing all who seek and 

need God's salvation and blessing, the General Assembly, by the 

tiny margin of 17 votes, has voted to limit the scope of ministry 

by congregations and ministers.



Every presbytery will be voting on this proposed amendment to 

the constitution.



Here is come commentary and background.



                   Irregular and Extraordinary



                  by Harold M. Brockus, Pastor

                      Good Samaritan Church

                        Pinellas Park, FL



[The outreach and nurturing ministry of this More Light 

congregation inspired one of the overtures that resulted in the 

move to curtail ministry by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). -- 

JDA]



The 212th General Assembly voted 268-251 to send an amendment of 

the *Book of Order* (W-4.9000) to the presbyteries for a vote.  

The proponents of the original overtures intended to ban same-

sex unions.  What we have instead is a prohibition amendment that 

is profoundly un-Presbyterian.  If adopted, a wide range of 

ceremonies and events would be prohibited for pastors and local 

churches.



This amendment is "irregular and extraordinary."  That's what the 

General Assembly's Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) 

said when similar amendments were considered in 1993 and 1995.



"It is highly irregular and extraordinary" for the *Book of 

Order* to forbid a minister of the Word and Sacrament from 

certain activities ....  It is equally irregular and 

extraordinary for the *Book of Order* (G-10.0102) to mandate or 

forbid what a session can or cannot do with the congregation's 

facilities ....



Freedom of conscience and freedom of ministry are as Presbyterian 

as decency and good order.  The *Book of Order* grants 

permission; it does not forbid actions in ministry.



Ministers and sessions vow to serve their people with energy, 

intelligence, imagination and love.  Our tradition is to trust 

ministers, elders and deacons to determine how best to serve 

their congregations and communities.  This is a daunting yet 

joyful trust when ministering to single parents, widows and 

widowers, young heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples, 

victims of rape and abuse, physically and mentally challenged 

adults, and those who are dying.  Complex relationship matters 

often arise in these and other pastoral care situations.



What Presbyterian Church officers don't need are constitutional 

provisions to limit our ministries and pastoral care.  The *Book 

of Order* invokes a "rich variety of form, practice, language, 

nurture and service" (G-4.0401) in fulfillment of our ordination 

vows.



Jesus was harassed by those who wanted to limit his ministry.  

Paul was brought to trial in Jerusalem by the "circumcision 

party."  This prohibition amendment is foreign to our tradition 

of ministry guided by the Holy Spirit and shaped by the great 

commandment of love.



Every presbytery will vote on the proposed amendment 00-O before 

the next General Assembly in June 2001 (amendment Oh! for short, 

or perhaps 00-O, pronounced "uh-O!").  If you value the 

traditional Presbyterian freedom of church officers to make 

decisions locally and pastorally, urge your presbytery 

commissioners to vote "NO" on this "irregular and extraordinary" 

prohibition.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                  Responding to Amendment 00-O

                       Issues to Consider



                  by MLP Board Member Bear Ride

     with assistance of other MLP Board Members and Friends



Presbyteries now face the decision whether or not to amend the 

church's Constitution explicitly to forbid covenant blessings 

(Holy Unions) for same-sex covenantal life partners.   This 

unwise amendment would prematurely end a vigorous theological and 

pastoral discussion between good and faithful Presbyterians and 

will require that celebrations of covenant commitments will 

become an unreasonable and unfortunate litmus test for ministry.



Our denomination has historically placed trust in its elected 

church officers to exercise local ministry and mission wisely.  

Amendment 00-O, were it to be adopted, would radically undermine 

this tradition of confidence in the integrity of our ordained 

leadership.



The language of Amendment 00-O has wide-ranging implications for 

ministers, church officers, and congregations that go well beyond 

limiting their freedom with regard to the pastoral and 

congregational care of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender 

church members.  The following thoughts are offered as a basis 

for discernment and discussion as presbyteries prepare to vote.





              The Wording of the Proposed Amendment

                      & Where It Would Fit



"Shall W-4.9007 be added to the *Book of Order* to read as 

follows [text to be added to the *Directory for Worship*]:



"Scripture and our Confessions teach that God's intention for  all 

people is to live either in fidelity within the covenant of 

marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness.  

Church property shall not be used for, and church officers shall 

not take part in conducting, any ceremony or event that 

pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes 

the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent 

with God's intention as expressed in the preceding sentence."



If approved by 87 presbyteries, this amendment will be added to 

the *Directory for Worship* immediately following the paragraphs 

discussing marriage -- in the chapter entitled "Ordering Worship 

for Special Services."  This chapter outlines ways in which the 

church recognizes or celebrates "special occasions and 

transitions in the life of the church's members" such as:



     - Services of Welcoming and Reception;



     - Commissioning of Specific Acts of Discipleship;



     - Ordination and Installation;



     - Transition in Ministry;



     - Censure and Restoration;



     - Recognition of Service to the Community;



     - Marriage;



     - Services on the Occasion of Death;



     - Services of Acceptance and Reconciliation.





                       The Purpose of the

                     *Directory for Worship*



The *Directory for Worship* is the second section in the *Book of 

Order*, following the *Form of Government*.  As stated in its 

preface,



     "This *Directory for Worship* reflects the conviction that 

     the life of the Church is one, and that its worship, 

     witness, and service are inseparable. The theology is based 

     on the Bible, is instructed by the *Book of Confessions* of 

     the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and seeks to be sensitive 

     to ecumenical discussion.  ...  This directory suggests 

     possibilities for worship, invites development in worship 

     and encourages continuing reform of worship.  It sets 

     standards and presents norms for the conduct of worship in 

     the life of congregations and governing bodies of the 

     Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  As the constitutional 

     document ordering the worship of the Presbyterian Church 

     (U.S.A.), this *Directory for Worship* shall be 

     authoritative for this church."





                   The Use of Precise Language

                       in the Constitution



"Shall" and "is to be/are to be" signify practice that is 

mandated. "Should" signifies practice that is strongly 

recommended. "Is appropriate" signifies practice that is commended 

as suitable. "May" signifies practice that is permissible but not 

required" (Preface, *Book of Order*).



                 Five Issues Related to Marriage

               Where the Constitution Uses "Shall"

     (See the *Directory for Worship*, W-4.9000: Marriage).



1. The minister shall provide for a discussion with 

the couple including:



     - The nature of their Christian commitment (at least one 

     must be a professing Christian);



     - The legal requirements of the state;



     - The privileges and responsibilities of Christian marriage;



     - The nature and form of the service;



     - The vows and commitments the couple will make;



     - The nature of these commitments to their lives of 

     discipleship;



     - The resources of faith of the Christian community to 

     assist them to fulfill these marriage commitments.



2. Following these discussions, should the minister determine 

that it is unwise that the couple marry, the minister shall 

assure the couple of the "church's continuing concern" for them 

and not conduct the ceremony.



3. During the marriage service the couple shall declare their 

intention to enter into Christian marriage and shall exchange 

vows of love and faithfulness.



4. Prayers shall be offered for the couple, the communities which 

support them, and for all who seek to live in faithfulness.



5. In the name of the triune God the minister shall declare 

publicly that the woman and man are  now joined in marriage.





*With Amendment 00-O Two Additional Shalls Would Be Added:*



6. Church property shall not be used for ...



7. and church officers shall not take part in conducting any 

ceremony or event that pronounces the blessing of God upon any 

relationship that is inconsistent with God's intention of 

fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness.





               Enforcement and Wider Implications



Should "The Ministry Gag Order" (00-O) be approved, its plain and 

common sense interpretation could lead the church into new and 

uncharted territory with reference to the policies and practices 

that govern ministers and churches in relation to how they carry 

out their ministry and mission. Many interpreters assert that a 

fair and even-handed enforcement of 00-O will mean that:



     - If the minister has not counseled the couple in all areas 

     mentioned in W-4.9000 (see above),



     - If at least one of the partners is not a professing 

     Christian (including engaged children and grandchildren of 

     active members of the congregation),



     - If the minister believes that the marriage may be unwise,



     - If the required portions of the traditional Presbyterian 

     wedding format are not included,



     - If the declaration in the name of the triune God is not 

     pronounced (even in interfaith services),



     - If the couple is not living chastely at the time of their 

     marriage ceremony,



then disciplinary charges will be filed against these ministers 

and sessions in like manner as those who conduct commitment 

services for their same-sex congregational members.  Assuming a 

fair and equitable application of 00-O, charges against pastors 

and sessions will abound.





                 The Amendment Abridges Freedom

                of Conscience of Church Officers



Presbyterians of good faith and conscience are deeply and 

passionately divided on the issue before us.  Conflict and 

controversy surrounding the place of gay, lesbian, bisexual and 

transgender Presbyterian Church members has existed for decades.  

As noted by recent cases before the General Assembly's Permanent 

Judicial Commission, radical inconsistencies exist within the 

Constitution itself with reference to church membership and full 

inclusion.  Amendment 00-O would make matters worse.  In the 

search to form a reasonable resolution for those who disagree, 

mutual forbearance must be restored.  This is an issue for 

prayerful and loving discussion.  Judicial cases cannot help but 

create a hopelessly adversarial situation -- to the great 

detriment of our church.



Since what a person believes about sexual orientation has not 

been declared an "essential tenet of faith" in our denomination, 

it is of the utmost importance that we not bind the consciences 

nor practical pastoral activity of any officer in the church.  

Adoption of this "Ministry Gag Order" amendment, however, would 

do just that.





               Amendment 00-O and Its Implications

                    for Families and Friends



Church officers with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender -- or 

non-married heterosexual -- children, grandchildren, and other 

relatives and friends could well find themselves in the untenable 

position of having to choose between blessing their loved ones in 

life-long covenantal relationships or following the new demands 

placed on them by proposed Amendment 00-O.





                     "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

                        Is Not an Option



Many interpreters of this proposed amendment assume that 00-O 

requires that all heterosexual couples presenting themselves to 

Presbyterian clergy for marriage and/or who seek to celebrate 

their wedding day on Presbyterian property be chaste at the time 

of the service.  If this is the case (to be determined later 

through the judicial processes of the church) clergy and sessions 

that intend to offer the hospitality of the church and its 

ministry for these joyous occasions would then have to inquire 

into the current sexual activity of each couple.  If the couple 

is not chaste and refuses to be so at the time of the marriage, 

Presbyterian officers would be unable to invoke God's blessing in 

such a service.  The church's ministry of hospitality could not 

be extended and the couple would have to contemplate other 

contexts in which to celebrate their commitment.





           Amendment 00-O Will Have a Chilling Effect

                  on Congregational Evangelism



If this amendment were to pass, Evangelism committees should be 

careful in inviting same-sex couples into church membership, lest 

those couples desire that their church home provide a context 

wherein God's blessing on them might be sought.  Worse, sessions 

would have to take care in approving for church membership same-

sex couples and non-married heterosexual couples, lest that imply 

giving "the approval of the church."  In fact, all congregational 

outreach strategies would require re-evaluation in light of this 

Ministry Gag Order Amendment.





                   Other Questions to Consider

                 Before Voting on Amendment 00-O



1. Should ordained officers of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 

be prohibited by church law from invoking God's blessing?



Scripture and our Reformed tradition teach that God is sovereign 

in all of God's work, including those whom God chooses to bless.  

The church would gravely err and fall into extreme hubris were it 

to call upon its people to refuse to pray God's blessing on any 

part of God's own Creation.



2. What are the implications of binding the authority of Sessions 

to direct the use of church property?



The Constitution states that the "session is responsible for the 

mission and government of the particular church.  It therefore 

has the responsibility and power ... to provide for the management 

of the property of the church, including determination of the 

appropriate use of church buildings and facilities" (G-10.0102o).



In the rush to exclude the possibility that Presbyterians might 

choose to bless the union of two of their own, this proposed 

amendment would abridge the basic right of the session to choose 

what is right for its mission in its community.  What session's 

right might be the next to be abridged?



3. What are the implications of binding the authority of the 

pastor to determine his or her pastoral responsibility?



The Constitution asserts that all baptized members "are entitled 

to pastoral care" (G-5.0201) as it helps pastors to determine 

how to minister faithfully (G-6.0107a).  Were 00-O to be added to 

our church's Constitution, church officers might find that they 

were prohibited from performing sensitive pastoral functions, 

such as baptizing the child of an unmarried heterosexual couple 

or officiating at a funeral for a same-sex partnered member that 

has died from AIDS -- lest these pastoral actions be interpreted 

as pronouncing a "blessing."



4. What other ministries of the church and its officers would 

Amendment 00-O restrict?



Because the language of "The Ministry Gag Order" is both vague 

and sweeping, it is not clear what else will become a chargeable 

offense. Simple and basic welcoming ministries to faithful gay, 

lesbian, bisexual and transgender Presbyterians and outreach to 

the wider community are difficult in the best of our present 

circumstances.  Were 00-O to be adopted, if a session were to 

determine that a local chapter of PFLAG (Parents, Families and 

Friends of Lesbians and Gays) is consistent with the ministry of 

the congregation and were to offer meeting space, that is a 

probable transgression.  Other organizations such as 12 Step 

programs with special outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual and 

transgender members might be banished from church property in 

that their organizations' goals are in support of healthy 

relationships among people condemned by Amendment 00-O.



5. What is the most important thing one can do to work for 

the defeat of 00-O?



     - Discover the date that your presbytery will discuss and 

     vote on this proposed amendment.



     - Study, prepare and organize well in advance of this 

     meeting.



     - Get out the vote!



Adoption of Amendment 00-O would needlessly cast mean-spirited 

doubt on the integrity of our duly elected, ordained and 

installed church officers. Surely we can trust our local sessions 

and pastors to exercise wisdom and discernment in the care of 

their congregations and ministries.  Let us remain faithful to 

our Presbyterian tradition of basic support and confidence in our 

congregations, sessions and ministers to provide caring pastoral 

outreach in their community.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                        Same-Sex Marriage



For background on issues of same-sex relationships, regardless of 

what they may be called, we are pleased to share Jack Rogers' 

address concerning same-sex marriage in the context of the recent 

California Initiative to limit marriage to heterosexuals. -- JDA



                 Schloming Memorial Lectureship

     California Limitation of Marriage Act ballot initiative

                  Pasadena Presbyterian Church

                       January 7, 2000 AD



                         by Jack Rogers

       Vice President & Professor of Theology (1990-2000)

               San Francisco Theological Seminary



Introduction



I am honored to participate in the first Schloming Memorial 

Lectureship.  I very much appreciate the manner in which Editor 

Howard Weaver has laid out for us the background of the March 7 

ballot measure we are discussing.  I resonate with many of the 

concerns that my friend Professor Newton Malony has ably 

articulated.  I warmly second his description of our friendship.  

I oppose the ballot initiative and value this opportunity to give 

reasons for my opposition.



No state in the United States recognizes marriage except between 

a man and a woman. There is currently no federal statue that 

includes sexual orientation in civil rights law.  Why then do we 

need this law?  This new law appears to me to be a pre-emptive 

strike to prevent same-sex couples and their children from 

receiving the civil benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.



                   What Constitutes Marriage?



I want to begin my reflection with the question: What constitutes 

a marriage?  Let me tell you a fascinating story I learned from a 

Jesuit historian of colonial Virginia named Tom Buckley.  In the 

pre-Civil War South, slaves could not legally marry.  Yet they 

had their own rituals for recognizing fidelity and commitment 

which they called marriage.  Some of these slaves, who in their 

eyes were married, had been baptized and were members of the 

church.  What was the church to do?  Presbyterians were among the 

first to wrestle with this issue.



In 1791, the Presbytery of Hanover in Virginia solved the problem 

by reflecting on the nature of marriage.  It determined that 

marriage was constituted "in the sight of God" and "by the mutual 

consent of the Parties."  Therefore if slaves lived a Christian 

life of fidelity to one another and to their children they could 

be accepted into the church without the legal formality of 

marriage.



The presbytery then extended this logic to the issue of divorce.  

If a couple were forcibly separated by the sale or removal of one 

of the spouses, the remaining slave could take "another 

companion" as if "the other were dead" and remain in the church. 

This idea of the "moral equivalent" of death was later applied to 

the issue of divorce in the Presbyterian Church as a whole.  In 

the 1950s the Presbyterian Churches North and South amended the 

Westminster Confession to allow divorced and remarried persons to 

be office bearers in the church.  It was done on the grounds that 

"Anything that kills love and deals death to the spirit of the 

union" is the moral equivalent of death.



It seems to me that we need to reflect seriously on the notion of 

the moral equivalent of marriage.  To be perfectly honest, I 

don't care what you call it -- marriage, domestic partnership, 

holy union.  It is not the form I am interested in but the 

function. It seems to me that it is in the best interest of the 

state, and of the church, to recognize and encourage persons who 

are willing to make life-long commitments to each other and to 

children they raise.  It also seems to me that people who exhibit 

such fidelity and stability deserve the same benefits that 

heterosexual people do who enter into a marriage.



There are many parallels in history to our present attempts to 

exclude a certain class of people from the rights and benefits of 

marriage.  In 1948 the California Supreme Court overturned a law 

barring marriage between people of different races.  As recently 

as 1948, forty of the then 48 states banned interracial marriage. 

The notion that marriage was only for people of the same race has 

been a deeply ingrained bias in American society. But we have 

changed our minds.  Most people would concede that the change has 

been beneficial to society.



Marriage has also defined in such a way as to deny women their 

full civil and human rights.  Into the early twentieth century, 

women could not own property.  If a woman inherited money from 

her family it became the property of her husband.  Women were not 

allowed to vote, of course, until 1920.  Higher education was 

denied women.  The normal state for women was to marry and bear 

children.  They were to be silent partners, allowing all public 

functions to their husbands.  We have changed our minds.  Most 

people would concede that the change has been for the benefit of 

society.



                     The Purpose of Marriage



Over time, the Presbyterian Church has changed its view of the 

purpose of marriage. Into the 1930s, the denomination emphasized 

the public good and saw the primary purposes of marriage as 

bearing children, creating a family, and supporting stability in 

society.  In 1930 the Presbyterian Church allowed women to 

become elders.  In that same year, however, a major report to the 

General Assembly on Marriage insisted that motherhood was the 

proper goal for women.  It encouraged colleges to give more 

attention to "the science of homemaking" and expressed concern 

about the use of contraceptives since the purpose of marriage was 

the procreation of children.



In 1931, a committee of the Federal Council of Churches 

recommended that parents consider using artificial means of birth 

control.  The Southern Presbyterian Church, in indignation, 

withdrew from the Council.  The PCUSA remained a member but 

advised the council to "hold its peace on questions of delicacy 

and morality."



Three decades later, the Presbyterian Church had clarified its 

attitude about the primary purpose of marriage.  By 1960, 

Presbyterians had adopted the posture that the primary purpose of 

marriage was personal fulfillment.  It was for the mutual 

comfort, encouragement, and up building of the persons involved.  

Therefore birth control could be accepted.  In 1960, both 

Presbyterian denominations issued a joint statement approving of 

birth control.



Recent efforts to limit the benefits of marriage to heterosexual 

couples are grounded in the older view that the primary purpose 

of marriage is the procreation of children.  In the recent Vermont 

case regarding the rights of homosexual couples, the Vermont 

Assistant Attorney General Eve Jacobs-Carnahan, defended limiting 

the right of marriage to that between a man and a woman by 

arguing that the purpose of marriage was biological procreation.



The groups pushing hardest for passage of the Definition of 

Marriage act in California are the Mormon Church and the Roman 

Catholic Church.  The Mormon Church is alleged to have 

contributed 40% of the funds toward recent marriage-limitation 

initiatives in other states.  Both the Mormons and the Roman 

Catholics still deny women full participation in the life of 

their churches.  The primary purpose of marriage for them is 

still for women to bear and care for children and for men to 

exercise public leadership.  They have a vested interest in 

defining marriage in such a way as to maintain their limited and 

limiting vision of the purpose of marriage.



                The State of Marriage in the U.S.



Let us take a realistic look, for a moment, at the state of 

marriage in the United States. In the last one hundred years, the 

United States has gone from being the most marrying society in 

the world to the one with the most divorces and unwed mothers. 

Among all the industrialized nations, the United States has the 

highest rate of teen-age pregnancy and teen-age childbirth despite 

having the highest rate of teen-age abortions.  An estimated one-

third of American children live without a biological father 

present.



Cohabiting, living together without being married, has risen from 

430,000 couples in 1960 to 4.1 million couples in 1997. While 

some view living together as a sort of trial marriage, 40 percent 

of those cohabiting do not marry. We live in an era of family 

disruption that leads sociologists to talk of an emerging culture 

of "serial marriage" and "non-marriage."



**None of these alarming trends has been caused by homosexuals who 

want to marry.  None of these trends will be solved by denying 

same-sex couples domestic partnership rights.**  In a culture of 

non-marriage it is very ironic that we are spending great amounts 

of money and energy in trying to prevent people from marrying who 

want to do so in a way that would contribute to the stability of 

society.  Stanford Professor of family law Michael Wald 

contends that the proposed ballot amendment could cause emotional 

and financial harm to an estimated 100,000 children who are being 

raised by same-sex couples in California.



                     Theology of Marriage



Now we need to think theologically.  I recently reviewed a book 

by conservative scholar Stanley Grenz entitled *Welcoming But 

Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality*.  In it 

he states that "in the end, the controversy over homosexuality 

involves our understanding of humanness."  What makes a human 

being truly human?



If asked to say, without reflecting on it, what makes a human 

different from an animal, most people will answer: reason, the 

ability to think rationally.  That is the Western cultural 

tradition, rooting back in the philosophy of Aristotle in the 3rd 

century before Christ.



In Christian theology the doctrine of the image of God in humans 

defines what makes a human being truly, fully human.  Roman 

Catholics follow their great Medieval Theologian, Thomas Aquinas, 

who, following Aristotle, said that the image of God in humans is 

rationality.  Aquinas and his followers also shared the 

Aristotelian assumption that women are less rational than men. 

Unfortunately, Protestant theologians followed that same lead 

into the 1940s.  When this theory is applied to the family it 

becomes clear that man's virtue is to rule and woman's virtue is 

to obey.



In the twentieth century, Swiss theologian Karl Barth shifted the 

emphasis of the image of God from rationality to the relationship 

between male and female. Barth, and those following him, make an 

argument from the created order.  Barth said: "Man is directed to 

woman and woman to man ... this mutual orientation constitutes the 

being of each."  From this assertion conservative Protestants 

draw the conclusion that monogamous, male-female marriage is the 

exemplification of the image of God in humanity.  For this 

Barthian view of the image of God, now embraced by conservatives, 

true humanness is known only in the male/female relationship.



Whenever we have located the image of God in some human capacity 

we have been wrong, and had to repent.  When we defined white 

skin as constituting full humanness and defined black people as 

only three-fifths human we were wrong.  When we defined humanness 

as rationality and claimed that women lacked that capacity, we 

were wrong.



Biblically, Jesus Christ is the image of God (Col.1:15; II Cor. 

4:4).  Our unmarried savior, Jesus Christ, was a fully human 

person.  Jesus Christ was like us in all things, save one -- he 

was without sin.  Jesus Christ is the image of God because he 

alone perfectly reflected, or imaged, God in his unbroken 

obedience to God.  Jesus continually and perfectly imaged, or 

reflected God in his person, whereas we do so only sporadically 

and partially.



The Gospel, the Good News, is that all people can have a 

relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  To be in the image 

of God is to reflect Christ's presence in our lives by living in 

faithfulness to God.  Thus, the image of God, what makes us truly 

human, is not a capacity only embodied in some classes of people 

but denied to others. To be truly human, to be fully in God's 

image, is possible for all, black and white, male and female, gay 

and straight.



Some will try to carry the argument further, by arguing that 

homosexuality is a chosen and sinful condition that precludes 

faithfulness to God.  It has recently become popular to argue 

that if homosexuals just loved Jesus enough they could become 

heterosexual. In the summer of 1998, 15 conservative political 

organizations calling themselves a National Pro-Family Forum 

began a $500,000 "Truth in Love" advertising campaign dedicated 

to promoting the notion that homosexuals can change to become 

heterosexuals.  The ads featured Reggie White, a black pro 

football player, Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, and 

former gay and lesbian persons who are now married.



Most people will admit that no one knows the cause of 

homosexuality.  There may be a range of homosexual propensity 

from fully same-sex oriented to only slightly so.  Homosexuals 

can certainly change their behavior. That is amply attested by 

the fact that so many homosexuals married and had children in 

their attempt to be heterosexual.  There is abundant anecdotal 

evidence of gay and lesbian people who wanted to change and did 

everything possible, short of suicide, to try to conform to the 

social expectations of the majority society.  Most could not do 

so.  To claim that the failure of Christian homosexuals to become 

heterosexual is due to their failure to love and obey God is a 

form of bearing false witness against our neighbor.



                 Marriage: The State's Concerns



Perhaps I digress. We are here to discuss what we should do, not 

as members of the church, but as citizens of the state.  What are 

the proper concerns of the state with regard to marriage?  The 

state is concerned with the stability of society.  It has an 

interest in public health, the prevention of disease.  It 

certainly has an obligation to protect the well-being of children.  

None of these proper interests are enhanced by excluding a class 

of its citizens from the state's concern.  All of these concerns 

of the state would be enhanced by allowing a "moral equivalent" 

to marriage for gay and lesbian couples who wish to make a public 

commitment of their covenant with each other and their commitment 

to care for children.



The author of Proposition 22 is William "Pete" Knight, a 

California state senator (R -- Palmdale).  David Knight is his 

son.  David is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and flew 

fighter planes in the Gulf War.  His father made many speeches 

expressing his pride and love for his patriotic son.  David is 

now a cabinetmaker who lives a quiet life.



Three years ago David told his father that he was gay and had a 

life partner named Joe.  At that moment his relationship with his 

father ended.  They have never discussed David's homosexuality or 

that fact that Senator Knight's gay brother died of AIDS three 

years ago.  David commented for the press:



     "My father seems to want things to remain as he has always 

     known things to be -- without change.  He can't seem to 

     understand that we as a society are growing and allowing 

     more people the opportunity to share in the ultimate dream 

     of happiness.  We are expressing our own family values based 

     on the same basic principles that he so fervently protects.



                            *Addendum

        After California adopted the ban on gay marriage*



The Vermont Supreme Court decided differently.  It's decision, 

rendered on December 20, 1999, focused on function, not form.  It 

said: "We hold that the State is constitutionally required to 

extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections 

that flow from marriage under Vermont law."  The Court did not 

decide whether to call the relationship of committed couples 

marriage or domestic partnership.  It was clear, however, that 

whatever you call such relationships, the state must "afford all 

Vermonters the common benefits, protections, and security of the 

law."



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



             Racial/Ethnic Welcome Also on the Line



LGBT folk have long known that churches claiming to "welcome 

everyone" usually don't really mean to include LGBT folks, unless 

they actually say the words!  The same is true for people of 

color.  Recognizing this truth, our *Book of Order* has long 

contained the following language:



"The congregation shall welcome all persons who respond in trust 

and obedience to God's grace in Jesus Christ and desire to become 

part of the membership and ministry of his Church.  **No person 

shall be denied membership because of race, ethnic origin, 

worldly condition, or any other reason not related to profession 

of faith.**  Each member must seek the grace of openness in 

extending the fellowship of Christ to all persons.  Failure to do 

so constitutes a rejection of Christ himself and causes a scandal 

to the gospel."



But the 212th G.A. has voted to remove references to "race, 

ethnic origin, worldly condition."  This proposed change in the 

constitution -- to remove the mandate for an explicit welcome to 

people of color, as well as people with certain "worldly 

conditions" (such as "questionable" economic status) will be 

voted on by all the presbyteries before the next G.A.  If 

adopted, this change will put our church squarely in the corner 

with those folks who smile and say, "oh, but we welcome 

everyone!" -- but do they?  Usually not!



In this context, here's a great statement from people of color in 

the United Methodist Church, which addresses the welcome not only 

of people of color, but also LGBT folk. -- JDA



             Statement of United Methodists of Color

                  for a Fully Inclusive Church 



We are United Methodist men and women, who love God and know that 

we are loved by God. We are United Methodists who celebrate the 

God-given gifts of our ethnicity, our gender, and our sexuality. 

We are United Methodists who not only acknowledge the historic 

racism of the church, but also the subtler present day forms of 

racism and division in our midst. We know this to be true, for we 

have experienced it as people of color in the church we love. 

Indeed, our love for the promise of the church has placed us on 

the forefront of moving the United Methodist Church to a more 

inclusive place. We are people who have experienced the Biblical 

story of the *anawim*, "those who have been silenced." Our struggle 

has been to claim our voice and to transform the church we love 

into a place where the silenced are heard. We affirm that it has 

been through this struggle, when the church has lived out the 

gospel of love and inclusion, that the realm of God's justice has 

been made manifest. 



We remember all too well those voices who said racism was not 

present in the church. We remember those voices who wielded 

scripture as a support for division and inequality. We remember 

the voices who pled patience to inequality by claiming that 

justice was gradual. We remember the time when silence in the 

presence of racism was the church's greatest sin. 



As persons of color and diverse ethnic backgrounds, we can never 

forget our long history of struggling to not be erased by a 

beloved church where silence and spiritual dismemberment were 

theologically institutionalized. Scripture is the Word of Life, 

but we intuitively know the history of its use as the Word of 

Death, to support the sins of colonialism, slavery, racism, and 

sexism. 



We all know Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people. Seen 

or unseen, they are vital members of our communities. For many of 

us, they have been our invisible neighbors, sons and daughters, 

brothers and sisters, cherished members in the community of life. 

Indeed, we recognize that throughout history, our church and our 

communities have benefited from the gifts of Gay, Lesbian, 

Bisexual, Transgender people. But in return for their gifts, we 

have given these brothers and sisters silence or scorn. When they 

have asked for their name and acknowledgment of their place as 

worthy members in the family of God, they have been answered with 

continued overt or subtle forms of spiritual and physical 

violence. 



We can not and will not deny that we recognize in the experiences 

of our Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender brothers and sisters 

the resonance of our own journeys as people of color in the 

church. We see the truth in the words of Coretta Scott King when 

she says that the struggles for inclusion of Gay, Lesbian, 

Bisexual and Transgender people are part of the "continuing 

justice movement" for which Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his 

life, a movement that "thrives on unity and inclusion, not 

division and exclusion." 



We are called to bear witness to the need for our beloved church 

to do good by its Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender brothers 

and sisters. Remembering the voices that told us to be silent or 

passive, to give up our culture and history in order to be 

accepted by the dominant white society and church, we reject the 

idea that Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender people need to 

reshape themselves or be "cured" in order to fit in to the 

dominant heterosexual society and church. Our own experience of 

silence and erasure has taught us that abandoning identity is 

spiritual violence. 



Remembering the voices who have told us to wait on justice, we 

dispute the notion that issues of race and nationality are so 

overwhelming that to fight for another issue of injustice is to 

water down the movement. For the storehouses of God's justice do 

not run low, and we must recognize the interconnectedness of all 

forms of oppression if we are ever to achieve the Kingdom. The 

realm of God is at hand. 



We acknowledge that there may be differences of opinion among us, 

but this does not require that we wait on justice. 



- We will not wait on racism. 



- We will not wait on sexism. 



- We will not wait on neo-colonialism. 



- We will not wait on heterosexism. 



Inaction is impossible. For in the current climate, where 

difference is often answered with death, the church is either an 

instrument of peace, or an instrument of violence. The United 

Methodist Church must act boldly to end further injury to the 

Body of Christ. 



In the spirit of Justice that has historically called us to move 

towards wholeness, we prayerfully call the church to 

accountability. -- Rev. Gil Caldwell, African American; Dan Vera, 

Cuban-American; Rev. Taka Ishii, Japanese-American; Inday Day, 

Filipina-American; Mark Miller, African American; Eun Sang Lee, 

Korean-American; Rev. Minerva G. Carcao, Hispanic; Rev. Ted 

Lockhart, African American; Nestor Gerente, Filipino; Jorge 

Lockward, Dominican Republic; Barbara Ricks Thompson, African 

American; Rev. Dean S.H.Yamamoto, Japanese American; Scott E. 

Manning, African American; Rev. Ariel Ferrari, Hispanic; Rev. 

Carol Youngbird-Holt, Native American; Christine L. Rembert, 

African-American/Caucasian; Rev. Yvonne Lee, Korean-American; 

Rev. Eric Smith, African American; Rev. Edwina Burton, African 

American; Rev. Sione Tukutau, Tongan American; Rev. Stephen Koc 

Jan Lee, Chinese American; Rev. Nobuaki Hanaoka, Japanese 

American; Rev. Alpha Goto, Japanese American; Rev. Lydia E. Lebrn 

Rivera, Puerto Rican; Rev. Wesley Yamaka, Japanese-American; Rev. 

Hidemi Ito, Japanese American; Rev. Willard A. Williams, African 

American; Rev. Charlotte Pridgen-Randolph, African American; Rev. 

Wesley Williams, African American; Rev. Benjamin Abrahams, 

African American; Rev. Luis S. Reyes, Puerto Rican; Bob Smith, 

African American; Rev. Gel Samson, Filipino; Rev. Traci West, 

African American; Lori M. Magistrado, Filipina-American; Rev. 

Estan Cueto, Filipino; Rev. Keith Inouye, Japanese American; Rev. 

Amy C. Wake, Japanese American; Rev. Lloyd Wake, Japanese 

American; Rev. Toshi Yamamoto, Japanese American; Rev. Renae 

Extrum-Fernandez, Hispanic.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



PRESBYTERIAN PARTNERSHIP OF CONSCIENCE



                         Being Partners

         

Meeting in the ice and snow of Rochester, New York, in January of 

1997, twenty Presbyterian Stated Clerks, lawyers and "polity 

wonks" assembled to discuss the constitutional and personal 

implication of Amendment B.  Thus began a national and 

coordinated strategy.



That All May Freely Serve, More Light Presbyterians, Shower of 

Stoles, The Witherspoon Society, Semper Reformanda and individual 

friends created an umbrella organization -- Presbyterian 

Partnership of Conscience.  Our specific goal continues to work 

to fight the heresy of Amendment B and to support all who, by 

virtue of conscience and good faith, find themselves facing the 

judicial threat of this new church law.



The slippery slope of exclusion that began in 1978 (Definitive 

Guidance) continues to pick up momentum.  This year we face the 

perfidious Amendment 00-O ("The Ministry Gag Order").   Were this 

amendment to pass the majority of presbyteries, Presbyterian 

pastors would no longer be free to "conduct" services that 

"invoke God's blessing" on any union other that those that 

reflect "God's intention" for chastity in singleness and fidelity 

in marriage (a thinly disguised anti same-sex union action).  

Also, sessions will be forbidden to determine the use of church 

property for celebrations of life-long covenantal commitment.



The Presbyterian Partnership of Conscience is alive and well and 

working closely with our "parent" progressive Presbyterian 

organizations -- understanding that this is a crucial year.  In 

Louisville this summer General Assembly will decide issues 

related to Amendment B and will receive the report of the vote on 

the Ministry Gag Order.



We have much to do!  The Presbyterian Partnership of Conscience 

is beginning right now to organize hundreds of Presbyterians to 

come to the Assembly to "bear witness" in many ways.   

Scholarships for travel and housing must be made available for 

our young and retired Presbyterian colleagues and friends -- and 

others alike in need -- that they might make this crucial trek and 

witness.



So please consider making an "extra mile" contribution to the 

effort!  All gifts (any size) are welcome!  Send those monetary 

gifts to:  



The Presbyterian Partnership of Conscience

c/o Bear Ride

1680 N. Holliston Ave.

Pasadena, CA  91104.



For more information on the PPC contact the volunteer coordinator 

of the Partnership of Conscience, Bear Ride, at bears@usc.edu.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



PARENTS



                    The Homosexuality Debate

                    (A Parent's Perspective)



Our story is not unlike that of many families who are dealing 

with the homosexuality issue.  We pray that by sharing this 

difficult time in our lives, it serves in some way to broaden 

your own experience and that you are encouraged to continue in a 

positive dialogue.  We are the proud parents of three wonderful 

children; one of which, by the grace of God, is gay.  We have 

been married for over thirty years and are both ordained as 

Elders in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Our relationship with 

God has been an important part of our lives for as long as either 

of us can remember.





                    The Startling Realization



One evening, after several months of prayer and soul searching, 

our son was finally able to garner enough courage to tell us that 

he was "gay."  We were grossly unprepared to hear those words and 

although we sought to reconfirm our love to him that evening, our 

words were more judgmental than we would like to admit.



When a gay child comes out of the closet it is not uncommon for 

their parents to go in.  This was true in our case.  The reason 

for this behavior was primarily fear.  Fear for our child's 

physical safety and fear of rejection by the extended family and 

friends.  This fear is debilitating and becomes a serious 

obstacle within even the healthiest of families.  Parents also 

deal with a tremendous amount of guilt -- Guilt because perhaps 

you failed as a parent -- Guilt because you were not there for 

them when they were emotionally abused by others -- And guilt 

because you were ignorant of their needs as they felt more and 

more estranged from society.



There are at least two things that help many parents to 

eventually come out of the closet.  One is an increased knowledge 

of the realities of homosexuality, which in turn breaks down 

stereotypes and biases.  The second is an inability to remain 

silent as you become increasingly aware of the rigid intolerance 

many people have towards sexual minorities.  It took more than 

two years before we were prepared to share about our son with 

close friends and family.  We are happy to say that most of these 

people remain very supportive.



As we examined our own unrealized prejudices, we were also forced 

to re-examine our concept of Christianity.  It was the process of 

trying to understand our son's "choice" between his faith and 

homosexuality, which helped us gain a deeper understanding of our 

relationship with God.  We learned how truly difficult it is to 

filter out cultural biases from theology.  As a result, our 

relationships with God, our son, and long-time friends have all 

grown stronger, but at the same time we found ourselves feeling 

estranged from our home church.





                 The Difficult Road To Learning



Initially we did not discuss the issue with our pastor since he 

had been verbally critical of homosexuals from the pulpit, 

comparing them with alcoholics and deviants of society.  In the 

church library we found books that primarily addressed 

homosexuality from a religious fundamentalist perspective.  These 

books quoted surveys of prison populations from the 1940s, the 

statistical validity of which is not even recognized with today's 

collective body of knowledge.  They told us that homosexuality 

was a mental illness, that all gay people are promiscuous, that 

most come from non-functional families and typically have a lack 

of religious training.  But this stereotype did not fit our 

family experience.  It became obvious that we would have to 

continue our search elsewhere if we were going to be able to 

relate to our son's experience.  So we began to study.  We 

prayed.  We read Scripture.  We sought the wisdom of theologians 

and scientists.  We listened to the voices of tradition and of 

friends.



Our son helped us gain a connection with PFLAG (Parents, Family & 

Friends of Lesbians and Gays).  This gave us the opportunity to 

better understand the homosexual point of view.  We were 

introduced to a community of people that we had previously 

ignored but would soon come to love.  We will always be grateful 

for the open, non-judgmental discussions and the information that 

PFLAG helped us to gain.



Eventually we did spend time with our pastor.  Unfortunately this 

was not a positive experience for us.  Even though our pastor 

expressed his love for our family, he was unable to relate to the 

profoundness of our situation.  Perhaps the most important thing 

that came from those meetings was the fact that he was able to 

put a significant face from the congregation on the homosexual 

issue.  It is particularly disheartening to us that he continues 

to provide leadership in the campaign against inclusiveness of 

homosexuals in our denomination.  As the gap between us widened 

it became impossible for us to give credence to his sermons, 

finally reaching a point were we could no longer sense the Holy 

Spirit when entering the sanctuary of that church.



As we continued to investigate the issue of "choice," we learned 

there is general agreement in the scientific community that 

sexuality is forged at an incredibly early age, long before 

puberty.  We also learned that the American Psychiatric 

Association removed homosexuality from its list of abnormalities 

in 1973.  These realities strongly support the position that none 

of us actually "chooses" our sexual orientation.  Our "choice" is 

whether to honor what is naturally us or to honor what is natural 

to the majority of society.  Can any of us heterosexuals pinpoint 

the time in our lives when we made the "choice" to be straight?  

Our son put it in perspective for us when he said, "Why would I 

'choose' a life of discrimination and pain if I really had a 

'choice'?"



Homosexuality is a many faceted issue. False stereotypes and 

unwarranted prejudices make "coming out" (for the individual and 

the family) an extremely painful and emotional process.  As 

parents we had an additional issue to deal with.  After finding 

out that our child was gay, we initially experienced an extreme 

disappointment that all the dreams and expectations we had for 

him were gone -- things like marriage, children and job 

opportunities.  As we challenged that belief, we came to realize 

that the opportunity to have a committed relationship, family, 

and employment worthy of his talents could still be a reality.  

However, it would now take on a new dimension.  The love and 

respect parents provide is absolutely critical for any child to 

achieve their dreams.



We have learned that hate crimes against people who are gay (or 

perceived to be) continue to rise.  A University of Washington 

study of 500 community college students reported to the August 

1998 American Psychological Association meeting that 10% of those 

surveyed admitted to some level of abuse toward homosexual people 

and felt it was socially acceptable to do so.  Government 

statistics confirm that lesbian and gay youths are two to six 

times more likely to attempt suicide and that they account for 

30% of completed suicides among teens today.  One in four 

homosexual youths are kicked out of their homes and are forced to 

live on the streets.





            Theological Issues From a Lay Perspective



We have learned that mature Christians can and do disagree on the 

Biblical position of homosexuality and can still remain faithful 

to God.  It is noteworthy that scholars from both perspectives 

ethically debate the few texts referred to as condemning 

homosexuality.  It seems unwise for us to accept these few 

passages as "God's Position" on the subject when they are so 

diversely interpreted.  On the other hand, Jesus had a great deal 

to tell us about how to treat people who are different from the 

majority.  Because human beings in whatever shape, form, race, or 

sexual orientation are made in the image of God, they are always 

to be treated with love and respect.



John Robinson, in his sermon to the Pilgrim Forebears, makes the 

point, "God has yet more light to break forth from his word."  

For example, the earlier confessions of our faith did not 

explicitly draw the conclusion from scripture that women and men 

are equal.  The practice of their culture obscured their vision 

of this Biblical truth, just as for so long the equality of 

people of all races have not been understood and practiced.  

Changes in our world and the growth of our body of knowledge have 

forced us to look again at scripture and understand more clearly 

the liberating direction to which it points.  The pattern of 

bringing our new problems to scripture is one that every 

generation must follow.



Richard Wyatt (Executive, Rocky Mountains synod, PCUSA) reminds 

us:



     "At whatever theological or political end of the table we 

     are sitting, Jesus has (also) invited those of our 

     opposites to sit at the same table.  We are to be united in 

     more than just the invitation.  We are also united in the 

     Great Commission ... to tell the good news and make 

     disciples.  But that is a lot harder than protecting our 

     table against the 'enemy' on the other side ....  And so we 

     expend our energy and resources in fighting against one 

     another, siding with Satan to destroy Christ's community, 

     instead of doing the evangelism and witness a true faith 

     demands."



Yet many of us are unable to tolerate a liberal perspective.  

However, by definition, Christianity is a "liberal" religion.  

Certainly Jesus was considered to be "liberal," as well as all 

the other great reformers.  Martin Luther's position on being 

"saved by grace" directly opposed the Roman Catholic position of 

"good works" and was at the very heart of the Protestant 

Reformation of four centuries ago.  But as far-sighted as Luther 

was, he was still confined by the limits of the existing base of 

knowledge of his day.  Copernicus had claimed that the *sun, not 

the earth,* was at the center of the universe.  Luther condemned 

Copernicus referencing Joshua 10:13 and saying, "This fool wishes 

to reverse the entire science of astronomy."



The point here is that each generation, with the help of the Holy 

Spirit, must search the pages of the Bible to answer the unique 

issues of its day.  The beauty of the Reformed faith is that we 

will always have differences of opinion as to what each of us 

believe God's plan to be and we must remain in dialogue.  One 

result of such dialogue is that on Oct. 31, 1999 (Reformation 

Sunday) Lutheran and Roman Catholic officials came to full 

agreement on the doctrine that "grace alone," leads to salvation.  

This does not mean that the two churches are ready to merge or 

agree on all matters, but God has to be smiling at this kind of 

progress.



The peace of the Holy Spirit came for us through reading the 9th 

chapter of John.  Jesus and the disciples come upon the man who 

was blind from birth.  The disciples ask, "who sinned, this man 

or his parents, that he was born blind?"  And Jesus says, 

"Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so 

that the work of God might be displayed in his life."  Jesus 

places mud on the man's eyes and tells him to go wash in the 

pool.  The man obeys and gains his sight.  It is encouraging to 

us that here is a man who also is considered to be a sinner 

according to the traditions of his day.  But Jesus assures us 

that no one sinned, but that the man was born this way so the 

works of God would be made manifest in him.



It has been our experience that God doesn't always answer prayers 

the way we expect.  Sometimes we are refocused.  We think back on 

two of our parents and two very close friends.  All had very 

different Christian walks and each served God marvelously 

according to their talents.  The other common thread between them 

was that each succumbed to cancer.  It is doubtful that any four 

people have ever been prayed for harder than these -- Prayers 

that their bodies would be made whole again and for their pain to 

subside.  But God said no, reminding us He makes our spirit 

whole, our bodies are only temporary.  Similarly, our son prayed 

and we prayed, that his affliction would be taken away.  But God 

said no, I created you this way that my work might be displayed 

in your life.



Our vision was refocused.  We finally understood that our son's 

affliction, and ours for that matter, was not that he is gay.  

The affliction we suffered under was fear.  As we were reminded 

that God created us and truly loves us for who we are, the fear 

and guilt subsided.  There was yet another lesson in John chapter 

9, which convicted us.  In verse 18 we see a heated discussion 

develop between the pharisees, the newly sighted man, and his 

neighbors.  An important thing happens.  Even under the fear of 

being put out of the synagogue, the parents speak up on their 

son's behalf.  Those who are ashamed of the apparent infirmities 

of others may take a reproof from these parents, who freely 

owned, "This is our son, though he was born blind, and lived upon 

alms."  Though they did not understand all that had transpired, 

they were fully assured of it.  Can we show any less faith?





       What Pastors And Church Leaders Need to Understand



Even as long time leaders in our home church, we came to feel 

like outsiders, primarily because the ruling leadership only 

allows a single conservative opinion to be voiced.  Think how 

much more difficult it must be for the less connected people.  

There are more people in our congregations impacted than we 

realize.  Statistics reveal that one in four families has a gay 

member in the immediate or closely extended family.  Churches are 

not equipping families to appropriately work through the related 

issues.  Being made to feel unworthy and unwelcome, gays of all 

religious persuasions are walking away from their denominations.



The gay community has been relegated to a status of second class 

Christians (you can be in our church as long as you follow a 

"straight" lifestyle, or as long as your actions do not make me 

uncomfortable).  The irony of the ordination debate is that we 

should be ordaining homosexuals, if for no other reason than 

because the vast majority of "straight" Christians make no 

attempt to minister to the gay population.



If you are a church leader who is not well informed about both 

sides of the homosexual issue, the guidance you provide a family 

will most likely do far greater damage than good.  We spent a 

great deal of time investigating Ex-Gay Ministries (organizations 

that believe that homosexuality is not part of God's plan for 

us).  Typically these groups use a combination of prayer, varying 

methods of persuasion, and reparative (conversion) therapy to 

change a person's orientation.  Although genuinely well intended, 

the impact of these ministries can be devastating.  There is no 

significant evidence that a person's sexual orientation can be 

changed.  Some participants in this experience are able to change 

their behavior for varying lengths of time, but for many the 

aftermath of this conversion process is horrifying.



The dropouts of these programs (who quite frequently enter them 

as a last resort) are at extremely high risk of suicide, most 

likely from the hopelessness and guilt forced on them during the 

treatment process.  As a result of the social stigmas placed on 

homosexual people, they are ten times more likely to suffer from 

alcohol and or drug addiction.  Gay youth are seven times more 

likely than their peers to commit or attempt suicide.  It is 

important to remember that the American Psychological and 

American Psychiatric Associations long ago removed homosexuality 

from their list of abnormalities.  The APA of Washington State 

has declared reparative therapy to be unethical for use with 

sexual orientation.  The American Academy of Pediatrics states 

that, "the psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents 

are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred 

and isolation."  The American Medical Association makes similar 

comments.  We thank God that we did not force our son into 

reparative therapy.



Families newly caught up in the homosexuality issue are very 

fragile.  If you are mentoring with such a family it is critical 

that you maintain trust by holding in confidence what they share 

with you (unless you receive their permission otherwise).  In our 

case that confidence was violated by our pastor and even though 

we have forgiven the specific indiscretion, this is not a person 

we will soon confide in again.  The information that was shared 

rapidly moved along to second and third parties.  Now we have 

unnecessarily strained relationships with all three.



Today's great debates within most mainline denominations center 

on the status and rights of homosexual people in the church.  The 

church has absolutely focused on the wrong issue.  The issue we 

should be spending our time on is how to minister to the 

homosexual community.  If you sincerely want to minister here you 

will need to make a choice whether you are trying to bring people 

to a relationship with Christ or trying to convert them to a 

straight lifestyle.  If the later is part of your goal, it will 

be quickly obvious to the recipient.  In general, mainline 

denominations have lost credibility with the gay community.  Too 

many high profile ministers continue to provide fuel to the 

bigots of this world by condemning homosexuals from the pulpit.  

A ministry to gay people can not be successful until trust is 

regained.  There are many stereotypes and a lot of false 

information to overcome before a congregation will truly be 

capable of being open and accepting of the gay community.  This 

experience will take the congregation through many of the same 

stumbling blocks, emotions and pain that gay persons and their 

families experience.



A person's concept of theology has a great deal to do with how 

they view the Bible.  There was a time in the Presbyterian Church 

where we used the Bible to justify the oppression of African 

Americans, the subordination of women and the exclusion of 

divorced and remarried persons from church leadership.  But we 

are no longer there.  Dr. Jack Rogers, Professor of Theology at 

San Francisco Theological Seminary, reminds us of the theological 

resurgence that took place in the 1940s, which refocused our 

thinking.



     "Instead of viewing the Bible as a collection of inerrant 

     facts, the new theology affirmed that, 'the very human Bible 

     was the record of the very real encounter of God with 

     people.'  It attempted to correct the legalistic and 

     literalist fundamentalism of the 19th century and replace it 

     with an understanding of the totality of the life and 

     teaching of Jesus Christ.  Through the illumination of the 

     Holy Spirit we have come to view those passages used to 

     subordinate these groups of people, not to be in keeping 

     with the larger context which includes the awareness of the 

     cultural limitations of people in Biblical times nor did 

     they include the perspective of Jesus who said the whole law 

     was summed up in the dual commandments of love God and love 

     your neighbor."



Why are we having so much trouble applying the same Biblical 

concepts to the current debate?  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

categorized such behavior with this comment:



     "The church at times has preserved that which is immoral and 

     unethical.  Called to combat social evils, it has remained 

     silent behind stained-glass windows, an echo rather than a 

     voice, a taillight behind the supreme court rather than a 

     headlight guiding men progressively and decisively to higher 

     levels of understanding."





                       Where Are We Today?



Certainly we would agree that heterosexuality is the societal 

norm.  We do not claim to fully understand the physiology and 

psychology behind homosexuality and we have difficulty relating 

to the orientation.  But our understanding is filtered through 

the glasses of white, middle class, heterosexual, American 

parents and it does not necessarily follow that homosexuality is 

not part of God's worldly plan.  It is incredible to realize that 

there is more information available in a single Sunday edition 

of the *New York Times* than there was in an entire lifetime 400 

years ago.  Science makes new discoveries every day and will no 

doubt make sense of the homosexual mystery long before the 

theologians ever come to agreement.



Generalized, degrading statements from the pulpit are significant 

factors that place the safety of the gay population at risk for 

their lives.  They exploit stereotypes and generate unfounded 

fears like many hold about all homosexuals being child molesters, 

when, in fact, statistics tell us that the overwhelming majority 

of child molesters are actually white, male heterosexuals.  When 

we speak about homosexuality we are speaking of people who are 

homosexual.  The word is an adjective that only describes a very 

small part of who they are.  They are brothers, sisters, friends, 

children, next door neighbors, fellow church members and people 

with whom we work.



We are devastated by the murders, like that of Matthew Shepard 

(the young gay man who was tied to a fence near Laramie, Wyoming 

and beaten to death in October of 1998).  The Rt. Rev Steven 

Charleston (then Chaplain of Trinity College) believes that silence is 

what killed Matthew Shepard -- "The silence of Christians who know 

that our scriptures on homosexuality are few and murky in 

interpretation and far outweighed by the words of a Savior whose 

only comments on human relationships were to call us to never 

judge but only to love."



It challenges us to think that the holocaust in Europe probably 

did not happen because there were too many Adolf Hitlers, but 

more likely happened because there were not enough Oskar 

Schindlers.  Each of us must speak out for those who do not have 

a voice.  We will continue to examine our own prejudices and 

challenge stereotypes wherever we find them.  We will work for 

a church that seeks to include rather than exclude those who do 

not fit the common mold.



We do not claim to have all the answers.  No doubt God will 

continue to reveal to us in ways we currently do not understand.  

While we struggle daily with the internal conflicts within the 

greater church, we have found ourselves blessed -- Blessed by our 

son's faith in God -- Blessed because God continues to walk with 

us through all the confusion -- And blessed because we have been 

challenged to a deeper understanding of our faith.  A wise person 

told us, "Life is change, but growth is optional."  When it comes 

to growth, all of us have a "choice." -- Russ & Anita Calhoun, 

Elders, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), email RusClhn@cs.com



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



SAYING GOODBYE



                Amendment B Takes Its Toll Again



On May 9, 2000, "Amendment B" took its toll yet again as the Rev. 

Dr. Paul E. Capetz at his own request was released from the 

exercise of ordained office in the PCUSA.  Call, talents, 

education, voice and hope were sacrificed.  In the anguish of 

this radical decision, only faith, integrity and safety were 

salvaged.  We who have witnessed Paul's gifted ministry both in 

higher education and to individual students, colleagues and 

friends will grieve with him until the day when the PCUSA will 

issue to him an *un*qualified call back into ordained service in 

the church. -- Eleanor Dendy Mockridge



                       Paul Capetz' Letter



7 April 2000



To the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area:



My fellow Presbyters,



It is with deep sadness that I request to be released from the 

exercise of the ordained ministry and to be enrolled as a member 

of Lake Nokomis Presbyterian Church.  According to G-11.0414a of 

the *Book of Order*, in the case of "a minister concerning whom 

no inquiry has been initiated pursuant to D-10.0102 and D-

10.0201, against whom no charges have been filed, and who 

otherwise is in good standing ..., [n]o judgment of failure on the 

part of the minister is implied in this action."



This decision results from my struggle to discern what it means 

to be faithful to the promises I made at ordination in the light 

of my experience as a gay man.  After much prayer and examination 

of conscience, I have concluded that fidelity to God requires me 

to relinquish my status as a minister of the Word and Sacrament 

during this time of intense controversy within the church 

regarding the morality of homosexuality.



I entered the service of the church's ministry in good conscience 

after discerning that God had truly called me to this vocation.  

The Presbytery of Chicago, in which I was under care and by 

which I was eventually ordained, confirmed this inner sense of 

call through their assessment of me as an excellent candidate for 

the ministry.  I still affirm the validity of God's call, but the 

external circumstances in the church during the nine years since 

my ordination have combined to crush my spirit.



In 1991 I was honored by the invitation of Union Theological 

Seminary in Virginia to join its faculty and to teach in the area 

of Reformed theology. I have to assume that I was chosen for this 

prestigious position on the basis of my academic qualifications 

as a scholar of history and theology.  But before I had moved to 

Richmond to assume my new responsibilities, an anonymous 

accusation concerning my sexual orientation was leveled against 

me with the intent of preventing my employment at the seminary.  

After honestly explaining that I did abide by the moral norms of 

the church, I was allowed to assume my post even though it 

was clear to me that my job at Union would always be vulnerable to 

such threats.  Since it was a terribly frightening experience to 

begin my professional career under this extreme duress, within a 

year I had accepted the offer of United Theological Seminary of 

the Twin Cities to join its faculty, which assured me that I 

could pursue my work without fear of discrimination.



Then in 1997 the church amended its constitution to include so-

called "Amendment B."  I have been unable to construe that clause 

in the *Book of Order* as implying anything other than commitment 

to a life of permanent celibacy on the part of a gay person who 

serves as an ordained officer in the church.  In this connection 

it is important for me to clarify that as a single person I am 

not, strictly speaking, in violation of G-6.0106b.  Nonetheless, 

I have to confess that a vow of lifelong celibacy is an 

unrealistic expectation for the church to ask of me.  I fear that 

the prospect of having to face the future without hope of ever 

finding someone with whom to share my life in a loving 

relationship would result in unspeakable despair.  If this clause 

had been present in the church's constitution in 1991, I would 

not have been able to assume the responsibilities of ordination 

in good conscience.



In spite of the personal turmoil and anguish of the last nine 

years, it has been a sacred trust for me to serve as a 

Presbyterian minister.  I have great respect for the church's 

historic theological traditions, its polity, and the high 

educational standards required of its ministers.  I have taken 

great pride in the many fine students I have taught and mentored 

who are now serving as Presbyterian ministers.  I shall, of 

course, continue to work with those Presbyterian students who 

come into my classroom at the seminary, though no longer in the 

official capacity of one ordained to represent our tradition in 

the public forum.



Should the church ever decide to grant unconditional acceptance 

and equality to gay people, I would be happy to reaffirm the 

ordination vows and to resume the responsibilities of the 

ministry according to the provisions set four in G-11.0414c.  I 

would also consider teaching again at a Presbyterian seminary.  

Until such time, however, I intend to remain a faithful member of 

the church, all the while seeking to discern what it means to 

live with the ambiguities involved in being both a gay person and 

a Protestant Christian in the Reformed tradition.



Respectfully submitted, Paul E. Capetz, Asst. Professor of 

Historical Theology.



                          Paul's Stole



In the presbytery meeting, the Chairperson of the Committee on 

Ministry, Rollin Kirk, after publicly ascertaining from Stated 

Clerk Ernest Cutting that no charges had been filed against Paul 

Capetz and that he was in good standing, read aloud to the 

presbytery the entire letter from Paul Capetz.  Presbytery voted 

unanimously to give the requested certificate of membership.  The 

Moderator then granted a moment of personal privilege to the Rev. 

Louise Bender, Pastor of Lake Nokomis Presbyterian Church, who 

told the presbytery that the Session of Lake Nokomis Church had 

invited Paul Capetz to officiate at their Maundy Thursday 

communion service on April 20, 2000, and had given him a stole to 

wear on the occasion of that final act in his ordained ministry.  

She now was presenting that stole to The Shower of Stoles.  On 

behalf of The Shower of Stoles, the Rev. Lindsay Biddle came 

forward to receive the stole. -- Eleanor Dendy Mockridge.



           I want to send a condolence card



       (In honor of The Once-Rev. Dr. Paul Capetz)



           I want to send a condolence card

           To the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),

           Tie black ribbons across its doors,

           Declare a moment of silence

           to grieve the relinquishment

           Of yet another ordination.



           The church of Jesus Christ will not exit

           Until it becomes a place of welcome

           Rather than a battlefield

           Marked by the disenfranchisement of

           People forced to choose between

           Particular relationships of fidelity.



           I pray ceaselessly

           For the day this bigotry stops,

           When the Stole Project becomes

           A symbol of reconciliation

           And the church affirms our baptisms,

           Calling, "Good and faithful servant, come home."



           -- (c) Micah Schlobohm, May, 2000



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                     Celebrating Doug Atkins



Peg and Doug Atkins have been leaders in our movement for many 

years, not only in the PCUSA, but locally as well.  Just this 

year they received a big award from the St. Louis Metro PFLAG 

(see the *Update* for July-August 2000, page 21).  Doug died in 

August.  Peg sends us this report.  Thanks Peg! -- JDA.



Thanks for thinking of us.  I am doing fine -- Doug died so 

peacefully in our home, with everything in order (that's how 

engineers do things, right down to the last minute) leaving me 

with two fine sons to help. We were all grateful for the eight or 

more years his life was extended by treatment for prostate 

cancer.  Among last things we enjoyed were a driving trip in June 

around Anchorage and Fairbanks to re-visit places he knew from 

living there as a child and from summers working on roads, and 

Pride weekend in the park. I know that he and Tom are together, 

and I look forward to joining them, but hope for a little more 

time because there is much to be done.



Tom Hanks assisted our Associate Pastor Karen Blanchard with the 

service, and he thrilled many with  his "liberationist" versions 

of scripture, prayer and Psalms.  Karen delivered a skillfully 

composed, accurate, and often amusing account of Doug's life and 

work (the work was probably a great surprise to many members of 

our church because it is such a large suburban church we've just 

not had opportunity to be "out" to many!).  Our big sanctuary was 

almost full and I was thrilled that more than half were LGBT 

friends and their allies.  Two members of our church said to me 

later that the singing was the best they've ever heard in our 

sanctuary and I took great pride in saying "It was those LGBT 

friends -- when they worship, after all the church has put them 

through, they really  mean it and they sing!"  Our Jewish friends 

could sing with gusto, too -- we chose good old standard hymns 

that hardly mentioned Jesus.



In remembrance of Doug's love of Dixieland, Marcos Krieger, our 

Minister of Music, played a medley he had just arranged as the 

recessional.  The service and reception following were a true 

celebration of Doug's life, and I know he was pleased with all of 

it.



*I'm sending below the bio that was printed on the back of 

the program for Doug's Memorial Service:*



Douglas Clark Atkins, born September 11, 1922 to Helen Clark and 

Layson Enslow Atkins in Fort Sheridan, Illinois, graduated from 

the United States Military Academy in 1945 and earned a masters 

degree in civil engineering from California Institute of 

Technology in 1949.  As the son of an Army officer, and later 

during his military career, he lived in Washington, DC, the 

Philippines, Alaska, Munich, Germany, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and 

Fort Riley, Kansas.  In 1959 he left the Army to join Monsanto 

Company in St. Louis, from which he retired in 1987.



Doug and Peg were married at Peg's home church, Williamsburg 

Presbyterian Church in Virginia in 1951. He left a month later 

for Korea where he served for 23 months. Doug is survived by Peg 

and two sons, Douglas Clark Atkins, Jr. (Clark) and William D. 

Atkins (Bill).  A third son, Thomas Louis Atkins, died of AIDS in 

1987.



Soon after Tom's death Doug and Peg became active in 

Presbyterian and civil rights causes for gays and lesbians, and 

AIDS.  This year, they were awarded the St. Louis Metro PFLAG  

Art and Marian Wirth Award for significant contributions to the 

organization over the past year. The award cited Doug and Peg 

Atkins as being most active in a variety of civic and religious 

organizations and committees dealing with gay and lesbian issues. 

They are active members of Other Sheep, an international ministry 

with LGBT people and The Privacy Rights Education Project, a 

Missouri-wide political advocacy group.  They have actively 

supported justice for LGBT in the Presbytery of Giddings-Lovejoy, 

and  through MLP.



Doug's hobbies included working with the Boy Scouts, canoeing, 

and biking.  He also enjoyed taking his family on camping and 

biking trips across the U.S. and Europe.  Doug had much knowledge 

about sailing, photography, trains, weather, and old-style jazz 

and Dixieland music.



The family suggests that any memorials be made to Other Sheep, 

319 North 4th Street, Suite #902, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, or 

to a charity of one's choice.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                          Robert Bruce



We also celebrate long-time MLP member Robert Bruce, 

of Evansville, Indiana, who died on July 31, at the age of 83.  

A friend writes, "He had very strong opinions and expressed them 

intelligently to whomever would listen as well as the editor of 

our local newspaper."  I was also one who received those strong 

views on a regular basis.  You may remember some of them in 

former *Updates*!  I shall miss them. -- JDA.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



ANOTHER POEM!



                        X Marks the Spot

                      (Some Queer Notions)



           X is the cruciform the apostle Andrew chose

                for his death, on the way to sainthood;

           X is thus the spot on which we stand, shape

                into which we stretch, as his namesakes.



           X makes a target if we use 'Family Values' or

                'Bible Belief' to weed out undesirables;

           X is crossbars for anger aimed by those hurt

                when our confusion winds up hard-hearted.



           X is a warning sign, that we may be struck

                by trains of thought heading elsewhere;

           X is the crossing where we enter the wrong

                side of the tracks in missions of love.



           X is a move in the game church people play,

                our side tic-tac-toeing to block theirs;

           X is marked on our score when the correct

                cause wins, and those Os are the losers.



           X-ing out is our attempt to deny errors made,

                lest we should have to learn from them;

           X-rays are Gospel and Spirit, by which we

                may allow self-examination and healing.



           X-files are Presbyterian rules made to keep

                gay people in the back of the church bus;

           X-rated is what we get when we try to talk in

                church about sexuality, peace, or justice.



           X is the unknown in social equations, its

                value determined by our life resolution.

           X is the first letter of "Christ", the name

                above all others; yours, mine, or Andrew's.



           -- A member who attends one of (however many) St. 

           Andrew Churches in our denomination, September 22, 

           1999



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



OUR CHURCHES



                More Light Church Has the Answer!



          What happens when churches lose their target?

                         Look around you!

               by the Rev. Dr. D. Jay Losher, Pastor

            John Calvin Presbyterian Church, Dallas, TX



             Reprinted from the Dallas Morning News,

                          June 2, 2000

                   with thanks and permission!



"What should we do?" comes the plaintive plea from our declining 

congregations.



When I hear it, I am reminded of that Jack in the Box commercial. 

You know the one: A salesman is trying to sell an advertising 

campaign. On the screen is a group of male dancers jumping and 

twisting and singing about how they love cheeseburgers.



The salesman encourages the sell: "Women love this!" Jack 

responds despondently, "But our target is men!" "What's a 

target?" Our declining congregations and denominations are like 

that: We have lost our target.



Denominational decline in the United States is not news. Over the 

past 30 years, the Presbyterians have lost 14 percent of their 

members; the United Methodists, 18 percent; the United Church of 

Christ, 30 percent; the Episcopalians, 32 percent. Evangelical 

denominations, on the other hand -- such as the Southern 

Baptists, Assemblies of God, The Vineyard and other independents 

-- have tended to grow during the same period. But the rates at 

which they've grown, once dramatic, have slowly diminished.



This fact alone, no matter what the reason, indicates a watershed 

change and a new era for all religious groups. The church 

landscape for the next millennium is proving to be very different 

indeed from the previous 2,000 years.



My own pet theory on why the Presbyterians and the Methodists and 

the United Church of Christ and the Episcopalians, and even the 

Southern Baptists have been in decline is simply this: We have 

all lost our direction, our passion for mission.



The Southern Baptists and other evangelical denominations held 

onto their "target" longer than most. They continued to grow 

while the mainline churches were in decline precisely because 

they were able to maintain a clear mission consensus longer. But 

recently they have succumbed to the internecine and interminable 

debates that floundered the mainline churches.



Speaking as religious institutions, few of us still have a clear 

consensus, an over-arching and compelling mission goal -- our 

"target" if you will. We are that dull ad executive asking, 

"What's a target?"  Most growing churches have a target -- a 

clear vision and passion for their mission -- a clear 

understanding of who they are and whose they are and what they 

are called to become and do. Not merely an idea of a recruitment 

target, but more: a burning passion to serve particular needs in 

their community, be it the homeless or single parents or lonely 

persons or hurting persons or whatever. Two examples from among 

the Presbyterians: **Bethany Presbyterian, which is the fastest 

growing congregation in the Dallas area**, and Highland Park 

Presbyterian, one of the largest congregations in the nation. 

**Bethany has quadrupled in size in two years to approximately 150 

members**. In contrast, Highland Park Presbyterian is a 

congregation with a track record of impressive growth despite 

setbacks. It has approximately 5,000 members.



These two congregations have completely different styles, 

constituencies and approaches to ministry. What possibly could 

they have in common to account for their common success?



What they share is this: a clarity of vision and a passion for 

their  particular mission. **Bethany's growth has been based on 

narrowly focused ministries of inclusion -- first among gays 

and lesbians and more recently among Hispanics.**



Highland Park meets the needs of a very different community. Its 

mission is much broader in scope. Highland Park's "target" is 

persons at the very pinnacle of our urban society.



They both have a clear vision and passion for the mission to 

which they are called by God. They both have certainty about 

their "target." On the other hand, most congregations' mission 

statements are little more than glorified laundry lists. They 

merely reflect a goal or two for each committee in the church, 

rather than a succinct and lucid statement that can provide a 

clear direction for ministry. The best mission statements can be 

printed on the side of a DART bus: that is, five words and a 

logo.



Let's look at the mission statement that got President Clinton 

elected. Remember? "It's the economy, stupid!" A church's mission 

statement needs to be at least that lucid, at least that 

succinct.



How about "It's God's kingdom, stupid!" Now that will fit on the 

side of a bus. How about a catchy logo? Or maybe even a jingle? 

How about Matthew 6:33: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and its 

righteousness." Now that has a strong beat. And you can dance to 

it.



To revitalize with any hope of success, our congregations need to 

be at least that focused -- not on serving ourselves, not on 

institutional survival, not on mere recruitment; but focused 

rather outside, on service in God's kingdom. "What's a target?" 

"It's the kingdom, stupid!" Indeed.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



POLITY



                           Polity 101



                   Or perhaps Advanced Polity!



        Latest G.A. P.J.C. Decision Regarding Amendment B



OK, Folks -- I've heard rumblings (grumblings?) that some folks 

think the decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial 

Commission, and similar courts of the synods and presbyteries, 

are rather "dry" reading!



Be that as it may, I think there is no better way for 

Presbyterians to learn how their church functions as an 

ecclesiastical organization than to read the decisions of our 

courts, as they apply the letter (and we hope the spirit) of our 

constitution.



The *More Light Update* has published every decision bearing on 

the exclusion of LGBT folk from the life of the Presbyterian 

Church since its first issue in 1980.  Your current editor plans 

to continue this tradition, and in the future, I hope the 

*Update* can also include some decisions on the *inclusion* of 

LGBT folk as well.



So I encourage everyone to read this decision.  But if you skip 

it, that's fine too.  At least it's here for the "polity wonks" 

who are so essential to our movement.  For commentary on this 

decision, see the September-October 2000 *Update*, p. 12-14.



I especially commend to you the Concurring / Dissenting Opinion 

toward the end! -- JDA





                THE PERMANENT JUDICIAL COMMISSION

                     OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

               OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.)



                            Decision



        Session, Londonderry Presbyterian Church, et al.

                      Complainant/Appellee

                               v.

               Presbytery of Northern New England

                      Appellant/Respondent



                       Remedial Case 213-2



This case has come before this Commission on appeal from a 

decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the 

Northeast (SPJC).



Pursuant to D-13.1200a, this Commission finds that it has 

jurisdiction, that the Complainant has standing to appeal, that 

the appeal was properly and timely filed, and that the appeal is 

in order.



                             History



On April 20, 1997, as the vote of the presbyteries adopting what 

is now G-6.0106b was drawing to its completion, the Session of 

Christ Church Presbyterian, Burlington, Vermont, (Christ Church), 

a particular church under the jurisdiction of the Presbytery of 

Northern New England (Presbytery), adopted and issued a 

Resolution of Dissent (Resolution). The Resolution asserted that 

G-6.0106b was inconsistent with various other provisions of the 

*Book of Order* that affirm inclusivity, and concluded, "we vow to 

continue welcoming persons living singly or in committed 

relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, into the life, 

membership and leadership of this congregation on an equal basis, 

including eligibility for election and ordination as a ruling 

elder or deacon."  The Resolution was received by Presbytery at 

its stated meeting on June 7, 1997. A similar resolution was 

submitted by Mid-Coast Church, Topsham, Maine. Presbytery 

authorized its moderator to appoint a committee to meet with the 

dissenting churches regarding the resolutions. At a meeting of 

the Presbytery held in March, 1998, the Presbytery adopted the 

recommendation of the committee:



     While affirming the right of both Christ Church and Mid-

     Coast Church to express their opinions and feelings 

     regarding the eligibility requirements for ordination in the 

     Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Presbytery of Northern New 

     England cannot affirm non compliance (sic) with the *Book of 

     Order*, therefore it instructs the sessions of Christ 

     Church, Burlington VT and Mid-Coast Church, Topsham ME to be 

     in conformity with *Book of Order* G-6.0106b as pertains to 

     the ordination of elders and deacons, and report such 

     compliance to the Presbytery by the March 1999 stated 

     meeting.



While Mid-Coast Church did not protest the Presbytery order, on 

June 18, 1998, Christ Church submitted a "Report of the Session 

to the Presbytery of Northern New England" in which it stated 

that it could not in good conscience comply with G-6.0106b, 

"without harming deeply the church community that we have been 

called to lead." The Presbytery Council subsequently formed what 

it termed a "response team." At the December 5, 1998, Presbytery 

meeting, the response team presented four alternatives for 

Presbytery to consider. The Presbytery adopted the alternative 

that the Presbytery, "acknowledge that Christ Church Presbyterian 

carries on a valid and sacred ministry in Burlington; ... 

recognize that the alleged inconsistencies do exist; ... [and] 

rescind its action instructing the Session of Christ Church 

Presbyterian be in compliance with G-6.0106b."



A protest was filed objecting to the Presbytery action, and a 

stay of enforcement was granted on January 4, 1999. A complaint 

against the Presbytery was subsequently filed on March 2, 1999.



The SPJC held a trial on October 8, 1999. It found that the 

action of Presbytery to rescind its previous motion did not meet 

the requirements of G-11.0103t(2) to see that, "orders of higher 

governing bodies are observed and carried out," and that 

Presbytery was required, at a minimum, to record in its minutes 

its disapproval of the Session's action. Moreover, it found that 

the motion was irregular because "an action fulfilling an 

affirmative duty of a governing body can only be in order if it 

leaves in place some other action ... which fulfills that duty." 

The SPJC ordered the Presbytery to work pastorally with the 

Session of Christ Church, "with the ultimate goal of bringing 

them into compliance" with the Constitution.



The Respondent appealed the decision to this body, and the 

Complainant/Appellee filed a cross-appeal.





                     Specifications of Error



The Respondent/Appellant cites five specifications of error 

(restated for clarity and concision):



     A-1. That SPJC erroneously concluded that the Presbytery's 

     rescission constituted an irregularity, in that the stated 

     intention of Christ Church and the action of Presbytery were 

     in compliance with G-6.0106b under the Authoritative 

     Interpretation adopted by the 1998 General Assembly.



This specification is not sustained.



While the authoritative interpretation adopted in 1998 requires 

governing bodies to examine each officer-elect on the basis of 

his or her individual character and behavior, it does not permit 

a governing body to disregard ordination standards mandated by 

the Constitution in the examination of those individuals. The 

interpretation of G-6.0106b and G-4.0403 states: "Standing in the 

tradition of breaking down the barriers erected to exclude people 

based on their condition, such as age, race, class, gender, and 

sexual orientation, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) commits 

itself not to exclude anyone categorically in considering those 

called to ordained service in the church, but to consider the 

lives and behaviors of candidates as individuals" (Minutes, 1998, 

pp. 68, 166).



     A-2. That SPJC erroneously concluded that the Presbytery's 

     rescission constituted an irregularity, in that various 

     other passages of the Form of Government[1] are irreconcilable 

     with the requirements of G-6.0106b;



[FOOTNOTE 1. G-3.0401, G-4.0403, G-5.0103, G-5.0202, G-

10.0102(l), and G-11.0103a, b, g, and n.]



     A-3. That SPJC erroneously concluded that the Presbytery's 

     rescission constituted an irregularity, in that G-1.0301a 

     and G-6.0108 affirm freedom of conscience with respect to 

     matters addressed by G-6.0106b.



These specifications are not sustained.



It is not unusual for a document such as our Constitution, 

written at different periods of time and under different 

circumstances, to exhibit tensions and ambiguities in its 

provisions. Nevertheless, it is the task of governing bodies and 

judicial commissions to resolve them in such a way as to give 

effect to all provisions. It is not within the power of any 

governing body or judicial commission to declare a properly 

adopted provision of the Constitution to be invalid. The only 

appropriate avenue to change or remove a provision of the 

Constitution is through the process for amendment provided within 

the Constitution itself.



G-6.0106b presents the qualifications established by the 

corporate judgment of the whole church for ordination to service 

as minister of the Word and Sacrament, elder, and deacon. The 

Historic Principles of Church Order are explicit as to the right 

of the church to make and to enforce these standards:



     That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of 

     common right, every Christian Church, or union or 

     association of particular churches, is entitled to declare 

     the terms of admission into its communion, and the 

     qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the 

     whole system of its internal government which Christ hath 

     appointed; that in the exercise of this right they may, 

     notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion 

     either too lax or too narrow; yet, even in this case, they 

     do not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, 

     but only make an improper use of their own (G-1.0302).



The paradox illustrated in the instant case did not originate 

with the adoption of G-6.0106b, but is inherent in the essentials 

of our faith and our Constitution, as evidenced by the first two 

Historic Principles of Church Order (G-1.0301[2] and G-1.0302).



[FOOTNOTE 2. G-1.0301(1)(a): "That 'God alone is Lord of the 

conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and 

commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, 

or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.'"; G-1.0301(1)(b): 

"Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all 

matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable: We 

do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the 

civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and 

security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all 

others."]



     A-4. That SPJC erred in its conclusion that the action of 

     Presbytery rescinding its original order to comply with G-

     6.0106b constituted an erroneous decision or action, and 

     hence an irregularity.



This specification is sustained.



As a matter of procedure, Presbytery had a right to rescind its 

previous action. In so doing, it did not commit an irregularity. 

However, the rescission did not release the Presbytery from its 

responsibility to act (see discussion under A-5 below).



     A-5. That SPJC erred in declaring that the rescission of an 

     action requires some other action which fulfills a duty.



This specification is not sustained.



In the instant case, it is not the act of rescission itself which 

is in question, but the oversight obligations of Presbytery. 

Appellant is correct in its claim that Robert's Rules of Order do 

not require any action following a rescission. However, the 

judgment of the SPJC was not grounded on Robert's Rules, but on 

G-11.0103t(2) and G-9.0409. While there is no accusation of an 

action by Christ Church regarding an improper ordination or 

installation, its statements clearly went beyond a mere 

expression of opinion and gave a reasonable basis for concern 

that violations may have already occurred or might occur. 

Therefore, Presbytery had an obligation to make at least a 

minimal response.



Rescinding the original order to comply with G-6.0106b created a 

vacuum. Since Presbytery has responsibility for both pastoral and 

administrative oversight of Christ Church, the primary response 

is pastoral. This shall reaffirm the Presbytery's connectional 

responsibility for the work and struggle of Christ Church, while 

counseling Christ Church not to violate the Constitution. This 

Commission reaffirms the right of decorous dissent. An 

appropriate dissent may be expressed in various ways; however, it 

may not include an intent by those who have vowed to be governed 

by the church's polity to violate the Constitution. Therefore, 

nothing in this decision shall be construed to abridge the right 

of decorous dissent. Indeed, the Second Helvetic Confession 

affirms that, "it pleases God to use the dissensions that arise 

in the church to the glory of his name, to illustrate the truth, 

and in order that those who are in the right might be manifest (I 

Cor. 11:19)" (C-5.133).





             Specifications of Error of Cross-Appeal



The Complainant/Cross-Appellant listed four specifications of 

error in the notice of cross-appeal. Complainant/Cross-Appellant 

subsequently abandoned two of these, and rephrased the remaining 

two prior to the hearing on appeal. There was no objection at the 

hearing to this modification.



     C-1. That SPJC erred in not finding that the December 5, 

     1998 action of the Presbytery of Northern New England 

     violated the amendment process prescribed in G-18.0300.



This specification is not sustained.



By rescinding its former order, Presbytery did not invalidate any 

provision of the *Book of Order*, or exempt Christ Church from its 

obligation to act in conformity with the Constitution. If at any 

time the Session of Christ Church were to ordain or install an 

elder or deacon in violation of the Constitution, it would still 

be subject to the discipline of the Church. Presbytery merely 

withdrew its formal censure of Christ Church's Resolution.



     C-2. That SPJC erred in not finding that the December 5, 

     1998 action of the Presbytery abdicated its duties and 

     responsibilities under any one or more of G-1.0302, G-

     1.0303, G-4.0300a, G-9.0102b and G-9.0409, and not just 

     under G-11.0103t(2).



This specification is not sustained.



It is sufficient for a judicial commission to base its decision 

on Holy Scripture and the Constitution of the Church. It is not 

an error to fail to cite all passages and provisions that might 

apply to a given case, unless failure to consider them would 

alter the decision or order.





                           Discussion



This case raises fundamental questions about the paradoxical 

nature of Christian liberty within the covenant community of the 

Church, especially as it relates to the freedom of governing 

bodies to dissent from Constitutional standards of faith and 

conduct.



There is a natural tension between God alone being the Lord of 

the conscience and the Church being a covenant community. The 

covenantal nature of the Church requires the exercise of mutual 

accountability between both individuals and governing bodies. In 

Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus instructs the disciples concerning how 

this accountability is to be exercised within the church. Our 

Lord also strictly warned the disciples concerning the spiritual 

peril of allowing a brother or sister to stumble in sin (Matthew 

18:6-7). The confessions also echo this covenantal responsibility 

(C-9.38, 5.163). When an individual or governing body threatens 

to move from verbal dissent to active disobedience, it is the 

obligation of the covenant community to seek to prevent the 

dissenting party from falling into contumacy. This begins as an 

act of pastoral care, but may become an act of church discipline 

(D-1.0103).



The Second Helvetic Confession speaks extensively of the Church 

as a covenant community with Christ alone as its head (C-5.124-

.141). While our culture prizes individualism, the nature of the 

Church as a covenant community under the Lordship of Christ 

implies that no individual or segment of the Church exists unto 

itself (I Corinthians 12:14-27). Indeed, because of our 

propensity to sin and self-interest, we must look to the 

collected wisdom of the whole Church as an aid to continual self-

examination and the grace of repentance. For this reason, we seek 

the will of God corporately as a covenant community. For the same 

reason, our consciences are free, but subject to the headship of 

Christ and to the Church as a covenant community. As a community 

bound by covenant with Christ as our head, we can celebrate and 

encourage a diversity of opinion while faithfully calling for 

conformity in action.



The Westminster Confession addresses Christian Liberty and 

Liberty of Conscience in Chapter XXII (C-6.108ff), from which is 

derived the first historic principle of church order, "That 'God 

alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the 

doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary 

to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship'" (G-

1.0301a).  Here too, however, the confession is clear that this 

liberty is to be exercised within bounds. These include respect 

for and obedience to duly constituted authority (C-6.111). While 

one is free to hold and decorously to advocate ideas that are 

contrary to such authority, one may not act in contravention of 

such authority (in this case, a properly enacted provision of the 

Church's Constitution).



The Form of Government echoes these principles as they pertain to 

church officers in G-6.0108a: "It is necessary to the integrity 

and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as 

officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and 

polity as expressed in the Confessions and the Form of 

Government. So far as may be possible without serious departure 

from these standards, without infringing on the rights and views 

of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance 

of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the 

interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained."



A formal declaration by a governing body whose members have taken 

the vow "[to] be governed by our church's polity," and "abide by 

its discipline," not to comply with the express corporate 

judgment of the Church in an explicit constitutional provision 

exceeds the constitutional bounds of freedom of conscience and 

therefore requires a response on the part of the governing body 

exercising oversight. Because the statements of Session raise a 

reasonable basis for concern that the Constitution may be 

violated, Presbytery neglected its duty to help Christ Church to 

apprehend and to embrace both the blessings and responsibilities, 

the grace and obligation, of living in covenant community.



In the process of providing counsel and guidance to sessions and 

congregations, presbyteries should not lose sight of the special 

relationship that exists between particular churches and their 

presbyteries. It is a relationship that is built on mutual trust 

and accountability among those parties and with the larger 

church.



Presbyteries are responsible to particular churches for providing 

guidance. Particular churches rely on presbyteries for this 

guidance. Presbyteries are likewise accountable to the larger 

church for upholding the Constitution. They are also responsible 

for dealing fairly and honestly in upholding these connectional 

obligations.





                            Decision



This Commission finds that there are no constitutional grounds 

for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision 

of the Constitution, however inartfully stated. Assertions of 

inconsistency, confusion, or ambiguity may justify the right to 

protest. They do not create a right to disregard any part of the 

Constitution. Furthermore, no court in our denomination has the 

authority to amend the Constitution or to invalidate any part of 

it. This is exclusively a legislative process (G-18.0300).



SPJC correctly ruled that Presbytery's action was insufficient. 

Presbytery had a right to rescind its original order. However, in 

so doing without further action, Presbytery was delinquent in 

failing to fulfill its responsibility of oversight (G-11.0103g 

and G-11.0103t) to care for and to counsel Christ Church not to 

violate the Constitution. Because other constitutional remedies 

are available to the Presbytery than those stated in the original 

order, the order of SPJC to void the rescission and to reinstate 

the original order was in error.





                              Order



IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the decision of the SPJC be affirmed 

with the following modifications: (1) to reinstate the action of 

Presbytery rescinding its original order, and (2) to require the 

Presbytery to exercise pastoral and administrative oversight of 

Christ Church as herein stated;



IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Presbytery of Northern New England 

continue to work pastorally with the Session of Christ Church to 

assist it in fulfilling its obligation to comply with the 

Constitution. The Presbytery of Northern New England shall notify 

in writing the Session of Christ Church Presbyterian, Burlington, 

Vermont of its concern over the stated intention of the Session 

not to comply with G-6.0106b, and warn it of the spiritual 

effects and disciplinary consequences of non-compliance. A 

notation of this correspondence shall be recorded in the 

Presbytery minutes.



IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stated Clerk of the Synod of the 

Northeast report this Decision to Synod at its first meeting 

after receipt, that a copy of this Decision be entered into the 

minutes and that an excerpt of those minutes showing entry of the 

Decision be sent to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly; and 

that the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Northern New England 

report this decision to the Presbytery at its first meeting after 

receipt, that the Presbytery enter the full decision upon its 

minutes, and that an excerpt from those minutes showing entry of 

the decision be sent to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly.



Dated this 7th day of July, 2000.



 

                   Concurring Opinion in part;

                   Dissenting Opinion in part

                      by Patricia K. Norris



I concur with the Commission's order reinstating the Presbytery's 

action rescinding its March 1998 motion and requiring it to 

exercise appropriate oversight and counseling of Christ Church. 

And, I agree with much of what the Commission has said regarding 

the nature of Christian liberty within the Church. I dissent, 

however, from the parts of the Commission's opinion which suggest 

that Christ Church's statements violated the Constitution.



The fundamental issue in this case is whether the Presbytery 

violated G-11.0103t(2) ("seeing that the orders of higher 

governing bodies are observed and carried out") when, on December 

5, 1998, it rescinded its March 7, 1998 motion instructing 

sessions of two churches to "be in conformity with *Book of Order* 

G-6.0106b as pertains to the ordination of elders and deacons, 

and report such compliance to the Presbytery...." The answer is 

no.



The Presbytery's March 7, 1998 motion and subsequent rescission 

arose out of an April 1997 resolution of dissent by the Session 

of Christ Church Presbyterian, Burlington, Vermont. Endorsed by 

unanimous vote of the Christ Church congregation, the resolution 

vowed "to continue welcoming persons living singly or in 

committed relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, into 

the life, membership and leadership of the congregation on an 

equal basis, including eligibility for election and ordination as 

a ruling elder or deacon." After Christ Church reported to the 

Presbytery in response to the March 1998 motion that it had not 

found a way to be in compliance with G-6.0106b without deeply 

harming its community, the Presbytery rescinded its March 1998 

motion, acknowledging that Christ Church was carrying out a valid 

and sacred ministry and recognizing that inconsistencies existed 

between G-6.0106b and other portions of the *Book of Order*.



In rescinding the prior motion, the Presbytery did not state, 

directly or indirectly, or indicate in any way that it would not 

enforce G-6.0106b in a matter properly before it. Within our 

system of governance, a presbytery is entrusted with judgment and 

discretion as to how and when it will respond to allegedly 

irregular or delinquent conduct by a lower governing body. This 

constitutional grant of discretion does not sanction attempts of 

a lower governing body to nullify or disregard the law of the 

Church as constitutionally determined by a higher governing body. 

But, in the constitutional exercise of its judgment and 

discretion, a presbytery may elect to deal with a particular 

situation in a variety of ways, consistent with its obligations 

under G-11.0103t(2).  This Commission recognized this very 

principle in Central Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Long 

Island (Minutes, 1996, p. 173).



The importance of recognizing and preserving such discretion is 

of critical importance in this case. It is undisputed, as 

Appellee acknowledged, that no ordination or attempted ordination 

by Christ Church in violation of constitutional standards was at 

issue. No evidence was presented, as Appellee also admitted, that 

either Christ Church or the Presbytery had taken any action, 

remedial or otherwise, inconsistent with denominational 

ordination policy. The Church's ordination standards are not 

violated through disagreement, objection, and protest, or even by 

advocacy of unconstitutional action at some indefinite time in 

the future. Compliance with ordination standards is to be 

determined by considering "the lives and behaviors of candidates 

as individuals" (Minutes, 1998, p. 166 -- Authoritative 

Interpretation).



Appellee asserts, nevertheless, that this case is governed by 

this Commission's decision in Union Presbyterian Church of 

Blasdell, New York v. Presbytery of Western New York (Minutes, 

1985, p.120). In that case, this Commission held that a session 

had committed an irregularity in adopting a resolution proposing 

a course of action contrary to established Church ordination 

policy and that a presbytery was required to take corrective 

action to deal with this irregularity.



Appellee's reliance on Blasdell is misplaced. First, Blasdell was 

decided before the adoption of Amendment B and before the 1998 

Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0106b. Under the 1998 

Authoritative Interpretation, as explained above, conduct and 

behavior, not statements of protest and intent, are determinative 

for compliance and, conversely, non-compliance, with 

constitutional standards for ordination.



Second, Blasdell was decided before this Commission's decision in 

Presbytery of West Jersey v. Synod of the Northeast (Minutes, 

1993, p. 181). This Commission distinguished between expressions 

of opinion and actions in violation of constitutional 

requirements, stating as follows:



     Expression of an opinion by a synod or other governing body, 

     without action, does not constitute the adoption of a policy 

     contrary to an established and controlling constitutional 

     policy of the denomination.



     Each case must be decided on the facts presented. Here, the 

     resolutions passed by the synod and challenged by the 

     presbytery before this commission do not compel or direct 

     any action (or inaction) and do not extend any rights 

     (including the right to be ordained) that contravene any 

     stated positions of this church.



Appellee raises two additional arguments in requesting 

affirmation of the Synod PJC's decision. First, Appellee asserts 

that the Presbytery was barred from rescinding its March 1998 

motion because rescission left Christ Church's resolution in 

place, without correction or disapproval by the Presbytery. For 

the reasons expressed above, the Appellee is mistaken.



Second, citing Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery (UPCUSA, Minutes, 

1975, p. 254), Appellee asserts that the Presbytery was required 

to take corrective action concerning Christ Church's resolution 

because it expressed an intent not to conform to Church 

ordination policies. In Maxwell, a presbytery voted to ordain a 

minister who was unable to answer the ordination questions in the 

affirmative. The ordination was stayed. The General Assembly held 

that the Presbytery's action violated the Constitution. In so 

doing, the General Assembly did not challenge the right of the 

minister to his beliefs: "It is not seemly to challenge the right 

of [the minister] to his beliefs, but it is the responsibility of 

our Church to deny ordination to one who has refused to ordain 

women." Maxwell did not hold that a statement of intent 

constituted a violation of the Constitution. The constitutional 

breach in Maxwell was the presbytery's decision to ordain a 

person in violation of the Constitution, not the minister's 

statement of intent. Here, the Presbytery has not sanctioned the 

ordination of anyone contrary to denomination requirements.



In obedience to Jesus Christ, the church is "open to the reform 

of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church 

affirms 'ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,' that is, 'the 

church reformed, always reforming,' according to the word of God 

and the call of the spirit" (G-2.0200).



Dissent, advocacy of the unpopular and even proclamations of 

intent are ways to express truth to power, to induce change and 

to encourage "the church reformed, always reforming."



Although the Presbytery, in accordance with its connectional 

obligations, should counsel with Christ Church to ensure 

constitutional compliance, the Presbytery's rescission of its 

March 1998 motion did not constitute an irregularity.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



BOOKS



                     Homosexuality, Science,

               and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture



Balch, David L. ed.  Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain 

Sense" of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).  Reviewed by 

the Rev. Tom Hanks, Th.D., Executive Director, Other Sheep (a 

worldwide ecumenical ministry with sexual minorities).



For ecclesiastical political strategists, in this new collection 

of essays (pro and con), perhaps the most significant will be the 

opening historical one by Disciples of Christ minister Mark 

Toulouse, dean of Brite Divinity School, "Muddling Through: The 

Church and Sexuality/Homosexuality."  Toulouse traces the history 

of denominational debates since the 1950's, showing in effect how 

the "conservative" position today is yesterday's "liberal" one 

recycled (and that the ideological difference between 

"conservative" and "liberal" is not so much "what is believed" 

but "when."  For both academic and polemical purposes it would 

have been more illuminating had Toulouse gone back another decade 

to examine sexual ideologies before the Kinsey Reports (1948).  

His analysis of various denominational documents, with references 

not only to literature but relevant websites, should prove 

invaluable to those who want to review the sources.



I was especially glad to see detailed information on the gay 

evangelical churches that consider the MCC "too liberal," with 

references to the gay-positive ministry of  Ralph Blair and the 

works of Fuller Seminary professors Paul King Jewett and Lewis 

Smedes (although only the more timid 1978 edition of his book on 

sexuality is cited, not the second, which evangelicals prefer to 

ignore).  However, Toulouse gives the impression of not knowing much 

about the MCC, which (despite its more traditional critics) is 

overwhelmingly evangelical and pentecostal.  This neglect of the 

world's largest lesbigay organization, pioneer of the gay-

supportive ministries we seek to replicate in mainline churches, 

is unfortunate, but most of us know considerable about the MCC 

and little or nothing about similar evangelical gay churches and 

ministries, so Toulouse's chapter will fill in our gaps.  For 

historical polemical purposes within Methodism, it would be nice 

if someone would put on a website John Wesley's rediscovered 

tract against masturbation, which circulated widely in many 

denominations with great influence through the 19th century, but 

since has been censored and not included in what evangelicals 

market as Wesley's "complete" works.



Toulouse seems to sympathize a lot with the muddled middle, but 

fails to explain how this muddled middle's swing votes in 

denominational politics produces such ridiculously contradictory 

and apparently hypocritical results, in which denominations 

exhort various segments of society to courageously seek justice 

for lesbigays, while -- cowered by threats of denominational 

splits -- commonly postpone any major justice seeking applied to 

the church.  However, on the whole, Toulouse provides a detailed 

and insightful overview that would prove helpful reading for any 

groups grappling current obstacles and strategies.



As a Bible professor, I was especially delighted to see 

significant new insights in this area.  For sound-byte purposes, 

check out David Fredrickson's case for translating 1 Corinthians 

6:9-10 ("soft ones" and "bed-males" as "those who lack self-

control, nor the arrogant who penetrate boys" (p. 197).  This 

essay takes us considerably beyond Dale Martin's essay (p. 290, 

note 58), since Martin leaves "soft ones" with the translation 

"effeminate" (which then still requires more explaining than is 

easily accomplished in memorable sound-bytes).  Most open-minded 

readers probably would conclude from the essays in this book that 

the only problematic text that traditionalists might convince 

someone with is Romans 1:26-27, since increasingly even informed 

traditionalists recognize that their other favorite clobber texts 

now function more as boomerangs to their cause.  Especially 

valuable is Phyllis Bird's chapter on the Hebrew Bible, where 

recent scholarly commentaries on Leviticus (including Erhard 

Gerstenberger's in German) are mined for insight and then 

critiqued.  Bird's analysis of the Genesis creation accounts 

refutes the fundamentalist, homophobic sound-byte claiming that 

"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," since the texts 

are etiological (seeking to explain why so many males are 

attracted to females), not legalistic (seeking to establish some 

kind of Greek philosophical ethical absolute that condemns any 

exceptions as immoral)--but I have not figured out how to express 

this sound exegesis of the Plain Sense of Scripture in a 

comparably good sound-byte.  Bird's chapter, unfortunately, does 

not include reference to Saul Olyan's and Daniel Boyarin's works, 

which have shown that only male-male anal intercourse is referred 

to in Leviticus 19 and 20 (and in the early centuries of rabbinic 

interpretation), but while this insight greatly strengthens her 

case, the chapter has great value for its detailed insights into 

Biblical exegesis and  theology.  Surprisingly, however, Olyan's 

conclusions are accepted without citing them elsewhere in the 

book (e.g., Seitz, p. 179).



Adequate interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 would take us beyond 

the limits of this review (details soon will be posted on 

www.othersheep.org; see also my book *The Subversive Gospel: A New 

Testament Commentary for Liberation*, to be published this year by 

Pilgrim Press).  David Erickson's essay showing that for Paul the 

problem is passion, not "homosexuality," is helpful in many ways.  

And Robert Jewett's chapter focuses on common sexual abuse of 

slaves, significant in the five Roman house churches, where most 

members appear to be slaves or recently freed slaves (see the 

names in Chapter 16).  Although not here specified, Jewett's 

material also is significant for interpretation of Jesus' 

healing of the Centurion's beloved slave, as Gerd Theissen 

pointed out many years ago.  David Frederickson recognizes that 

Jim Miller "argues persuasively that only when the categories of 

homo/heterosexuality are assumed does 1:26 appear to speak of 

females having sex with females" (p. 201, note 15), a conclusion 

Jewett tentatively rejects (p. 233, note 61).  However, no one 

takes note of the strength of the historical materials Miller has 

presented, indicating that no church father (or mother) 

interpreted Romans 1:26 to refer to female homoeroticism until 

John Chrysostom (ca. 400)!  Augustine opposed lesbianism but did 

not understand Romans 1:26 to prohibit it, as Bernadette Brooten 

has pointed out.  And the other major church father sexologist, 

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 250 CE), commented on Romans 1:26-27 

"And nature has not permitted even the most unclean animals to 

procreate by means of the organ of evacuation (anus)" 

(Paidagogs II, 87.1).  Clement obviously understood both verses 

to refer to anal intercourse (women in heterosexual relations 

with men, to avoid procreation; and then males with males).



Remarkably, Evangelical guru Francis Schaeffer's 1960's lectures 

on Romans recognized that Romans 1:26 "does not speak of 

homosexuality" (*The Finished Work of Christ: The Truth of Romans 

1-8*; Wheaton: Crossway, 1998, pp. 42-43).  If in Romans 1:26 Paul 

were really inventing a new ethical absolute against lesbians, 

how do we explain the fact that no church father for 400 years 

recognized this and interpreted the text that way?  When we do 

not back into Romans 1:26 from 1:27 (as male commentators 

traditionally do), but take the texts in the Pauline order, the 

"likewise/similarly" that links the two verses obviously refers 

to the comparable acts of female-male and then male-male anal 

intercourse, not to our modern category of "homosexuality."  

Recently scholars often reject Robin Scroggs' conclusion that 

Paul in Romans 1:27 refers to intergenerational sex (the Greek 

paidophilia model), arguing that Romans 1:26 refers to female 

homoeroticism (lesbians) and that since intergenerational sex was 

not characteristic of female homoeroticism, that can not be the 

subject of 1:27.  However, if Miller's case against the lesbian 

interpretation of 1:26 be accepted, the main argument against 

Scroggs collapses also.  Miller's conclusion also brings the 

Christian New Testament into line with the Hebrew Bible ("Old 

Testament") and the Koran, which also contain no reference or 

prohibition of female homoeroticism -- hence any reference to 

"homosexuality" in the Bible or the Koran may be seen as sexist 

(forgetting that women are people and that lesbians are 

homosexuals), in addition to being anachronistic, importing a 

modern notion into an ancient text (like affirming that Jesus 

entered Jerusalem driving a Mercedes Benz).



Other highlights in the book include Princeton Seminary's Nancy 

Duff's theological study of Christian Vocation, Freedom of God 

and Homosexuality (correcting common misuses of Karl Barth's 

doctrine of the divine image), and editor David Balch's 

concluding summary essay with a comparative study of recent 

developments in Judaism.  Balch would appear to be a More Light 

type, but effectively hides his Light under a bushel and refers 

us to his 1998 essay (p. 5, note 1) where evidently he gathered 

courage and came out from under his bushel in support of one side 

or the other.



Many chapters in this work will leave us pained: see Kathryn 

Greene-McCreight, whose idolatrous attitude toward her 

"tradition" (Mark 7:13!) manages to forget centuries of tradition 

supporting monarchy (against democracy), slavery, racism and the 

subjugation of women.  Or even angry: the disastrous, 

pseudoscientific chapter on homosexuality by Stanton Jones and 

Mark A. Yarhouse, but which still is forced to acknowledge much 

that previous generations of fundamentalists would have denounced 

as "liberal."  However, even such pain and anger may prove 

edifying (see Paul in 2 Corinthians) if they enable us to 

correct our common oversimplifications and respond to the 

complexities of the muddle in the middle.  Many chapters are a 

delight to read and provide excellent insights that take us 

beyond the earlier published collections (from McCormick and 

Princeton).  The fact that much intelligent insight has now been 

mainstreamed into evangelicaldom through a publisher like 

Eerdmans is cause for encouragement.  However, both in the 

scientific area, as well as the Biblical and theological, we may 

feel a longing for that simpler time when anyone who read books 

knew that homosexuality was biological (essentialism, not 

constructionism), when Kinsey's 10% was unchallenged, when all 

clobber texts had a single, simple explanation (Boswell & Co.), 

and when anyone who read one pro-gay article and could learn to 

say "homosexual" without blushing and stuttering was likely to 

join forces with More Light churches.  In the last decade the 

trend has been strongly in the direction of scientific and 

theological complexity with ideological diversification.  

Building political alliances with effective strategies, 

therefore, requires greater wisdom and sophistication, with 

capacity for multifaceted dialogue with increasingly diverse 

partners.  One good sermon beamed indifferently at all hearers is 

no longer likely to accomplish much. -- Tom Hanks (MLP Liaison 

for Latin American; Executive Director, Other Sheep)



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                    MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS

                 4737 County Road 101, PMB# 246

                    Minnetonka, MN 55345-2634

                732-249-1016, http://www.mlp.org



NATIONAL FIELD ORGANIZER, Michael J. Adee, M.Div., Ph.D., 369 

Montezuma Ave., PMB #447, Santa Fe, NM 87501-2626, 505-820-7082, 

fax 505-820-2540, MichaelAdee@aol.com



                          MLP OFFICERS

 

Officers are also MLP Board Members.  The dates following each 

name indicate the end of current board terms; an "I" indicates 

board members representing individual members; a "G" indicates 

board members representing governing body members.



CO-MODERATORS: Mitzi Henderson (2001-G), 16 Sunset Lane, Menlo 

Park, CA 94025-6732, 650-854-2598, fax 650-854-4177, 

mitzigh@aol.com; William H. Moss (Bill, 2001-I), 535 Steiner St., 

San Francisco, CA 94117, 415-864-0477, WHMoss@excite.com



COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY: Donna Riley (2002-G), 318 East Capitol 

St. N.E., #5, Washington, DC 20003, 202-547-7135, 

dmriley@alumni.princeton.edu



RECORDING SECRETARY: Gene Huff (2002-I), 658  25th Ave., San 

Francisco, CA 94121, 415-668-1145, genehuff@pacbell.net



TREASURER: John McNeese (2001-G), 1300 Brighton Ave, Oklahoma 

City, OK 73120-1404, 405-848-7498, John3317@home.com



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                     MLP Board of Directors



James D. Anderson (2001-I), P.O. Box 38, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-

0038, 732-249-1016, 732-932-7501 (Rutgers Univ.), FAX 732-932-

6916 (Rutgers Univ.), JDA@scils.rutgers.edu



Ralph Carter (2003-G), 111 Milburn St., Rochester, NY 14607-

2918, 716-271-7649, rcarter@rpa.net



Tony De La Rosa (2001-I), 4545 Bedilion St., Los Angeles, CA 

90032-2001, 213-926-2787, tonydlr@ix.netcom.com



Marco Antonio Grimaldo (2003-I), 93 E. Main, #402, Newark, DE 

19711, 202-607-7629, mgrimaldo@earthlink.net



Eunice Poethig (2003-I), 3606 Trail Ridge Rd., Louisville, KY 

40241-6221, ebpoethig@unidial.com



Pat Rickey (2003-I) 13114 Holston Hills, Houston, TX 

77069, 281-440-0353, 281-440-1902 fax, RickeyMLP@aol.com



Bear Ride (2002-G), 1680 N. Holliston Ave., Pasadena, CA 91104, 

626-398-9936, bears@usc.edu



Erin K. Swenson (2003-G) 1071 Delaware Ave. S.E., Atlanta, GA 

30316-2469, 404-627-4825, ErinSwen@aol.com



Robin White (2002-I), 300  Birkwood Pl., Baltimore, MD 21218, 

410-235-2429 home, 410-435-4330 work, RKayeWhite@aol.com



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                      MLP National Liaisons



MORE LIGHT UPDATE, James D. Anderson, Editor, P.O. Box 38, New 

Brunswick, NJ 08903-0038, 732-249-1016, 732-932-7501 (Rutgers 

Univ.), FAX 732-932-6916 (Rutgers Univ.), 

JDA@scils.rutgers.edu



WEBSITE: Donna Riley, 318 East Capitol St. N.E., #5, 

Washington, DC 20003, 202-547-7135, dmriley@alumni.princeton.edu



MLP DATABASE: Dick Lundy, 5525 Timber Ln., Excelsior, MN 55331, 

612-470-0093 h., dick_lundy@pcusa.org, DLundy@Spacestar.net.



PRESBYNET: Bill Capel, 123-R W. Church St., Champaign, IL 61820-

3510, 217-355-9825 wk., 352-2298 h., Bill@Capel.com



CHAPTERS & LIAISONS: Michael J. Adee, M.Div., Ph.D., 369 

Montezuma Ave., PMB #447, Santa Fe, NM 87501-2626, 505-820-7082, 

fax 505-820-2540, MichaelAdee@aol.com



CHAPTER CONSULTANT: Gene Huff, 658  25th Ave., San Francisco, CA 

94121, 415-668-1145, genehuff@pacbell.net



SEMINARY & CAMPUS GROUPS: Johanna Bos, Louisville Presbyterian 

Theological Seminary, 1044 Alta Visa Rd., Louisville, KY 40205-

1798, jbos@lpts.edu



STRATEGY: Tricia Dykers Koenig, Covenant Network, 3967 Navahoe 

Rd., Cleveland Heights, OH 44121, 216-658-1770, 216-658-0590 

(fax), 216-381-0156 (home), triciadk@covenantnetwork.org



JUDICIAL ISSUES: Bear Ride, 1680 N. Holliston Ave., Pasadena, CA 

91104, 626-398-9936, bears@usc.edu; Tony De La Rosa, 4545 

Bedilion St., Los Angeles, CA 90032-2001, 213-926-2787, 

tonydlr@ix.netcom.com; Peter Oddleifson, c/o Harris, Beach and 

Wilcox, 130 E. Main St., Rochester, NY 14604, 716-232-4440 w., 

716-232-1573 fax.



PRISON MINISTRIES: Jud van Gorder, 915 Walnut Ave., Santa Cruz, 

CA 95060-3440, 831-423-3829.



SHOWER OF STOLES PROJECT: Martha G. Juillerat, Director, 57 Upton 

Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55405, 612-377-8792, StoleProj@aol.com, 

www.showerofstoles.com.



THAT ALL MAY FREELY SERVE: Jane Adams Spahr, P.O. Box 3707, San 

Rafael, CA 94912-3707, 415-457-8004, 415-454-2564 fax, 

JanieSpahr@tamfs.org, http://www.tamfs.org



PRESBYTERIAN AIDS NETWORK (PAN): John M. Trompen, 48 Lakeview 

Dr., Morris Plains, NJ 07950-1950, 201-538-1655.



PRESBYTERIAN ACT-UP: Lisa Bove, 1037 N. Ogden, #10, West 

Hollywood, CA 90046, 323-650-2425, lbove@chla.usc.edu; Howard 

Warren, Jr., 2807 Somerset Bay, Indianapolis, IN 46240, 317-632-

0123 w., 317-253-2377 h.



BISEXUAL CONCERNS: The Rev. Kathleen Buckley, 2532 Rosendale Rd., 

Schenectady, NY 12309-1312, 518-382-5342; Skidmore College 

chaplain 518-584-5000 ext 2271, email kbuckley@skidmore.edu; 

Union College protestant chaplain, 518-388-6618, 

buckleyk@gar.union.edu; The Rev. Susan Halcomb Craig, c/o United 

University Church, 817 W. 34th St., Los Angeles, CA 90007, 213-

748-0209 ext. 13, fax 213-748-5521.



TRANSGENDER CONCERNS: Erin K. Swenson, 1071 Delaware Ave. S.E., 

Atlanta, GA 30316-2469, 404-627-4825, ErinSwen@aol.com



YOUTH CONCERNS: Brian Cave, 199 8th St, Apt. 3, Brooklyn, NY 

11215, 718-369-6434, ClemsonBC74@aol.com



EUROPE: Jack Huizenga, Voice of America, 76 Shoe Lane, London 

EC4A 3JB, U.K., jwhuizen@dircon.co.uk, tel: (171) 410-

0960, preceded by 011-44 if calling from the U.S.



LATIN AMERICA: The Rev. Tom Hanks, Lavalle 376-2D, 1047 Buenos 

Aires, Argentina, thanks@thanks.wamani.apc.org



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                          MLP Chapters



MLP chapters provide an opportunity for local lesbian, gay, 

bisexual and transgender Presbyterians and their straight allies 

to come together regularly to carry out a variety of functions 

and tasks which are seen to be important and appropriate for a 

particular area.  Some are large; others are small.  Most meet 

monthly, some less often but are always on call for taking on 

strategic tasks.  All are able to provide strong personal support 

to their members for the individual journeys they travel at this 

point in their lives and in the life of the Presbyterian Church.  

Chapters themselves decide what specific tasks and roles they 

wish to take on, based on the stated mission of MLP. 



For information about organizing a chapter, please refer to our 

brief statement called "Tips for Organizing a MLP Chapter."  It is 

found on our web page (http://www.mlp.org) or can be secured 

along with other advice from our national field organizer Michael 

Adee (369 Montezuma Ave., PMB #447, Santa Fe, NM 87501-2626, 505-

820-7082, fax 505-820-2540, MichaelAdee@aol.com).  Corrections 

and other changes in the chapter information listings should be 

sent to Michael.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                  Seminary and Campus Chapters



LIAISON: Johanna Bos, Louisville Presbyterian Theological 

Seminary, 1044 Alta Visa Rd., Louisville, KY 40205-1798, 

jbos@lpts.edu



CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: Heyward / Boswell Society. Marilyn 

Nash, 5757  South University Ave.,  Chicago, IL 60637, 

mnash100@aol.com



COLUMBIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: Imago Dei, Andrew Foster Connors, 

404-377-2205, connors@mindspring.com; Katie Ricks, 404/377-9531, 

AuntKatieR@aol.com, Columbia Theological Seminary, P.O. Box 520, 

Decatur, GA  30031.



LOUISVILLE PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: Student Chapter. 

Johanna Bos, 1044 Alta Vista Dr., Louisville, KY 40205, 502-8985-

3411, jbos@lpts.edu



McCORMICK THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: Acts 10:15, McCormick Theological 

Seminary, Tanya Denley, 5555 S. Woodlawn Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, 

773-288-6220, tdenley@juno.com; James Hicks, 1519 W. Rosemont 

Ave. #2W, Chicago, IL 60660, 773-338-5278, booyim@21stcentury.net



SAN FRANCISCO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: SFTS More Light 

Presbyterians.  Dave Brague and Shelly Holle, 2 Kensington Rd., 

San Anselmo, CA 94960, 415-256-8349 (Brague), DSBrague@jps.net, 

415-482-0283 (Holle) SHolle@sfts.edu; Sally Juarez, 

sallyjuare@aol.com; Bill Bess, 19 Belle Ave #7, San Anselmo, CA 

94960, 415-460-0733, billbess@aol.com



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                 Presbytery & Regional Chapters



Persons listed are moderators or contact persons for each 

chapter.  See also our state-by-state list of MLP liaisons!



BOSTON AND NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND: Ken Wolvington, 118 Shore Rd., 

Burlington, VT 05401-2658, 802-862-6605, ken.wolvington@pcusa.org



SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND: Jack Hartwein-Sanchez, 149 Bramble Way, 

Tiverton, RI 02878, 401-624-6698.



NEW JERSEY: James D. Anderson, P.O. Box 38, New Brunswick, NJ 

08903-0038, 732-249-1016, JDA@scils.rutgers.edu



MONMOUTH (NEW JERSEY): Linda Rogers, Toms River, NJ, 732-473-

9155, mail via More Light Presbyterians, P.O. Box 38, New 

Brunswick, NJ 08903-0038.



GENESEE VALLEY: Kay Wroblewski, 74 Freemont Rd., Rochester, NY 

14612, 716-663-6632; Ralph Carter, 111 Millburn St., Rochester, 

NY 14607-2918, 716-271-7649, rcarter@rpa.net



PITTSBURGH: Robert J. Boston, Moderator, P. O. Box 15784, 

Pittsburgh, PA  15244, 412-795-0828.



LAKE ERIE: Evan Marie McJunkin, 5440 Washington Ave., Erie, PA  

16509, 814-864-1920., evan@erie.net



BALTIMORE: Joan Campbell, 3401 White Ave, Baltimore MD 21214-

2348, 410-254-5908, ThomCAM96@aol.com



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Dana vanBever, 3500 Russell 

Road, Alexandria, VA 22305, 703-683-2644, 

jdvangreen@aol.com; Jeanne MacKenzie, 725 3rd St., SW, 

Washington, DC 202-554-8281, jmackenzie@execware.com



EASTERN VIRGINIA: Carol Bayma, 4937 Olive Grove Ln. Virginia 

Beach, VA 23455-5218, 757-497-6584, Carol and Alice@gateway.net



TRIANGLE (NORTH CAROLINA): James R. Foster, 500 Meadow Run Dr., 

Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8022, 919-933-0498, j-efoster@mindspring.com



ATLANTA: Victor Floyd, 2480 Briarcliff Rd., NE, Atlanta, GA 

30329, 404-633-6530, mlpatl@aol.com



NORTHERN OHIO: George Smith, 13349 Spruce Run Dr., Apt. 103, 

North Royalton, OH  44133, 440-230-1301, 

GeoEMSmith@aol.com; Carole R. Minor, 339 St. Leger Ave. Akron, OH  

44305.



CENTRAL INDIANA: Howard Warren, Jr. 2807 Somerset Bay, 

Indianapolis, IN 46240, 317-253-2377.



DETROIT / SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN: John Lovegren & Dan Isenschmid, 

269 McKinley Ave, Grosse Pointe Farms,MI, 48236, 313-885-9047, 

pointetox@cs.com



MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN: Dick Myers, 549 West Manor Circle, Bayside, 

WI 53217- 1735; 414-228-7466, dmyers@execpc.com; John N. Gregg, 

3443 E. Waterford Ave., St. Francis, WI 53235, 414-486-9939, 

JGregg@aero.net



CENTRAL ARKANSAS: Greg Adams, 314 Steven, Little Rock, AR 72205, 

501-224-4724, sgadams@Aristotle.net



LOUISIANA: Ellen Morgan, 2285 Cedardale, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, 

504-344-3930.



OKLAHOMA: John McNeese, 1300 Brighton Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 

73120-1404, 405-848-7498, John3317@home.com



GREATER HOUSTON: Lynn Johnson, 1625 Harold, Houston, TX 77006, 

713-523-5222, tilj1@aol.com; Sara Jean Jackson, 4383 Fiest Lane, 

Houston, TX 77004, 713-748-4025, sjackson@netropolis.net; Pat and 

Gail Rickey, 13114 Holston Hills, Houston, TX 77069, 281-440-

0353, RickeyMLP@aol.com



GRACE PRESBYTERY (Dallas / Fort Worth, TX): Don Grainger, 4606 

Cedar Springs, #1227, Dallas, TX 75219, 214-528-6278, 

don_grainger@harbrace.com; Jean Martin, 1220 Brookside Dr., 

Hurst,TX 76053, 817-282-7449.



LOS RANCHOS (ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA): Linda A. Malcor, P.O. 

Box 749, Laguna Beach, CA  92652, 949-425-9979, 

Legend@malcor.com. Our meetings are usually on the 2nd Saturday 

of each month.  Check our webiste at 

http://DRAGONLORDS.dragonfire.net/mlpoc.htm for dtails!



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



                       MLP State Liaisons



This listing is intended for persons wishing to be in touch with 

local MLP churches, chapters and friends.  The persons named for 

each state stand ready to answer questions about what is going on 

in their areas and to assist those who wish to join MLP's 

campaign for a truly inclusive Presbyterian Church by working in 

their local communities.



See also our geographical listing of chapters.



ALABAMA: Marianne Forbes, 617 Briarwood Dr., Auburn, AL 36830, 

334-502-0650, RevM4bz@aol.com; James M. Wilson, 100 Kelly 

Creek Dr., Odenville, AL 35120, 205-640-1763, 

jmrjmw@mindspring.com



ARIZONA: Rosemarie Wallace, 710 W. Los Lagos Vista Ave., Mesa, AZ 

85210, 602-892-5255, forster@asu.edu; Kimberly Murman, 303 E. 

Patrician Dr., Tempe, AZ 85282, 480-967-2767, kmurman@worldnet.att.net



ARKANSAS: Greg Adams, 314 Steven, Little Rock, AR, 72205, 501-

224-4724, sgadams@Aristotle.net



CALIFORNIA: Lisa Bove, 1037 N. Ogden, #10, West Hollywood, CA 

90046, 323-650-2425, lbove@chla.usc.edu; Linda Malcor, P.O. Box 

749, Laguna Beach, CA  92656, 949-425-9979, Legend@malcor.com; 

Gene Huff, 658  25th Ave., San Francisco, CA 94121, 415-668-1145, 

genehuff@pacbell.net; Scott Anderson, 5805 20th Ave., Sacramento, 

CA 95820, 916-456-7225, Scott_Anderson.parti@ecunet.org



COLORADO: Laurene Lafontaine, 520 S. Grant St., #2, Denver, CO 

80209, 303-282-5573, lafden@uswest.net



CONNECTICUT: John Hartwein-Sanchez, 149 Bramble Way, Tiverton, RI 

02878, 401-624-6698.



DELAWARE: Patrick Evans, 91 E. Main St., #402, Newark, DE 19711, 

302-266-9878, pevans@UDel.edu



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Dana vanBever, 3500 Russell 

Road,Alexandria,  VA 22305, 703-683-2644, 

jdvangreen@aol.com



FLORIDA: Laurie Kraus, 5275 Sunset Dr., Miami, FL 33143, 305-666-

8586, madam@gate.net



GEORGIA: Victor Floyd, 853 Willivee Dr., Decatur, GA 30033, 404-

633-6530 h., mlpatl@aol.com



ILLINOIS: Mark Palermo, 6171 N. Sheridan Rd. #2701, Chicago IL 

60660-5839, 773-338-0452; Chicago Area: John Hobbs, 2970 

N. Lake Shore Dr. #18B, Chicago, IL 60657, john@icnetco.com; 

Judith Foster, 32B Marento Ave., Forest Park, IL 60130, 

jmfoster32@aol.com.



INDIANA: Howard Warren, Jr., 2807 Somerset Bay, Indianapolis, IN 

46249, 317-253-2377.



IOWA: Robin and Rick Chambers, 907 Fifth Ave, Iowa City, IA 

52240, 319-354-2765, RChamb2912@aol.com; Mike Smith, 1211 

West St., Grinnell, IA 50112, 515-236-7955, 

Michael_D_Smith@ecunet.org



KANSAS: Tammy Rider, 3001 SW Randolph, Apt. A, Topeka, KS 66611, 

785-266-6695, TRider7140@aol.com



KENTUCKY: Michael Purintun, 522 Belgravia Ct., Apt. 2, 

Louisville, KY 40208, 502-637-4734, michaelp@ctr.pcusa.org



LOUISIANA: Ellen Morgan, 2285 Cedardale, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, 

225-344-3930.



MAINE: Ken Wolvington, 118 Shore Rd., Burlington, VT 05401-

2658, 802-862-6605, ken.wolvington@pcusa.org



MARYLAND: Joan Campbell, 3401 White Ave, Baltimore MD 21214-2348, 

410-254-5908, ThomCAM96@aol.com



MASSACHUSETTS:  Ken Wolvington, 118 Shore Rd., Burlington, VT 

05401-2658, 802-862-6605, ken.wolvington@pcusa.org; John 

Hartwein-Sanchez, 149 Bramble Way, Tiverton, RI 02878, 401-624-

6698.



MICHIGAN: John Lovegren & Dan Isenschmid, 269 McKinley Ave, 

Grosse Pointe Farms,MI, 48236, 313-885-9047, 

pointetox@copmpuserve. com



MINNESOTA: Tammy Lindahl, 57 Upton Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 

55405, 612-377-2191, TLLindahl@oal.com; Dick Lundy 

& Lucille Goodwyne, 5525 Timber Ln., Excelsior, MN 55331, 612-

470-0093, dick_lundy@pcusa.org, DLundy@Spacestar.net.



MISSOURI: Jeff Light, 4433 Campbell, Kansas City, MO 64110, 816-

561-0555, JeffLight@aol.com; Peg & Doug Atkins, 747 N. Taylor, 

Kirkwood, MO 63122, 314-822-3296, atkinspegdoug@juno.com



NEBRASKA: Cleve Evans, 3810 S. 13th St., #22, Omaha, NE 68107-

2260, 402-733-1360, cevans@scholars.bellevue.edu



NEW HAMPSHIRE: Ken Wolvington, 118 Shore Rd., Burlington, VT 05401-

2658, 802-862-6605, ken.wolvington@pcusa.org



NEW JERSEY: Jim Anderson, P. O. Box 38, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-

0038, 732-249-1016, JDA@scils.rutgers.edu



NEW MEXICO: Linda Manwarren, 7720 Browning Dr. NE, Albuquerque, 

NM 87109-5303, 505-858-0249.



NEW YORK: Charlie Mitchell, 56 Perry St., #3-R, New York, NY 

10014, 212-691-7118; Cathy Blaser, 350 W. 85th St. #67, New York, 

NY  10024, 212-595-8976, Catblaser@aol.com; Kay Wroblewski, 74 

Freemont Rd., Rochester, NY 14612, 716-663-6632.



NORTH CAROLINA: James R. Foster, 500 Meadow Run Dr., Chapel 

Hill, NC 27514-8022, 919-933-0498, j-efoster@mindspring.com



OHIO: Hal Porter, 4160 Paddock Rd.,Cincinnati, OH 45229, 513-861-

5996, hgporter@hotmail.com



OKLAHOMA: John P. McNeese, 1300 Brighton Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 

73120-1404, 405-848-7498, John3317@home.com



OREGON: Janet Stang, 1244 Looking Glass Way, Central Point, OR 

97502, 541-664-9189, stangp@transport.com



PENNSYLVANIA: Rob Cummings (Pittsburgh Area), P. O. Box 394, 

Jackson Center, PA 15133-0394, 724-475-3285, robcum@toolcity.net; 

Eleanor Green, P.O. Box 6296, Lancaster, PA 17603, 717-397-9068; 

David Huting (Philadelphia Area), 215-735-4139, 

David_Huting@vanguard.com



RHODE ISLAND: John Hartwein-Sanchez, 149 Bramble Way, Tiverton, 

RI 02878, 401-624-6698.



TEXAS: Jay Kleine, 1108 Toyath St., Austin, TX 78703-3921, 512-

477-7418; Gail Rickey, 13114 Holston Hills, Houston, TX 77069, 

713-440-0353, RickeyMLP@aol.com; Don Grainger, 4606 Cedar 

Springs, #1227, Dallas, TX 75219, 214-528-6278, 

don_grainger@harbrace.com



VERMONT: Ken Wolvington, 118 Shore Rd., Burlington, VT 05401-

2658, 802-862-6605, ken.wolvington@pcusa.org



WASHINGTON: Lindsay Thompson, 200 W. Mercer St., Suite 207, 

Seattle WA 98119-3994, 206-285-4130, tradelaw@thompson-law.com; 

Rev. Richard K. Gibson, 18808 68th Ave. W., Lynnwood, WA 98036, 

425-774-7007, RKGibson@juno.com



WASHINGTON, DC: See District of Columiba.



WISCONSIN: Richard Winslow, 111 E. Water St.,  #100, Appleton, WI 

54911-5791, 414-731-0892.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



               MASTHEAD (Publication Information)



MORE LIGHT UPDATE, Volume 21, Number 2, November-December 2000.  

ISSN 0889-3985.  Published bimonthly by More Light Presbyterians 

(for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns), an 

organization of Ministers, Elders, Deacons, Members, 

Congregations and other Governing Bodies of the Presbyterian 

Church (U.S.A.).  Elder James D. Anderson, Editor, P.O. Box 38, 

New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0038, 732-249-1016, 732-932-7501 (Rutgers 

University), fax 732-932-6916 (Rutgers University), Internet: 

JDA@mariner.rutgers.edu (or JDA@scils.rutgers.edu), DeWitt House 

206, 185 College Ave., New Brunswick, NJ 08901.  Printer: Ken 

Barta, Brunswick Typographic Inc.; Production Associate: Mario 

Alberto Aguilar Mejorada.  Electronic version available via 

email.



Email Discussion List: mlp-list@scils.rutgers.edu (To join, send 

email to: Majordomo@scils.rutgers.edu; in body of message put: 

subscribe mlp-list; to leave list, put: unsubscribe mlp-list.



MLP home page: http://www.mlp.org



Send materials marked "For publication" to the editor.  

PUBLICATION DEADLINES: 6 weeks prior to issue months.  Most 

material appearing in MORE LIGHT UPDATE is placed in the public 

domain.  With the exception of individual articles that carry 

their own copyright notice, articles may be freely copied or 

reprinted.  We ask only that MORE LIGHT UPDATE be credited and 

its address be given for those who might wish to contact us.  

Suggested annual membership contribution to MLP: $50.00.  Annual 

subscription (included in membership) to MORE LIGHT UPDATE: 

$18.00.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



corrected version 10-28-2000.