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

MORE LIGHT UPDATE

January-February 2001

Volume 21, Number 3

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

HIGHLIGHTS

Those Not There. Constitutional Amendments: A, O, & B. Covenant

Network Gathers. Auburn Declaration. More Light on Ethics &

Relationships. On the Road. Membership Renewal. MLP Board Meets.

Resources: Unity in Diversity. A Mother's Story. A Parents Perspective.

Conversion. Scotland. Scouting. Prisoners. A New Chapter. Yet

Another Court Case. Books.

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

FULL CONTENTS

SEXUAL ETHICS

CHANGES

OUR COVER: Building Up the Church of Jesus Christ: At Bethany

Presbyterian, Dallas, TX

OUR NATIONAL FIELD ORGANIZER: On the Road with Michael Adee

MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS

Annual Membership Renewal

Just Like Public Radio!

MLP Board Meets: A Report by Pat Rickey

EVENTS

National MLP Conference 2001: A Celebration of Open Minds,

Open Hears, Open Hands

RESOURCES

Reading Resources for Unity / Diversity by Gene Huff

Universal Liturgical Arts [ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

Congregations Coming Out! [ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

*The Other Side*: Special Subscription Offer

FEATURE STORIES

Those Not There, by Donn Crail

One of the Missing, Whom We Dearly Miss! Miriam K. Cameron

Think How God Must Grieve, by Luann Conaty

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Responding to Amendment A, by the Rev. Don Stroud

ACWC Opposes Amendment A

AMENDMENT O -- Same Sex Unions:

"Lording It Over," by the Rev. Todd Freeman

AMENDMENT B: "Fidelity and Chastity"

Synod Judicial Decision Upholds Installation of Gay Elder

by Alexa Smith, PCUSA News Service

Our Pharisaic Tendencies, by George Fuller [ELECTRONIC

VERSION ONLY]

10 Congregations of Defiance, by the Rev. Jack S. Miller

[ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

An Empty Seat: Louisiana Church Witnesses to God's Inclusive

Love [ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

COVENANT NETWORK MEETS IN PITTSBURGH

Anti-homosexual passages in Bible reflect authors' biases,

speakers say, by John Filiatreau, PCUSA News Service

Young Presbyterians Urged to Affirm Support for Gays, by Ann

Rodgers-Melnick, *Post-Gazette*

A NEW AUBURN DECLARATION

Reclaiming the Church, by the Rev. David Bos [ELECTRONIC

VERSION ONLY]

MORE LIGHT ON ...

More Light on Sexual Ethics

More Light on Same-Sex Unions

PARENTS, FAMILIES, CHILDREN

A Mother's Story, by Mitzi Henderson [ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

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

Anita Calhoun [ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY -- HELD OVER

FROM NOV-DEC. 2000 ELECTRONIC EDITION]

CONVERSIONS

The Conversion of William P. Thompson, by Scott Anderson

[ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

The Conversion of E.J. DiStefano [ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

INTERNATIONAL SCENE

Reflections on Scotland 2000, by Donn Crail [ELECTRONIC

VERSION ONLY -- HELD-OVER FROM NOV-DEC. 2000 ELECTRONIC

EDITION]

BOY SCOUTS

No Boy Scout Badge for Bigotry, by Roger Scott Powers

[ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

PRISONERS

A Decalogue for Writing to Inmates, by Jud van Gorder

[ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

CHAPTERS

Presbyterians meet to support homosexuals, by Tim Funk, The

*Charlotte Observer* [ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

POLITY: Latest Court Decision Regarding Amendment B

BOOKS

Called OUT! Goes to a Second Printing [ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY]

Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture,

reviewed by the Rev. Tom Hanks [ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY

-- HELD OVER FROM NOV-DEC. 2000 ELECTRONIC EDITION --

some additional editing!]

MLP OFFICERS

MLP Board of Directors

MLP National Liaisons

MLP Chapters

Seminary and Campus Chapters

Presbytery & Regional Chapters

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

Our liaison for Youth Concerns, Brian Cave, has been "promoted"

liaison for Youth and Young Adult Concerns!

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

OUR COVER: Building Up the Church of Jesus Christ, at Bethany

Presbyterian, Dallas, TX. MLP national field organizer Michael

Adee and Bethany parish associate for Hispanic ministries the

Rev. Daniel Alatorre hoist timbers on high to fellow workers.

Photo by Todd Freeman.

Other photos have been contributed by Michael Adee, Marilyn Nash,

Todd Freeman, Harold Snedeker, Chris Glaser, and Jack Hartwein-

Sanchez.

**Please send us your photos!**

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

OUR NATIONAL FIELD ORGANIZER

On the Road

with Michael Adee

MLP National Field Organizer

"Our job is to take care of each other" -- Freda Gardner

I have been reflecting upon, examining, learning from and

savoring this past year, 2000, as your National Field Organizer.

What a journey this year has been for me, for all of us as we

continue to work together for justice and love, living as

faithfully into the Gospel as our minds and hearts can take us.

Capturing my imagination is this picture of a journey, a path.

Reading about the upcoming Winter Olympics that Utah will host

next year, I found an article about the 1932 Olympics when

Eleanor Roosevelt took a plunge down the new bobsled run, one of

the fastest and trickiest in the world at that time. It was

delightful to imagine Eleanor Roosevelt riding down that hill in

a bobsled realizing how much of a difference she would make in

the world, speaking up for those who had no voice, who had less,

and to work for justice for all persons through the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights.

If we are honest, there are moments when our own paths, our

journeys of faith working toward justice, feel like a bobsled

ride. Or a long climb up a mountain, wondering if we will ever

reach the summit. A long time ago I read a spiritual classic by

Hannah Hunnard, *Hind's Feet on High Places*. In this allegory

was the central figure, Much Afraid, encouraged along in her

journey by Mrs. Valiant, an Eleanor Roosevelt-type of person. I

am grateful to all of you who are companions on this journey, and

in this work of nurturing open hearts and minds to the full

inclusion of all of God's children and to the removal of any

prejudice, misunderstanding, and barrier to the lives, gifts and

calls of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons of faith

in the life of our church.

As companions in this work, members and supporters of MLP in the

year 2000, your care and support enabled me to travel to 16 states

to do field work. And, to work with people and churches in 32

additional states. Because of you, all across the country I was

helping get MLP Chapters started, offering educational programs

for presbyteries, preaching in churches, speaking at conferences,

and bringing programs to our seminary campuses.

Because of you in 2000 there were six new "More Light" Presbyterian

churches added to our national network: St. Andrew's Presbyterian

Church, Oklahoma City, OK; Palo Cristi Presbyterian Church,

Phoenix, AZ; College Hill Presbyterian Church, Tulsa, OK;

Community of Our Servant -- Savior, Houston, TX; Faith

Presbyterian Church, Dunedin, FL; and Central Presbyterian

Church, Ownesboro, KY. These churches, and the growing number of

MLP Chapters in places like Charlotte, NC, Grand Canyon

Presbytery in Arizona, northern Michigan, northern New Mexico,

and Knoxville, TN are providing hope, advocacy, and pastoral care

for LGBT people and our families.

And, in seminaries like Princeton, Columbia, McCormick, SFTS,

LPTS, and Union-PSCE, "More Light" affiliated student chapters

are growing and offering an extraordinary witness, educational

outreach and ministry on campus. The National LGBT/Q "Youth at

Risk" Project was launched after a research visit to Louisville

with Brian Cave, our National Youth and Young Adult Liaison.

Designed to identify and recognize effective LGBT ministry, the

Welcoming Church Project was begun as well.

Special projects such as outreach with TAMFS/MLP in Alabama, a

regional educational conference with the Triangle MLP Chapter in

Raleigh/Durham, working with the Open Hands Advisory Council in

Chicago, leading a retreat with the Detroit MLP Chapter, offering

workshops at WOW 2000 in Dekalb, IL and at the Covenant Network

Conference in Pittsburgh and speaking at a Unity and Diversity

Conference in Houston were all made possible because of your

partnership with us.

It becomes increasingly clear to me after every conversation with

a LGBT person or family member, after every visit to one of our

churches, presbyteries, or seminaries, that we must be vigilant

to clear up the misunderstanding and mythology about who we are

as LGBT people, that we must continue to confront the homophobia

and heterosexism that persists in too many persons and churches,

and that we must never give up on the good news of the Gospel,

that is God's love and acceptance for all persons, regardless of

any human difference.

Moreover, as people of faith and justice, we must also continue

to see the connections among all types of oppression and

dismantle racism and sexism, work to make our churches accessible

for persons of all abilities, and address systemic issues of

economic justice and classism that affect too many in our world.

As Freda Gardner said when she was Moderator of the PCUSA, we

need to remember that, "It is Christ's church, not ours. And, we

get into trouble whenever we think otherwise. Too many of us

feel called to be God's last defender. God will protect the

church and take care of God's self. Our job is to take care of

each other."

Along this journey, this adventure of being your National Field

Organizer, I am most grateful for this opportunity to serve, to

reach out, to listen, to speak, to be an advocate, to stand up

with you and work alongside you. I believe that Freda Gardner is

absolutely correct, "our job is to take care of each other."

And, we must remove all of the barriers and walls, prejudice and

systems that keep up apart, and from being able to fully care for

each other as God has called us.

So, here's to a brand new year in 2001 and a new journey

together! Thank you for being there in all the ways that you are

-- together we are building a church for all God's people. --

With grace and hope, Michael

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

MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS

Annual Membership Renewal

Individual membership in More Light Presbyterians is on an

annual basis. All our members are now invited to renew their

membership status and participation for 2001.

If you are not already participating in a local or regional MLP

chapter and wish more information on how to connect with a

chapter or to help organize one in your area, please contact our

national field organizer, Michael J. Adee, 369 Montezuma Ave.,

PMB# 447, Santa Fe, NM 87501-2626, 505-820-7082,

michaeladee@aol.com.

From the By Laws of our organization:

Article III, Section 2. Requirements for Membership.

Individual membership in MLP shall be open to any member of the

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who submits an annual affirmation

of support for the mission of MLP as set forth in Article II,

promises to work for the transformation of the church, and pays

annual dues to MLP in an amount determined by the Board of

Directors.

Article II, Section 1. Mission

Following the risen Christ, and seeking to make the Church a true

community of hospitality, the mission of More Light

Presbyterians, Inc. (MLP) is to work for the full participation

of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the

life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

MLP individual membership dues at this time have been set at

$50 per year *or whatever a member can afford*. Please use the

remittance form envelope inserted in this issue of *More Light

Update* to complete your membership renewal. Your returning that

form with your check will be received by MLP as an affirmation of

support for its mission. You may also send the tear-off form found

on the other side of this page with your check to MORE LIGHT

PRESBYTERIANS, 4737 County Rd. 101, PMB #246, Minnetonka MN

55345-2634.

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

Just Like Public Radio!

The *More Light Update* is very much like your Public Radio

Station, or, if you prefer, your Public TV channel. If you read it, you need to help pay for it. The

*Update* is mailed to more than three thousand individuals from

whom we have no record of a contribution in 1999 or 2000.

Perhaps *you* need to help pay for it, if you are able.

There are about a thousand people who belong to More Light

Presbyterians, or who help to support the cost of the *Update*. If

you are in the much larger list of folks who are not giving any

support for MLP or for the cost of publishing the *Update*, we hope

you will get with it!

There's far too much work left for us to do. We need your

financial help to get it done!

The Annual Membership Contribution to More Light Presbyterians is

$50, *or what ever you can afford*. If you are not a Presbyterian,

but wish to support MLP, you may become an Associate for $50, or

what ever you can afford. If you just want to help pay for the

costs of the *Update*, you may subscribe for $18.

Please use the envelope inserted in this issue of the *Update*,

or the tear-off form on the other side of this page, to send in

your membership/contribution/subscription!

P.S. If you no longer wish to receive the *Update*, please let us

know and we will take you off our lists. Thanks! -- MORE LIGHT

PRESBYTERIANS, 4737 County Rd. 101, PMB #246, Minnetonka MN

55345-2634. -- Dick Lundy, for the MLP Board.

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

MLP Board Meets

A Report by Pat Rickey

Pat Rickey was recently elected to the national board of More

Light Presbyterians. He reports from his first board meeting,

which was in Austin, October 6-9, 2000.

The weather in Austin was cold and rainy, but the reception for

the new board members was warm, and the energy level of the group

was exceptionally high. After a late dinner due to flight delays

and horrible traffic from the airport, the group worked until

11:30 the first night. That trend continued during committee

meetings, with the strategy committee working until "late thirty"

Saturday night to finish their business.

It is a pleasure to join such a positive, loving group of church

leaders, none of whom seems discouraged by the two negative

amendments to the *Book of Order* to be voted on early next year.

I came away with the sense that our church really is moving

toward full inclusion for all, even though the path seems long

and rough at times.

The MLP Board, led by co-moderators Mitzi Henderson (Menlo Park,

CA) and Bill Moss (San Francisco, CA), includes Jim Anderson (New

Brunswick, NJ & St. Petersburg, FL), Ralph Carter (Rochester,

NY), Tony De La Rosa (Los Angeles, CA), Gene Huff (San Francisco,

CA), Marco Grimaldo (Washington, DC and Newark, DE), John McNeese

(Oklahoma City, OK), Eunice Poethig (Louisville, KY), Pat Rickey

(Houston, TX), Bear Ride (Los Angeles, CA), Donna Riley

(Washington, DC), Erin Swenson (Atlanta, GA), and Robin White

(Baltimore, MD).

Also attending the meeting were National Field Organizer Michael

Adee and outgoing board member Tricia Dykers-Koenig, who is now on

the staff of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians.

Here are some highlights of the meeting:

- Five more churches have declared themselves More Light.

- Four new MLP chapters have been formed.

- Erin Swenson will edit the *Spotlight*, a new newsletter to

promote what MLP is and does. The *Spotlight* will be published

quarterly and will go to the entire MLP mailing list. With this

new resource available, the *More Light Update* will be sent only

to MLP members, contributors and on exchange with other

organizations.

- A recent MLP initiative is the development of educational papers,

called "More Light on ...." The first three are More Light on

Same Sex Unions, More Light on Sexual Ethics, and More Light on Transgender. Future additions will

cover Sexual Orientation, Civil Unions, Hate Crimes, What the Bible

Says, Ordination in Reformed Theology, Bisexuality, Parents and

Friends, and "More Light on More Light."

- The board also voted to go on record opposing Amendment A,

which would delete specific categories of persons in the

statement of who is welcomed into full membership in the PCUSA.

- Bear Ride has developed an educational statement on why

Amendment O (Holy Union Ban) should be defeated. Her statement is

already in wide distribution (and was published in the Nov.-Dec.

*More Light Update*).

- The board voted to respond favorably to a letter from That All

May Freely Serve (TAMFS) to collaborate with them and the Shower of

Stoles on several events. The collaborations would include:

Annual General Assembly dinner;

General Assembly hospitality suite;

General Assembly Sunday afternoon worship;

General Assembly pastoral counseling;

Representatives at other groups' meetings;

Joint board meetings in Santa Fe, Feb. 2001;

Joint Annual Conference in 2002.

- The group known as Progressive Partners will be seen as a

consultancy and alliance of groups, but not a separate entity.

This group will now be called Presbyterian Progressive Friends.

The organizations include: Witherspoon Society, Voices of Sophia,

Semper Reformanda, TAMFS, Shower of Stoles, MLP, Peace

Fellowship, and Partnership of Conscience.

- MLP has possible funding for a second field organizer, and a

search may begin soon.

- The next MLP Conference will be in Austin, TX, May 25-27, 2001.

Plan now to attend! Save the Date!

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

National MLP Conference 2001

A Celebration of

Open Minds, Open Hears, Open Hands

Austin, Texas is the site for the next national MLP conference to

be held May 25, 26, 27, 2001. The host church will be St. Andrews

Presbyterian in Austin, where Dr. Jim Rigby serves as pastor.

The University of Texas campus will be the site for the

conference, with all sessions being held in the Texas Union

building. Overnight accommodations, meals and parking have been

arranged at The Castillian, a private dormitory across the street

from the Texas Union. Some meals will be available in the Texas

Union as well.

Preliminary estimates are that registration fees will be $100,

including most meals, plus housing at $25 per night double

occupancy; $38 for single occupancy. Tours of local sites will

be available on Friday afternoon for early arrivals.

More information, including speakers, workshop topics and

leaders, and more complete registration information will be

posted on www.mlp.org as soon as it is available. Austin

coordinators for the event are Allison Thompson

(a.thompson@utexas.edu) and Gerald Gafford

(www.ggafford@webtv.net).

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

EVENTS

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.

February 24, 2001, Saturday, Lazarus Project Award Dinner,

Pasadena, CA, honoring former General Assembly stated clerk,

William P. Thompson.

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 18-20, 2001, Friday-Sunday. Gender PAC, 1st National

Conference on Gender, Washington, DC. Contact NCG@gpac.org,

www.gpac.org/NCG, GenderPAC NCG, 1638 R St. NW, Ste 100,

Washington, DC 20009, 202-462-6610.

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

Austin, TX.

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

RESOURCES

Reading Resources for Unity / Diversity

by Gene Huff, MLP Board Member

As we approach the proposed conferences on the unity we seek in

our diversity, many in the church may be looking for informative

resources. We ought not overlook the remarkable historical

literature which has appeared in recent years. Three scholars

have provided valuable insights from the Presbyterian past which

offer thoughtful counsel for the discussions. Four books have

emerged since 1991, each in its own way a significant

contribution. While many enjoyed a quick read when the books

first appeared, they and others who may have missed that

opportunity would do well to study these writings carefully at

this point in our history.

First was Bradley J. Longfield's *The Presbyterian Controversy*,

published by Oxford University Press in 1991. That was followed

in 1995 with Westminster John Knox giving us Jack Rogers'

*Claiming the Center*. 1997 saw William J. Weston's *Presbyterian

Pluralism* from the University of Tennessee Press. Finally this

year we have Rogers' latest, *Reading the Bible and the

Confessions the Presbyterian Way* from Geneva Press. All have

been reviewed in *Presbyterian Outlook*. Each uses thorough

historical analysis in providing discernment about who we have

been as a church and how we have dealt with our disagreements in

the past. Each examines key factors which have influenced our

continual search for unity.

Basically the phrase "unity in our diversity" simply raises the

question of how we can stay together as a church in spite of

various differences among us -- differences in theological views,

in racial-ethnic identity, in approaching gender sensitive issues

and in attitudes toward ordination standards. Differences of

these kinds and magnitudes among Presbyterians are however not

all that novel, as these historical researchers demonstrate well.

Longfield, who teaches church history at Dubuque Theological

Seminary, explores the conflict in the original PCUSA from 1922

to 1936. He shows how fundamentalists, modernists, and moderates

struggled over theological questions and their implications for

various issues of that time, including ordination requirements.

He demonstrates how, in addition to theological concerns, social

and cultural considerations also profoundly contributed to the

outcome of the conflict.

Rogers, recently retired from serving San Francisco Theological

Seminary as Vice President and Professor of Theology, reveals how

conflicting worldviews play a crucial role in how we relate to

one another in the church. He declares, "good intelligent, and

devout people simply see reality differently. It is not that some

people are smart and others stupid. Nor is it that some are

virtuous and others wicked. It is rather that the worldview that

some have adopted has caused them to see life in conservative

terms, whereas others have acquired a worldview that gives a

liberal interpretation of life" (*Claiming the Center*, p. xv).

He also challenges the moderate center in the church to step

forward to play a reconciling role within the church's struggles.

In a way similar to Rogers, "Beau" Weston, sociology professor

at Centre College, argues that what really takes place during

church controversies is that the liberals and conservatives

compete for the support of the much larger middle of the church,

a group he calls the loyalists. He insists such competition is

the only effective kind of pluralism for a church body because

it helps it avoid both institutional paralysis and schism.

His treatment of earlier church conflicts includes an idea worthy

of serious reflection. He claims that the triumph of

constitutional tolerance -- in the earlier conflicts -- has made

competitive pluralism the policy of the Presbyterian Church.

Weston offers a postscript on today's struggles related to

Presbyterian pluralism.

Finally with much of the current debate dealing with the use of

the Bible and the Confessions, Jack Rogers' latest work makes an

invaluable contribution for conference preparations. He shows

how new interpretations of Scripture and even revisions of the

Confessions have reversed what we now see as earlier

misinterpretations in three areas of our life as a church: the

accepted oppression of African Americans through slavery, the

failure to receive women into the leadership of the church,

and the treatment of divorced and remarried persons within the

church. In each case Rogers describes the particular

interpretive errors which long shored up the church's prejudices

in those chapters of its history.

A fascinating quotation that speaks to our current situation is

cited by Rogers. It comes from the famous Auburn Affirmation of

1924: "Some of us regard the particular theologies contained in

the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory

explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are united in

believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the

Scriptures ... and that all who hold to these facts and

doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are

worthy of all confidence and fellowship." That of course was the

beginning of the church's turn toward a spirit of tolerance in

the wake of the controversy resulting from J. Gresham

Machen's insistence that liberals in the church were not even

Christians.

One of Rogers' observations could be seen as sound advice for

those who will soon be conference participants: "This study of

the church's historic practices of interpretation has yielded

some warnings about blind alleys not to take. When we try to

claim essential status for our interpretations, inferences, or

applications of Scripture, we are in danger of becoming

sectarian, of fostering splinter groups, or of absolutizing

theological schools of thoughts" (p. 125).

A bit of thoughtful historical perspective could prove quite

useful for our continuing dialogues. Some may need to check

whether their particular views run the risk of reproducing the

discarded Machenism of the past. Others may need to make certain

their positions truly emerge from the solid Christology upon

which all searches for unity need to be founded. As we look for

insights on how Presbyterians can achieve unity within diversity,

we should use these valuable historical resources with much

gratitude to professors Longfield, Rogers and Weston.

(Published in the *Presbyterian Outlook*, November 15, 1999.

Reprinted here with the author's permission.

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

Universal Liturgical Arts

MLP'er Marilyn Nash is design specialist for Universal Liturgical

Arts (ULA). She writes: "Visit our new website featuring liturgical

stoles and banners .

ULA specializes in creating unique custom banners and stoles. By

choosing your own fabrics and various appliques, you can create

your own customized stole or banner right on line."

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

Congregations Coming Out!

A strategy for Outreach to Sexual Orientation Minorities

Congregations Coming Out (CCO) is a one-year consultation offered

by Jim Bailey, Social Marketing Consultant. This is a strategic

planning process involving a communications task force provided

by the participating congregation and a consultant who guides

the task force through a year of activities, in 12 monthly

segments. Bailey was the long-time publisher of the national

religious LGBT newspaper *Second Stone.* He helped with media

for the recent WOW 2000 conference. He's a member of Love

Lutheran Church in New Orleans and serves as secretary of the

Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran

Church in America. For info., contact Bailey at 504-394-7470,

3320 Wall Blvd., Ste. 6-304, Gretna, LA 70056,

jbailey777@earthlink.net, http://home.earthlink.net/~jbailey777.

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

*The Other Side*

Special Subscription Offer

*The Other Side* is an independent and ecumenical Christian

ministry and magazine which weaves together an awareness of

diverse justice issues in our effort to nurture people of faith.

Through our award-winning bimonthly magazine, we offer a healing

vision that integrates faith and social concern with the creative

arts.

As a long time advocate for a fully inclusive and welcoming

Church, and as a partner for last summer's Witness our Welcome

(WOW) conference, we are delighted to offer a special

introductory subscription rate of just $20 (more than 15% off) as

a celebration of our shared commitment in inclusivity in the new

millennium.

Get a gift for a friend, or better yet, treat yourself! For more

information or to order, contact *The Other Side* by phone (1-800-

700-9280), e-mail (subs@theotherside.org), or on the web

(www.theotherside.org).

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

FEATURE STORIES

Those Not There

by Donn Crail, Director

Lazarus Project

West Hollywood Presbyterian Church

West Hollywood, CA

Being "officially" retired I from time to time attend worship in

a variety of Presbyterian churches where I find myself having

this "queer" -- oddly different -- visual affliction. *I see the

people who are not there.* Even if there are 500 people -- almost

all of them very nice people, I'm sure -- still I see the ones who

are not there. It's not a sixth sense; it's merely the awareness

that many persons have given up on this denomination, and many on

the institutional church altogether. I also see of course the

persons who *are* there, those who "belong" there. In a half dozen

ways they, and their children, are welcomed every Sunday morning.

They are told that they are wanted -- and needed. But I see

ghosts -- ghosts of the ones who are not there -- though they

were there at one time, when they were children, or until they

left to live in a safer place -- a place where they too could

belong. It isn't that they would he turned away at the door -- of

course not. We Presbyterians may not approve of them but we

aren't cruel. It's just that they must understand the rules of

belonging, number one of which is to be straight, not gay, and if

they can't be straight at least be quiet and allow others to have

the impression that they are.

Hey, there are always rules for belonging. What if just anybody

could belong? Then it wouldn't feel like belonging at all. What

would it mean to be "in" if no one was "out?" We talk about God's

loving everyone, but we've got to break that down; otherwise it's

just a very big crowd. What is it supposed to mean to me that God

loves me if God loves everyone else just as much -- even those

called "queer."

According to all our "official" PCUSA statements it isn't a sin

to be homosexual; it is only a sin to be a practicing homosexual.

This is like saying it isn't a sin to be left-handed; it is only a

sin to write left-handed. The operative word is "practicing." We

have this odd situation in the church where any homosexual

practice is *presumed* to be sinful, while we are all expected to

*assume* that the practice of married heterosexual persons is

always holy. If heterosexuals want to presume -- and inquire -- as to

what is being "practiced" by homosexuals, especially those in

committed relationships, then it is high time that we know what

heterosexual Presbyterians are practicing so that we can judge

more fairly the "goodness" or "badness" of each. If we are

judging persons' "practice" then presumption won't do, and

assumption should not be given.

Married heterosexual persons who are having "good sex" -- where

tenderness, mutuality, self-giving and respect are present -- are

likely to be persons who have no great problem accepting gay and

lesbian persons and their relationships because they understand

what human sexuality is about. They understand the inclinations

of love. I hear Jesus teaching us that in human relationships

things are not "generically" good or evil. Our "practice,"

whatever it is, is good or evil in its context and in its

expression. Sex is one thing about which context is everything;

otherwise it's just biology and one person's sexual practice is

no holier than another's.

The "generic" -- categorical -- judgment of others becomes the

basis of our exclusion of them. A man who grew up in a

congregation I served for twenty years recently moved back to

California from the East Coast. The church had always been a part

of his life, so he contacted the pastor of a nearby church he

intended to attend. He felt it important to let the pastor know

that he is a gay man. The pastor encouraged him to look elsewhere

for a church family -- which he is doing. I do not know a single

instance where that counsel has been given to other honest

believers who have sought a church community. Can you imagine

Jesus saying, "Go away; you'll be happier elsewhere." This is why

I see the ones who are not there.

I'm always astonished at how the world loves walls and fences and

gates -- and to what lengths people will go to build them.

Regardless of one's views on the authority of scripture, any

honest reader of the Gospels is compelled to see that Jesus was

forever seeking and associating with the marginalized, the

hurting, the renegades, the outsiders and the socially despised.

He declared that he had come for their sake in the Sermon on the

Mount and in the synagogue in Nazareth. He was abundantly

criticized for his association with the "wrong sort of people."

How could anyone miss this without wanting to? He made himself

the friend of what Simon and Garfunkle called "the spat upon, the

sat upon, and the ratted on." Into his company he took a zealot

and a tax collector. Think about that: one wanting to kill the

Romans and the other colluding with them. Those are such

opposites that it's surprising those two disciples -- Simon and

Matthew -- didn't kill each other. Yet so far as we know, in Jesus'

company they were friends. His inclusiveness shocked and rocked

the political and the religious establishment. Yet many of his

disciples today invoke his name to exclude others.

Here is a subversive question. What if there is no heaven's gate?

What if it isn't a gated community? What happens to gatekeeping

if there is no gate? What if when the temple curtain was rent

from top to bottom the whole fence of heaven came down, like the

Berlin Wall? What if St. Peter isn't there checking who's got a

ticket and who doesn't? What if Jesus gave him the keys of the

Kingdom to unlock all the gates? What if one cannot be on the

right hand or left hand of God because God is omni-handed? What

if the only rule of heaven is the rule applied to every pub and

every party: If you don't like it you have to leave and not spoil

it for others? Maybe the burly angels are bouncers who toss out

the spoilers and say, "You can come back in when you're ready to

enjoy the company of saints." -- Shalom, Donn.

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

One of the Missing

Whom We Dearly Miss!

Dear MLP,

For years I have been considering dropping membership in PLGC. My

failure to regularly contribute funds in some ways reflects that

fact. Each time, though, I thought I owed it to you to explain

why. I imagine we all have unique and individual stories and for

awhile I even envisioned writing mine for the *More Light Update*.

But even though I -- who was married for 27 years, the mother of

four, the wife of a physician, and an intensely involved

professional in my own right -- was ready in the early '80's to

"take on" the whole Presbyterian Church, that was not meant to

be. I had to choose between putting all my energy into designing,

funding, and directing what is believed to be the first

comprehensive Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in public

education in the nation, or risking taking on far more than one

could manage alone. Was it a fluke or an accident that through

that whole EAP process I later met my partner of these last 20

years? Ours was no chance encounter. She has changed my life, my

family, my faith, and my sense of self forever. Yes, I have come

to believe our relationship was preordained and even meant to be.

We hear of the Catholic Church excommunicating members. I wonder

how many current or former Presbyterians feel they too have been

rejected and expelled or reclassified as second class citizens

yet remained silent or drifted away. Just as we all have life

stories, I'm sure many also have the "Did you hear this one ...?"

about the Presbyterian Church. Those stories hurt. They have been

well replayed in the *More Light Update*. But after 20 odd years,

they are also overwhelmingly depressing, often variations on the

same old theme.

The literature talks about those who when they found themselves,

they felt as though that last piece fell into place and the circle of

self was whole. The closing of that gap is a profoundly spiritual

experience. How ironic that when one has become whole and

acknowledges and accepts self to self, at that precise moment,

one becomes weighed in the General Assembly balance and is found

wanting. At that very moment one faces the dichotomy of

involuntary expulsion or demotion to second class membership while

desperately needing to be real -- to be able to say, "Hey, look,

this is me. I just found me! And I'm O.K."

Although your group has made progress in the last 20 years, as

evidenced by the increase in the number of More Light Churches,

my initial hopes and dreams, after that infamous General Assembly

ruling in 1978, never materialized nor were they realized during

my tenure in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). In time, I began a

nomadic journey seeking a new faith home while devoting all my

energies to the demands of my highly controversial job. Even

though I toyed with the idea of going back to the faith of my

fathers and grandfathers, after years in other disciplines, I knew

it wouldn't work for me. The God of my childhood is not the God

of my antiquity. I find him/her now in the silence of a Quaker

meeting and the messages that flow from other F(f)riends like me.

I can be me, and they can know me, and I don't have to wonder

"who knows" because it really doesn't matter anymore. You see,

as a relatively new member I have just been appointed to the

Outreach and Pastoral Care Committee of the Bethesda Friends

Meeting in Maryland. Now that I think about it, I guess that's

about as close to being an ordained elder as a Quaker can be.

Please use the enclosed as a token of my support for all of you

who have labored so hard for so long for so little. It is special

to me that several of the churches in this area and nearby DC

where my children were baptized and where we attended for many

years are now More Light Churches. As a Quaker I shall now hold

you and FLGC (Friends for Lesbian and Gay Concerns) in the Light.

The fields are ripe unto the harvest and the laborers are few.

And this laborer is almost four score and ten. Blessings on

thee. I'll continue to follow your progress in the *Washington

Post* or *The Washington Blade*. Happy Holidays, Miriam K.

Cameron, Silver Spring, MD.

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

Think How God Must Grieve

by Luann Conaty

Since the beginning of Christianity, the struggle has gone on to

**exclude** certain of those outside the inner circle.

In the first century the early Christian Church sought to exclude

the "Gentile Dogs." Jesus was Jewish. The apostles were all

Jewish. The message was from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Paul, a Jew, came along and was led by the Holy Spirit of God to

evangelize the Gentiles. And so here we all are today -- mostly

Gentiles with a few Christian Jews in our midst.

Fast forward to the late 19th century. Abraham Lincoln had freed

all the slaves in the United States. Many of the African American

were Christians already, having been taught by their owners about

Christianity. Many were not. However, can you imagine a former

slave walking into a white congregation and taking communion?

Horror of horrors. Unfortunately, that attitude prevails over a

hundred years later in many Christian congregations. African

American Christians are not welcome in all too many white

churches. While we may not challenge them on the basis of their

worthiness or their genuine Christian experience, we exclude them

on the basis of our "comfort level," our feeling that "they will

be more comfortable with their own people." Both of those

attitudes are transparent covers for bigotry, whether we want to

admit it or not.

Now we have come to a time when the battle is about Christian

homosexuals. The rhetoric is bitter, but once again the battle is

about **exclusion**. There are those who would say it is impossible

to be both Christian and homosexual. There are those who say all

homosexuals are going to hell. There are those who stood outside

Matthew Shepard's funeral, with signs proclaiming, "All

fags go to hell." Thank God those people are in the minority.

This battle hearkens back to the first century battle over the

exclusion of Gentiles. How could a "Gentile dog" possibly be a

Christian? How can a homosexual possibly be a Christian?

The criteria for being a Christian, as I understand it, is that

one has invited Jesus Christ into his/her life in faith. One has

acknowledged that one is a sinner and needs to be reconciled to

God by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Period. That is salvation by grace through faith, a bedrock tenet

of Christianity. If we add **any other** requirement, we are

diminishing the work of Jesus on the cross.

There is in the Christian community the attitude of "us" versus

"them," "we the holy, the sanctified" versus "them the sinners."

That attitude has no place in a Christian's life. In the

book of I John (written to Christians), we read in chapter 1,

verse 8, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and

the truth is not in us." We are *all* sinners. James 2:10 says,

"Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point

is guilty of breaking all of it." We are all equally guilty

before God. Once we have taken the step of commitment to Christ,

we are all equally "justified in the beloved." No exceptions, no

rankings, either perfect in Christ or an unbeliever.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer to bring about

whatever change in that person's life that God wants to

bring about. The Holy Spirit does not want to make us clones of

each other, only clones of Jesus Christ in attitude, in spirit,

yet not in personality -- nor even in sexual orientation. The body

of Christ is made up of sinners, saved by grace, each of whom has

a different function.

Think how God must grieve about the exclusionary personality of

His body in this world. We are more interested in keeping people

out than in bringing people in. Jesus told us to go into all the

world and make disciples. We have ministries in prisons to reach

out to murderers, rapists, child molesters, and all manner of

other criminals. Yet we cannot find it in our hearts to reach out

to law-abiding, responsible citizens who love God, yet whose

personal life is different from our own.

First, we must acknowledge the magnitude of our God, his

holiness, his purity, his perfection. Second, we must acknowledge

our own sinfulness. Third, we must acknowledge that being a

Christian does not make us superior to anyone else, just rescued.

When we can see ourselves as God sees us, perhaps we can see our

gay brothers and sisters as He sees them, too.

[Luann Conaty is a "PFLAG mom, Presbyterian elder, member of

Soulforce (arrested three times or more so far). She lives in

Venice, FL.]

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Responding to Amendment A: Issues to Consider

by the Rev. Don Stroud

Minister of Outreach & Reconciliation

in the Presbytery of Baltimore

Amendment"A": On Amending G-5.0103 to Remove the List of Persons

Welcomed as Church Members by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Shall G-5.0103 be amended to read as follows [text to be deleted

is shown in bold face; text to be added is placed within brackets]:

"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 persons shall be denied membership **because of race,

ethnic origin, worldly condition, or any other** *[for any]* reason

not related to profession of faith. Each member must seek the

grace of openness in extending the fellowship of Christ to all

persons (G-9.0104). Failure to do so constitutes a rejection of

Christ himself and causes a scandal to the gospel."

Background

At the 212th General Assembly (2000) Overture 00-60 was proposed

by Twin Cities Presbytery whereby "sexual orientation" would have

been added to the "inclusiveness section" of G-5.0103 after

"ethnic origin." The Church Polity Committee of G.A. voted (37 for,

8 against, 4 abstaining) to recommend that the 212th G.A. approve

Overture 00-60 and send an amendment for the vote of the

presbyteries to add "sexual orientation" to G-5.0103.

The eight "No" and four "Abstaining" voters indicated in their written

report to the whole G.A., "We have chosen not to offer a minority

report out of concern that such action would create the

appearance or assumption that the minority is challenging the

intent of the majority and Overture 00-60 and lend support to

further division." However, during the plenary of G.A., a member of

that same minority rose to offer an amendment to 00-60 to

eliminate the whole list of categories of people who shall not be

excluded from membership. Her motion to amend was approved and it

is this amended form that became Amendment "A" and is now before

the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative vote.

Implications and Concerns

This change to G-5.0103 is not benign for several reasons.

Firstly, in order not to state specifically that local churches

shall not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation" in

church membership, the G.A. approved the present Amendment that

does not speak with the resolute moral voice of Christ's grace of

openness to a broken and fearful world, but instead, with a

weak fearful voice all its own.

Secondly, this change in G-5.0103 would wipe away from

consciousness with one sweep the long struggle, especially by

racial ethnic groups within the PCUSA, to make a decisive stand

against racism, ethnic bigotry, and classism, as if to indicate

that all of these social ills have been eliminated from church

and society. The reactionary political chant: "All people are

created equal in the USA!" used as an excuse to eliminate all

affirmative action is echoed in the reactionary ecclesiastical

chant: "All are equal in Christ!" used as an excuse to disregard

the real racism, bigotry, and classism that still exists in the

church. To do anything substantial about discrimination in church

and society we need to be honest in naming the

social/ecclesiastical ills of racism, ethnic bigotry, homophobia,

and classism by naming those who are still victimized by these

ills. Paul, who certainly understood that in God's eyes we are

all equal in Christ, nonetheless did not hesitate to name the

divisions Christ had overcome: "No longer Jew or Greek, slave or

free, male or female" (Galatians 3:28).

Thirdly, the present proposed wording of Amendment "A" may give

aid and comfort to some churches who might desire to deny church

membership based on "sexual orientation." There are some people

in the PCUSA who believe that homosexuality is sin "per se" and

that being a self-affirming practicing gay or lesbian person is

incompatible with being a Christian. Some people within the

PCUSA interpret the Confessions of the PCUSA and biblical

texts as teaching the exclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgendered (LGBT) people from communion with God. By such

arguments some churches could conceivably attempt to deny LGBT

people membership in the church for reasons related to profession

of faith.

Fourthly, G-5.0103 alone prohibits discrimination for reasons of

race, ethnic origin, and worldly condition and thus guarantees

equal access to entry into membership of the PCUSA through one

of our local church congregations. As such G-5.0103 is the

indispensable cornerstone upon which all other guarantees to

equal access to representation, decision making structures of the

church, and employment rest. (See G-4.0403, G-9.0104, G-9.0105a,

G-11.0103, G-12.0102.)

Finally, contrary to the "Background and Rationale" given in the

*Book of Amendments*, copies of which have been sent to all

presbyteries, Twin Cities Presbytery never argued that its

proposed addition of "sexual orientation" to G-5.0103 would

"...change the Constitution's current ordination standards

regarding homosexual persons." Twin Cities argued that those

current standards which bar LGBT people from full membership,

without the right of all other members to hold elected

ordained/installed office, had made some churches assume that

they could deny membership to people of a different sexual

orientation from the majority.

All of us, racial ethnic people, LGBT people, non-LGBT people,

people of a myriad worldly conditions, must join together to

defeat this amendment. It is not possible for any one of us to

regard any other person of another category less worthy or

deserving of full membership in the church. We are all wound

round and round by the grace of Christ and as such are bound one

to the other. The clear resolute articulation of this truth of

our life together reveals the broader dimension of what is at

stake in defining who we are to a broken and fearful world,

which, when it sees how we treat one another with loving justice

and respect, shall rejoice with great joy.

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

ACWC Opposes Amendment A

The General Assembly's Advocacy Committee on Women's Concerns

(ACWC) at its fall meeting October 26-29 in Baltimore, MD, voted

unanimously to oppose the removal of the phrase from the *Book

of Order*, G-5.01013: "race, ethnic origin, worldly condition, or

any other reason not related to profession of faith," and to urge

the Presbyteries to defeat Overture 00-A.

Formed in 1993 by a mandate of the 205th General Assembly, ACWC

holds the strong conviction that this phrase must remain a part

of the *Book of Order.*

We ask that you help communicate this action to the PCUSA and our

Presbyteries. -- Joanne C. Sizoo, Chairperson.

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

AMENDMENT O -- Same Sex Unions:

"Lording It Over"

by the Rev. Todd Freeman

Bethany Presbyterian Church, Dallas, Texas

The assigned lectionary Gospel lesson for Sunday, October 22,

provides some excellent scriptural guidance to our discussion of

Amendment O.

Mark 10:35-45 is the story of James and John seeking to sit at

the right and left hand of Jesus in his glory. Jesus responds

that they do not know what they are asking (suffering vs.

"glory") and says that the decision is not his to grant.

Then Jesus instructs all 12 disciples, "You know that among the

Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over

them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not

so among you ...."

The issues addressed in Amendment O, seeking to dictate how

clergy can minister to the members of their community of faith,

falls into the category of "lording it over" others. It's an

issue of authority vs. authoritarianism.

Carter Heyward, professor of Theology at Episcopal Divinity

School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, writes in her latest book,

*Saving Jesus From Those Who Are Right*, "Authority, the 'power to

authorize' or the 'ability to empower,' can be held and bestowed

in just and unjust ways. Authority is a morally neutral concept,

neither good nor evil in itself ... By contrast,

'authoritarianism,' the hoarding of authority as power over

others, is always spiritually problematic."

The Apostle Paul, in 2 Corinthians 1 refers to this issue when he

writes, "Not that we lord it over your faith ...."

In my opinion, certain factions and elements of the PCUSA have

taken an authoritarian stance and seek to "lord it over" the

faith of others in our denomination.

One of the best examples of "authority vs. authoritarianism" came

just last week when former President Jimmy Carter renounced his

affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention because of their

efforts to control others, especially women.

May it not be so in the PCUSA!! May our denomination not be

deceived, issues of power and control scream out from behind

claims of biblical interpretation. May we not break from one of

the most basic premises of the Reformed tradition -- allowing

pastors to pastor their congregations as they feel led by God,

not by the law of those who seek to "lord it over" others!

Author on spirituality, Henri Nouwen, writes, "The long painful

history of the church is the history of people ever and again

tempted to choose power over love, control over the cross, being

a leader over being led."

Let us look at Amendment O as an attempt to "lord it over" the

PCUSA. Let us reflect upon authority vs. authoritarianism. Let us

remember Carter Heyward's definition of authority as the "ability

to empower" others as we exercise our authority as ordained

clergy, elders, deacons, and faithful members of this

denomination.

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

AMENDMENT B: "Fidelity and Chastity"

Synod Judicial Decision Upholds Installation of Gay Elder

An appeal to the top ecclesiastical court is under way

by Alexa Smith, PCUSA News Service

Louisville, KY, 16 Nov. 2000. -- Although an appeal is under way,

the Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of the Synod of the

Northeast has upheld a Connecticut church's decision to install a

gay elder to serve on its session -- after answers were gotten

for what it had earlier deemed as inadequate sections of the

elder's original examination.

A stay of enforcement, however, has been granted to stop Elder

Wayne Osborne from being installed as a member of the session of

First Presbyterian Church of Stamford, CT -- a barrier that

has been in place since the 700-member congregation re-elected

Osborne as an elder nearly three years ago.

In fact, Osborne's three-year-term may expire before his case is

fully adjudicated -- raising yet another set of questions about

what that may mean should the synod PJC's decision be upheld by

the General Assembly PJC, the denomination's highest

ecclesiastical court which is the complainant's only source of

appeal now.

The Stamford case was among the first in a series of judicial

cases to erupt after the denomination added a provision to its

constitution -- G-6.0106b -- prohibiting the ordination of

unmarried members who do not live in "chastity," a word from

church tradition that the writers of the amendment used to mean

not sexually active.

Since the provision also defines marriage as "between a man and a

woman," sexually active gays and lesbians, whose unions are not

recognized by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), cannot serve as

church officers -- unless they chose to live celibate lives.

CORRECTION: This assumes that the meaning of "chastity" is that

given to it by the writers of the amendment, *not* the biblical

meaning (see quotes below), nor the meaning given to "chastity"

in the *Book of Confessions*: "That all unchastity is condemned

by God, and that we should therefore detest it from the heart,

and live chaste and disciplined lives, whether in holy wedlock or

in single life" -- Heidelberg Catechism, 4.108. -- JDA

Osborne's case is the first time the courts have attempted to

interpret how far sessions must go to inquire about the sexual

behavior of potential church officers. It is also the first case

to determine how practices which the church's historic

confessions call sin -- such as homosexuality -- must be "self-

acknowledged," which is another clause in the same constitutional

provision which its drafters said, at the time it was written,

was included to prevent witch-hunts.

CORRECTION: The church's historic confessions *do not* call

homosexuality sin. In deed, homosexuality is mentioned *nowhere*

in the *Book of Confessions*, except in the current erroneous

translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. This reference is *not*

in the original German or Latin versions -- it was added by the

translators of the PCUSA version, and only this version (not

other modern versions). -- JDA.

In his first examination by the session, Osborne refused to

answer a question about his sexual activity and called himself

"chaste in God's eyes" -- answers both the session and then the

presbytery's PJC upheld.

But when the case reached the synod PJC last year, it said both

matters needed further questioning before any installation could

proceed. The session did so at its regular Jan. 18 meeting.

At its Nov. 6 hearing in Newark, NJ, the synod PJC deemed the

re-examination adequate: rejecting, by a 7-3 vote, the assertion

that Osborne's examination was irregular because he is

"ineligible for active service on session" under G-6.0106b and G-

6.0108b, another provision which puts limits on freedom of

conscience for church officers.

By a 6-4 vote, it rejected the claim that the examination is

still "incomplete and inconclusive," insisting, instead, that the

session's follow-up exam was "sufficient, procedurally and

substantively."

"This reaffirms the church and the session's position that we

have indeed interpreted the *Book of Order* properly. Now we'll

wait to see what the General Assembly says once it is appealed,"

said Steve Hart, an elder at First Presbyterian Church in

Stamford, CT, who is the congregation's designated

spokesperson.

According to Hart, what is at issue in the case is who discerns

what questions are appropriate when examining a candidate for

church office. "Congregations and sessions have the right to

install somebody that we feel is called to that office," he said.

"That's the bottom line ....

"We don't feel it is a homosexual issue. If you put it in

secular terms, it is a state's rights issue."

Osborne's answers -- as recorded by the session in the PJC papers

-- were more complex this time.

Asked whether or not he is sexually active, Osborne again did not

answer. He said declining to answer is acceptable under the

constitution of the PCUSA because the provision requires "self-

acknowledgment" of a practice -- which gives him a choice of how

to answer. Osborne also contended that questions about sexual

activity are discriminatory, singling him out as a gay man.

Further, Osborne said scripture defines chastity much more

broadly than mere sexual abstinence. He cited 2 Corinthians 7:

11, where the apostle Paul describes presenting oneself as "a

chaste virgin" to Christ, as evidence, where the two words would

be redundant if meaning sexual activity alone. Osborne pointed

out that the Heidelberg Catechism says God condemns all

unchastity and requires the faithful -- married or single -- to

live chaste lives.

Citing texts in Hebrews and, again, the Heidelberg Catechism,

Osborne said that during his initial questioning, he understood

the word 'chaste' to mean "purity, holiness and righteousness,"

gifts imputed out of grace by Christ's holiness and sacrifice.

He said that Christ, the high priest, has done the work of

salvation and sinful humans can stand boldly in the presence of

God. In that sense, he told the session, he believes that he is

chaste, holy and pure, in "the merciful eyes of God."

The PJC had ordered the session to question Osborne, too, about a

prior statement where he alleged that some sins mentioned in the

*Book of Confessions* are outdated and that the church does not

adhere to every sin described. He cited the Scots Confession

which says that Roman Catholic ministers are not true ministers

of Christ and that the Holy Ghost does not permit women to preach

or baptize. He said the Confessions prohibit creating images of

God or Christ and that they also require strict Sabbath day

observance. The Westminster Confession rejects dancing and

attending stage plays, calling both sin.

What does that exam tell the wider church?

The Rev. Stewart Pollock, stated clerk of the Presbytery of

Southern New England, where the Stamford church is located, isn't

entirely sure. "I think it means when we examine candidates, we

need to be sure to have follow-up questions when they say things

that are troubling. But if they offer an explanation for what is

said or for declining to answer a specific question that is

asked, it seems to be permissible for the governing body to be

satisfied with that ...

"If," Pollock said, pausing, "this ends up being the ultimate

rule for the church."

Judicial action was initiated several years ago by two members of

First Church -- Mairi Hair and James McCallum. The two argued

that Osborne's election to the session violated G-6.00106b,

requiring "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man

and a woman, or chastity in singleness." It also alleged that the

session's examination of Osborne was not procedurally or

substantively sufficient.

The presbytery's PJC first heard the case and ruled that the

session's examination of Osborne, while imperfect,

"satisfactorily discharged its duty to inquire," and that

Osborne's acknowledgment of his homosexual orientation, falls

short of the voluntary self-disclosure of homosexual practice

that G.0106b requires. Pressing for more answers, it said, is a

step down "the slippery slope that leads to inquisition."

That's when the synod PJC ordered the re-examination.

The plaintiff's representative, Elder William Prey of Old

Greenwich, CT, told the Presbyterian News Service that an

appeal is under way but he would not disclose the grounds.

Four members of the synod PJC did file a dissent in the case,

charging that Osborne is still ineligible for active church

service because his definition of chastity does not correspond

with the intent of the denomination's constitution, where it

means sexual purity. For singles, in effect, that means

celibacy, the dissent stated.

COMMENT: If the writers of this amendment meant celibacy, they

could have said so! (Indeed, earlier versions of this amendment

did use the word "celibacy." But celibacy simply means

"unmarried," so it's rather redundant in the context of

"singleness"!). If they meant "sexual abstinence," something

they love to preach, they could have said that! The *Book of

Confessions* is a part of the PCUSA constitution. Therefore, the

PCUSA definition of chastity needs to conform to its usage in the

Heidelberg Catechism, which obviously does NOT mean "no sex." --

JDA.

Further, citing G-6.0108b, the dissent says that there are limits

to freedom of conscience for church leaders. The boundary

includes "the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the

church."

Osborne previously finished a term on the congregation's session

in 1994. Reportedly, he began living openly with another man

between then and when the case was first filed.

The General Assembly PJC meets Feb. 2-4 in Orlando, FL, but of

the Office of the General Assembly says it is unlikely that the

Stamford appeal will be ready for review by the PJC at that

meeting.

[See the full text of the Synod PJC decision elsewhere in this

*Update*. -- JDA]

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

Our Pharisaic Tendencies

Commentary on Such Court Cases

by George Fuller

I strikes me, particularly as a lawyer who enjoys the law, but

as one who has tried to become somewhat Biblically and

theologically informed, that the approach by those who bring such

charges, as well as those who use their profession to prosecute

them, is to ensnare us in our pharisaic tendencies to seek

security in certainty. This results in proscribing the freedom of

God's grace. It is an attempt to avoid, what appears to us in

our limited human grasp, the seeming anarchic touch of the holy

spirit through the complexity of our form of governance, by

legalistic refinements that boggle the mind and require the

constant retention of professionals to tell us what we are

allowed to do and to decide.

We all have these tendencies. The problem it seems to me is that

the imperfect structure of our denomination (imperfect as all

are) is now being used in its most demonic sense to try to define

God. It's really the old problem of particularism v.

universalism.

It reminds me of a lecture that James Sanders once gave in which

he stated:

"The falsehood of fundamentalism is its tendency to

trivialize the incarnation and to tribalize God, thereby

denying the freedom of God to surprise us by Grace.... All

the various forms of fundamentalism retribalize their

concept of God or reality in what Mr. Reagan once called 'our

righteous kingdom and their evil empire'. Above and beyond

the movie script lingo, it is just pure polytheism."

We all have these tendencies. If we allow the limitations of our

polity be used by those with money and position to obtain power

and mold the institution to circumscribe their fears, we are sure

to become slaves to their idolatrous attempts to define Christ

and therefore God.

It is sure a far cry from John Calvin!

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

10 Congregations of Defiance

Mt. Kisco, NY, Nov. 10, 2000. -- During the last month, 10

churches in the Hudson River Presbytery have written official

letters of non-compliance (with amendment B) to appropriate

offices and fellow congregations. We expect to be joined by

several more in our Presbytery within the next six weeks. While

we view it as an act of solidarity with Christ Church,

Burlington, VT, we also commit ourselves to ending that

discrimination which has been imposed on every congregation

within the PCUSA.

If anyone knows of any Sessions or groups within congregations

that have written or plan to write statements of similar

noncompliance, or if any of you want to use portions of the

following statement as a guide for that purpose, let us know

immediately. We want to be in touch with others beyond our

Presbytery who have taken similar action, or who are considering

it.

If we're willing to hang together, it's hard to find enough

nooses to go around. -- The Rev. Jack S. Miller, Mount Kisco, NY.

Here's a copy of one statement:

The Session of The Presbyterian Church, Mount Kisco, New York,

respectfully communicates to the Hudson River Presbytery that we

have not and cannot in good conscience comply with the recent

amendment to our denomination's constitution (G-6.0106b). While

we recognize General Assembly's dilemma regarding this issue, we

humbly remind the Assembly that the right to religious conscience

is not granted or denied by civil or church governments, by

however few or many votes, but rather it is bestowed by our

Creator as a certain and inalienable right of the human mind and

spirit.

Both the amendment and its consequences raise serious concerns

that cannot be resolved by our mortal assemblies. For example,

the amendment calls for our Session to inquire into the personal

truths and intimate relationships of officers and candidates for

office. Such persons are married, divorced, widowed, or single

adults who are heterosexual or homosexual by natural orientation,

and whose faith and commitment to Jesus Christ bring strength and

grace to our church. To be required to ask our brothers and

sisters about their sex lives in order to ascertain whether they

practice fidelity in their marriages or chastity in widowhood and

singleness violates not only the religious conscience of the

persons being examined, but also the religious conscience of

those persons caused to conduct the examination.

Shall the PCUSA require Sessions to investigate the sex life of

officers, believing it to be the most critical aspect of

relationship and marriage that qualifies a person for ordained

office? Are not other issues also important, such as mutual

honor and respect, forgiveness and mercy? Shall we inquire as to

chastity and fidelity, but not inquire as to abstinence from

greed, domination or violence, whether physical, mental or verbal

language of abuse?

Further, the Session of our church has on many occasions and for

many years unanimously declared our position of inclusive

hospitality, declaring that all persons are welcome at the Table

of Christ, and to the full life and work of His church. To

declare otherwise would deeply wound the peace and unity of our

church family, and further wound the honor and dignity of those

persons and families whom we cherish. The act of redemption is

not based on the lives of the redeemed, but rather on the

unconditional love of the Redeemer.

Since we declare with the Westminster Confession that "God alone

is Lord of the conscience," how shall we reconcile our religious

freedom and conscience with our desire to participate in the

covenant of our denomination? Because we fear apostasy more than

heresy, we declare that local congregations should never have

been placed in the current struggle between conscience and

convention.

We also are concerned for the negating impact that the publicized

amendment and its consequent hearings will continue to have on

our church's efforts to attract reasonably enlightened and

educated persons to the church of Christ in the 21st century.

Those outside the church observe contradictions that cannot be

defended. For example, the Gospels tell us that Jesus never

mentioned or condemned homosexual relationships, yet He clearly

could have done so. But our Lord repeatedly mentioned and

condemned the sins of self-righteousness, hypocrisy, accumulation

of wealth, and divorce. How shall we defend our denomination's

policy to exclude that which he never mentioned, but include that

which he condemned?

Also, since 1978, our denomination has called on civil

governments and peoples of the world to end discrimination

against gay and lesbian persons in matters of employment. Yet

while condemning employment discrimination outside the church,

our denomination now requires that we practice such

discrimination inside the church. Our assemblies and prejudices

have rendered us hypocrites before the very world in which we

seek to bear witness to the bold and gracious love of God.

Lastly, the new amendment and its consequences encourage single-

issue interest groups in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to

continue their campaigns for unreasonable power over the

religious conscience of their brothers and sisters. Shall

General Assembly next find itself legislating reproductive rights

for women ordained to office, or defining their Biblical role in

the home and church? Neither side of a debate on conscience

should be granted power over the human rights of the other. "As

I would not be a slave," wrote Abraham Lincoln, "Neither would I

be a master." -- Respectfully, Pastors and Ruling Elders, The

Presbyterian Church, Mount Kisco, New York (Personal signatures

on original copy).

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

An Empty Seat

Louisiana Church Witnesses to God's Inclusive Love

Thanks to the the Greater Houston MLP Chapter, we share

with you the following letter from the Session of University

Presbyterian Church in Baton Rouge, which was mailed to all

churches in the Presbytery of South Louisiana. Newly elected MLP

Board Member Pat Rickey, whose parents were charter members of

University Presbyterian, recently wrote a letter of appreciation

to the Rev. Harold Horan and the Session. The Rev. Horan replied

that University Presbyterian has received several letters of

support from other churches in the presbytery. One session wrote:

"We know that yours was not an easy action. We believe it takes

courage and love to follow this path. We applaud your efforts and

join you in praying for the day when the Presbyterian Church

might be fully open to all people. Thanks be to God for

courageous witnesses."

Dear Clerk of Session:

The session of University Presbyterian Church, Baton Rouge, would

like to share with you our experience with the 1997 change in the

*Book of Order*, known as G-6.0106b (formerly known as Amendment

B).

In 1997, our congregational nominating committee nominated and

the congregation subsequently elected a valued and respected

member of our church to the office of elder. We believe that this

candidate possesses many gifts of the Holy Spirit and is called

to ordained service in the church. The nominee was to serve a

three-year term in the Class of 2001. Before the examination of

elected officers by the Session, it was learned that this

person's ordination would be opposed on grounds of sexual

orientation. For the peace of the church, the member declined to

be ordained. The nominating committee decided, in honor of this

valued member, to keep a seat vacant on the session.

In 1998 a new nominating committee agreed to keep the seat empty

for another year in continued support of the affected member. The

congregation voted to uphold the nominating committee's action.

It was requested that this letter be sent to other churches in

the Presbytery informing them of our decision and our continuing

concern about the effects of G-6.0106b on Christ's Church.

We believe that the Holy Spirit works through the Presbyterian

process, guiding amendments made to our constitution. Yet we also

believe that the Holy Spirit works through the nominating and

electing process of the local congregation, as well as an

individual's efforts to discern God's call for his or her life.

In this case, we have obeyed the laws of the church as they are

set forth in our constitution, but our obedience to G-6.0106b has

deprived the church of a gifted member's service as an elder. We

grieve this fact. We pray and trust that the Holy Spirit will

continue to reform and refine God's people in such a way as to

include everyone who seeks to live a moral life, that is,

everyone who does justice, loves mercy and walks humbly with God

(Micah 6:8), regardless of their sexual orientation. The vacant

chair at our session's table is our way of remembering one such

member, as we work within the Presbyterian tradition to give

witness to a sovereign love that is so creative and so deep and

so wide and so free as to include every last one of us.

Yours in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and

the fellowship of the Holy Spirit -- The Session of University

Presbyterian Church

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

COVENANT NETWORK MEETS IN PITTSBURGH

Anti-homosexual passages in Bible reflect authors' biases,

speakers say

Covenant Network members say they're Bible-believing Christians

by John Filiatreau, PCUSA News Service

PITTSBURGH, PA, 9 Nov. 2000. -- Scriptural condemnations of

homosexuality merely reflect biblical authors' cultural biases

and are not among the "essential" messages of the gospel, the

Covenant Network of Presbyterians was told during a recent three-

day meeting on the theme of "Biblical Authority and the Church."

Several conference speakers said the Bible's condemnations of

same-gender sexuality call to mind other scriptural passages used

in past centuries to justify slavery and to keep women from

participating fully in the life of the church -- on the basis of

long-held interpretations that are largely abandoned today.

The Bible is "shot through with vested interests," theologian

Walter Brueggemann warned his audience of more than 600 men and

women in an address titled "Biblical Authority: A Personal

Reflection." Brueggemann, a professor of Old Testament at

Columbia Theological Seminary, said Christians should "proceed

with great modesty" in interpreting biblical texts, resisting the

temptation to cling to "our presumed absoluteness about things."

"We are all selective fundamentalists," he said.

Attendance at the 2000 Covenant Conference, hosted by East

Liberty Presbyterian Church, was up about 50 percent from last

year's conference in Atlanta, GA.

Brueggemann said he reads the Bible with a sense of wonder: "It's

a book that is utterly beyond me in its richness and yet held

concretely in my hand -- what a remarkable gift!"

Calling the Bible "inevitably disputatious," and remarking that

"you can't get the interpreter out of the text," Brueggemann said

scriptural interpretation is a "dynamic process," in which the

text is always "refracted through human authors with vested

interests."

"Nobody has the high ground, morally or hermeneutically," he

said, adding that all Christians face a "temptation to turn any

little thing (in the Bible) into an essential" of the faith. He

said Amendment G-6.0106b -- a measure requiring Presbyterian

clergy to be married to a member of the opposite sex or "celibate

in singleness" -- "has tried to make a non-essential into an

essential."

"Real issues of biblical authority," he said, "are not to be

settled by erudite exegesis."

He added: "The church ought to engage in honest, pastoral

conversation about vested interests, anxiety, fear and pain.

Nobody has a monopoly.

Brueggemann, a United Church of Christ minister, summed up with a

quotation usually attributed to St. Augustine: "In essentials,

unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Another plenary speaker, William Placher, a professor of religion

at Wabash College, said interpreters of the Bible must "draw a

line between cultural conventions and the truths that Bible

stories convey," and always "keep in mind the assumptions the

author brought to his time and place ." He said the apostle Paul,

for example, was from a patriarchal culture in which it was

"socially acceptable to treat homosexuals with contempt."

In some passages, he said, scriptural authors make passing

references to homosexuality "in the process of teaching about

something else" -- using homosexuality simply as "a good example

of sin," something that at the time was "taken for granted."

Calling himself a "Bible-believing Christian," Placher told his

audience to dispute conservative Christians' claims "that they're

being more serious about the Bible than you are."

When Jesus tells the parable of the good Samaritan, he said, we

should understand "that this is a parable ... in the realm of an

invented story ... not a crime report." While it is hard

sometimes to tell what to make of particular Bible passages, he

said, "If we study the whole Bible, its critical truths come

through loud and clear."

"The Bible helps guide us home from exile," Placher concluded,

"to the love and knowledge of our sovereign God."

During a workshop, Jack Rogers, a professor of theology emeritus

at San Francisco Theological Seminary, said of Presbyterians,

"Sometimes we have interpreted (the Bible) very badly as a

church." For more than 300 years, he noted, Presbyterian clergy

cited Bible passages to justify the institution of slavery. He

pointed out that the denomination's debate over divorce brought

about "a clear hermeneutical shift" -- from a flat condemnation

of divorce to a belief that, while lasting marriage is "an ideal

toward which we all strive," divorce is acceptable in some

circumstances -- in just 30 years.

"It's not always obvious what the Bible means," he said.

Rogers said he didn't pay much attention to the dispute over

homosexuality in the church until he was appointed to a task

force on the matter. "For the first time in my life I had to

study it," he said. "I thought, 'Well, this is different from

(previous debates in the church over) race and divorce.' And the

more I studied it, the more I realized that it wasn't different;

it was very much the same."

Brian Blount, an associate professor at Princeton Seminary, spoke

of Presbyterians who cited previously "authoritative" texts to

justify slavery and consign women to "secondary status."

"Were they right?" he asked. "Of course not."

He said those archaic interpretations "might have been right for

their (authors') own time, twenty centuries ago, but may well be

wrong for our time." He said passages cited as condemnations of

homosexuals arose in "a world where sexuality was understood in a

radically different way from our understanding today."

"The Spirit is alive," Blount said. "The Word is on the move --

not the last word, but the living Word." Paraphrasing Galatians

3:28, he said, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free

... but all are one in Christ Jesus," which suggests that people

of all sexual orientations are "equally acceptable in God's sight

and therefore (all) must be treated equally well in human life."

Several leaders of the Network, including its co-chairs, the Rev.

Deborah Block, of Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Milwaukee, WI,

and the Rev. Laird Stuart, pastor of Calvary Presbyterian Church

of San Francisco, CA, urged participants to begin organizing to

influence the 213th General Assembly next summer in Louisville,

KY.

John Buchanan, a founder and former chair of the Covenant

Network, told the conferees that the Presbyterian Coalition, a

group of conservatives and evangelicals that had met the previous

week in Indianapolis, IN, has set out to raise $200,000 to be

used to champion Amendment 00-O, which would prohibit

Presbyterian clergy's involvement in same-sex union ceremonies.

That wasn't the only rumor about the Coalition meeting that the

Covenant Network members talked about in Pittsburgh. They also

were discussing the news that the General Assembly Council (GAC)

plans to review the way speakers are chosen for PCUSA-sponsored

meetings.

GAC Executive Director John Detterick told the Coalition that a

speaker at last summer's Presbyterian Peacemaking Conference in

Orange, CA, "articulated a concept that conflicts with a basic

tenet" of the PCUSA when he suggested (in a discussion of

whether salvation is possible for people who have not heard of

Jesus or who belong to a non-Christian faith) that Jesus Christ

might not be the only path to salvation. Detterick said future

speakers at such events will be more carefully vetted in advance.

Detterick said he realizes that some theological conservatives

want the church to hold the offending speaker, the Rev. Dirk

Ficca of Chicago, accountable for his "out-of-bounds statements."

Detterick, who to this point has not recommended any disciplinary

action, said, "I am sure that the full General Assembly Council

will take up this matter when it next convenes in February."

Commenting indirectly on Detterick's remarks, Buchanan said the

PCUSA is "becoming a different church. We are hearing words

like 'heresy' for the first time in centuries."

Detterick did not attend the Covenant Network meeting, but

dispatched in his stead Peter Pizor, the GAC chair, who told the

conferees that the council task force will address questions

about how the church manages all its conferences, not just those

of the Peacemaking Program. He said the study is not a "witch

hunt," and said it will be conducted in a "thoroughly

Presbyterian" manner.

Pizor also spoke about the GAC effort to prioritize all the

church's mission programs in connection with the 2002 budget -- a

process that he said has been difficult and painful, but won't

require any personnel cuts; and reiterated the church's

long-standing support for the National Council of Churches despite

its financial difficulties.

Participants in the conference also spent some time in synod and

presbytery meetings to determine how they can most effectively

oppose Amendment O and advance overtures to overturn or weaken

Amendment G-6.0106b during the 213th General Assembly.

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

Young Presbyterians Urged to Affirm Support for Gays

By Ann Rodgers-Melnick, *Post-Gazette* Staff Writer

Pittsburgh, PA, 3 Nov. 2000. -- Ken Evers-Hood was estranged from

the church until he went to the Presbyterian congregation near

Dallas that had offered a blessing ceremony for his gay brother

and his brother's partner. "I was drawn to this place because

they would welcome anyone," said Evers-Hood, now a senior at

Princeton Theological Seminary. He was a panelist at a gathering

for young adults at the national convention of Covenant Network,

which works for gay ordination in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The convention is expected to draw up to 800 participants as it

meets today and tomorrow at East Liberty Presbyterian Church.

About 50 people, mostly clergy and seminarians, attended the

young adults meeting yesterday afternoon. Many of his fellow

seminarians want nothing to do with promoting gay ordination

because they believe that only theologically conservative

churches which exclude gay people can grow, Evers-Hood said. But

his large suburban church in Texas and the two congregations

where he did field work have shown him that is not true, he said,

"When people were confronted with the faces of friends and family

members [who were gay] they went beyond their theological

predilections," he said.

The Rev. Brian Blount, a panelist and professor of New Testament

at Princeton, argued that "conservative churches grow because

their preachers and other teachers believe with a passion. More

progressive churches often lack the courage of our convictions. If

liberal churches had more passion, people would begin to sense a

new way that God is moving today, just as there was a new way

that God was moving in the first century."

The Rev. John Wilkenson, executive associate pastor at Fourth

Presbyterian Church in Chicago, pointed out that the same church

law banning gay ordination also prevents heterosexuals who engage

in sex outside of marriage from holding office in the church.

That makes little sense in today's society, he said. "People

often wait until they are 30 to get married. In my church, those

people are as annoyed by the legislation as are gays and

lesbians," he said. "I believe both of them have righteous

concerns." Wilkenson doesn't expect the denomination to resolve

this issue for at least 25 years, but he draws hope from the fact

that this year's Covenant Network conference has quadruple the

attendance that the first did four years ago. Until this year,

only a handful of people under 40 had attended a Covenant Network

conference. "Clearly there is a hunger out there," he said. "The

fact that you all are here is extraordinary!"

The Rev. Angela Ying, a Presbyterian minister at a United Church

of Christ congregation in Seattle, noted that pastors younger

than 40 account for just 7 percent of clergy in the Presbyterian

Church (U.S.A.). "There is such a dearth of young pastors that

people like themselves will have quick opportunities for

leadership, she said. "Know that there is a place for you," she

told those who worried about whether taking a controversial stand

would diminish their opportunities. But she also urged them to

spend less time fighting over issues and more time practicing the

kind of ministry they advocated. "So often I see the left

reacting to what is going on over there [on the right]. Go and do

what you should be doing," she told them. "This isn't about

rhetoric. It's about really standing up for people."

[Downloaded from: http://www.post-

gazette.com/regionstate/20001103presby9.asp]

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

A NEW AUBURN DECLARATION

The Auburn Declaration

Reclaiming the Church

Sermon for September 3, 2000,

Downtown United Presbyterian Church, Rochester, NY

by the Rev. David Bos

Scripture: Deuteronomy 4:1-8, Mark 7:1-2, 5-13.

Text: Mark 7-9, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment

of God in order to keep your tradition."

The hero of this sermon is a document -- the Auburn Affirmation --

written mainly by a native of this city, conceived at a meeting

of 33 ministers and one ruling elder in Syracuse and published in

Auburn, New York shortly after the 1923 General Assembly. The

Auburn Affirmation rallied the progressive forces of the

Presbyterian Church to take back control of the church from a

group of fundamentalists who had forced a doctrinal standard,

alien to Reformed and Presbyterian principles, upon the ministers

and officers of the church. The Auburn Affirmation reclaimed the

Presbyterian Church for the unadorned Gospel of Jesus Christ. I

am going to say that very soon, now, we will need another Auburn

Affirmation.

Every so often the church has to be reclaimed for the principles

and the person, Jesus Christ, on which it was founded. Because

there is a strong animus to conserve in almost every expression

of religion, in each generation there are those who find it

convenient and tempting to try to use the devotion of Christ and

the institutions of the church to advance a reactionary political

and religious agenda. These persons are really not interested in

exposing their agenda to the light of the unadorned Gospel of

Christ and the basic charter of their faith any more than they

are interested in hearing the commentary of scientists and other

intellectuals. They want it assumed that their reactionary

version of the faith is true so that they can get on with their

political agenda. They see the coherence of reactionary religion

with reactionary politics as evidence of the truth of each.

Experience has proven that it is useless to attempt to argue,

make peace or moderate this unholy alliance. They will simply

ignore or not admit anything that will question or interfere with

their agenda. That Jesus understood this reality and tendency

among the religionists of his day is revealed by his words in

this text: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of

God in order to keep your tradition." Can you imagine a better

description of a closed mind? -- to knowingly reject even a

commandment of God in order to hold on to some thing or practice

or theory or prejudice or idea or system? If their mind is that

closed, what could or who could possibly persuade them

otherwise; and to what ends might they not go to keep their

reactionary hopes alive? Elsewhere, Jesus instructs the

disciples, when they encounter a certain kind of rejection, not

to persist but to "shake the dust off their feet" and leave that

place.

In the past few years, we have some wonderful examples of

unpersuadable, closed minds in our own Presbyterian Church. For

example, it has been shown, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the

one phrase in all of our *Book of Confessions* that condemns

homosexuality is a purposely mistranslated line of the original

document. Under the influence of fundamentalists, our church has

refused to retranslate that phrase. Of course, those

fundamentalists keep referring to the *Book of Confessions* as if

it represented a blanket condemnation of homosexuality though

they know the truth of the matter. But you see, its not a

question of what is the truth. That's irrelevant. They want the

*Book of Confessions* to condemn homosexuality. Therefore they will

continue to, untruthfully, portray it that way for the sake of

their ecclesiastical and political agenda. They will even reject

a commandment of God in order to maintain their homophobia. In

the words of Jesus: "This people honors me with their lips, but

their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me,

teaching human precepts as doctrines. You abandon the commandment

of God and hold to human tradition."

One more glaring example: our fundamentalists assume in every

public and private forum that the scriptures condemn

homosexuality as such. They just ignore the testimony of the

overwhelming majority of the biblical scholars on the faculties

of our presbyterian seminaries. In fact I do not believe that of

all the biblical faculty members of all our seminaries, there is

one that would unambiguously support the view that the Bible

condemns homosexuality. But, of course, the fundamentalists

listen to other voices -- even voices that have no real scholarly

apprehension of what the Bible actually says; because those other

voices tell them what they want to hear; and give them the fuel

they need to pursue their reactionary agenda.

I said that the attempt of reactionary forces to use faith in God

as a means to advance their agenda appears in every generation.

The last attempted takeover before the one that we are at this

moment trying to turn back occurred in the 1920's. Then, as now,

all the denominations, including our own, faced well-funded

reactionary forces that appeared within their ranks and that

attempted to change the basic character of the denomination.

Then, as now, there was an attempt made to purge the church of

those individuals -- especially those in positions of leadership

-- who did not conform to a narrow and unfounded view of what it

meant to be a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the

Christian church.

In that day, the method was one of thought control. Every

Presbyterian was expected to be able to prove their orthodoxy by

giving evidence that they believed in five so-called essential

tenets of faith; those who wished to be ordained or to obtain a

staff position in the offices of the General Assembly might be

asked to subscribe to the five essentials as a condition for

their ordination or their employment. The ostensible agenda of

the fundamentalists was to install the five essentials as a kind

of addition to the simple profession of faith in Christ which was

all that was required for generations. But we can be sure that

the larger agenda for them and for the wealthy men that supported

them went far beyond these five essentials. The five essentials

were only a means to gain control of the denomination. So by

promulgating them at the level of the General Assembly without

asking for concurrence by the presbyteries and their

congregations, they were asserting a new and centralized authority

for the General Assembly through which they could try to control

the entire church as well as to use the church to pursue their

reactionary agenda. And they almost succeeded.

For twelve long years they controlled the General Assemblies of

the denomination, issuing statement after statement lifting up

the five essential tenets of belief, bringing suit against

ministers and presbyteries who publicly opposed one or more of

the essentials, and generally making the church completely

irrelevant to the intellectual life of the United States.

But then, along came the Auburn Affirmation, which saved the

church from the pit of reactionary thinking. But before

describing the Auburn Affirmation and the reclaiming of the

Presbyterian church for Jesus Christ, I want to tell you about

another reactionary attempt to take over the churches which was

taking a place at about the same time and a little bit later in

Germany.

(Oh, by the way, you want to know what the five essentials were!

Here they are: (1) the inerrancy of scripture -- a doctrine which

was never before and never since a part of Reformed and

Presbyterian faith -- that the scriptures were completely

free of any error whatever. (2) The virgin birth of Jesus. (3)

Christ saved us by offering himself up as a sacrifice to satisfy

divine justice -- the so-called substitutionary theory of the

atonement. (4) the bodily or physical resurrection of Christ. (5)

Christ performed miracles that superseded the laws of nature. As

for the substitutionary theory of the atonement and the bodily

resurrection of Christ, these doctrines were enshrined in the

Westminster Confession of the Church but never before had

ministers been asked to subscribe to a particular theory of how

Christ saved us and mediated God's love to us or just how Christ

was raised from the dead.)

Now in Germany, in line with the spirit of the times, there was

also an attempt at thought control. This was an attempt to

capture the churches for the racist ideology of the National

Socialist Party -- the party of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. This

movement, called the German Christians, had the backing of some

prominent members of the German intelligentsia including some

theology professors.

The German Christians also had their essentials that they wanted

to add on to the simple profession of faith in Jesus Christ: that

purity of religion was historically related to the purity of

race; that the Christian owes absolute obedience to the state in

all matters that pertain to the state (You would be surprised at

how many theology professors subscribed to that one.); that the

standards by which the church is ordered and governed may be

altered by the state according to prevailing ideological and

political convictions; that the fulfillment of the mission of the

church might be accomplished by the mission of a totalitarian

state. Now these points make the American fundamentalist five

essentials look quite benign, don't they? But the same principle

is involved -- whether it concerns the American fundamentalists or

the German Christians. At this point, if time permitted, I would

speak about the second verse of the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy

which was read to you: "You must neither add anything to what I

command you, not take away anything from it, but keep the

commandments of the Holy One your God with which I am charging

you." But they wanted to add something to the simple profession

of Jesus Christ in order to create an elite and indoctrinated

leadership, to control the church from above, and to guide it

into reactionary directions .

You know there was an opposition movement to the German Christians

called The Confessing Church. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one of its

founders. The Barmen Declaration, like the Auburn Affirmation, was

drawn up to rally the people against the German Christians. The

trouble was: the Barmen Declaration, unlike the Auburn

Affirmation, came too late. By 1933 and 34 the main essentials of

the German Christians had gained acceptance among a preponderance

of both Protestants and Catholics in Germany. The unspeakable

atrocities of the Nazi regime were already visible and

predictable to anyone whose eyes were open.

The Confessing Church, and we thank God for it, could only become

a resisting minority among Christians of Germany. It did not have

the effect, as did the Auburn Affirmation, of reclaiming the

church for the unadorned Gospel of Jesus Christ. Alas! The German

Church was pretty much lost to the German Christians and became

part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We may be

grateful that the Auburn Affirmation, which was a rallying cry

for a much wider circle than the Presbyterian Church, stemmed the

tide of reaction in the churches before the forces of religious

and political reaction could join forces in the United States as

they did in Germany.

Just a few more words about the Auburn Affirmation. It was mostly

written by James Hastings Nichols, a native of Rochester and a

Professor of Church History at Auburn Theological Seminary, which

then was located in Auburn, New York. He got some crucial help

from Henry Sloan Coffin of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church in

New York City. The immediate occasion for the meeting which

produced the Affirmation was the action of the 1923 General

Assembly that required the Presbytery of New York City to

administer a doctrinal examination to the preacher at First

Presbyterian Church there, Harry Emerson Fosdick. Fosdick had

expressed doubts about all five of the fundamentalists'

essentials; and he directly confronted the fundamentalists in a

blockbuster of a sermon called, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?"

If Fosdick were not able to pass the exam on the five points, the

Presbytery was to sever the relation between him and First

Church. Within weeks after that General Assembly an emergency

meeting was called in Syracuse.

The arguments of the Auburn Affirmation are amazingly pertinent

to our situation today as once again the forces of reaction have

gained control of the denomination to the extent that they have

convinced several General Assemblies to adopt policies on

ordination that we believe (in the words of Barbara Wheeler --

current President of Auburn Seminary) "are wrong: not only

misguided, but unfaithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and

therefore theologically false and damaging to the mission of God

in the contemporary world."

In the first place, the Affirmation argues that the Presbyterian

Church must safeguard the liberty of thought and teaching of its

ministers. The vows that they take at their ordination should be

regarded as sufficient. The Confession of Faith itself does not

require assent to the very words of the Confession and American

Presbyterianism provided for dissent by individuals from portions

of the confession. Our church has been careful not to enjoin

uniformity of belief. When it adopted the Westminster Confession

of Faith, it stated that "There are truths and forms, with

respect to which people of good characters and principles may

differ. And in all these they think it their duty, both of

private Christians and Societies, to exercise mutual forbearance

towards each other."

Secondly, the Affirmation argues against the fundamentalist

position on the authority of the Bible. It says the supreme guide

in the interpretation of Scriptures is not, as it is with Roman

Catholics, ecclesiastical Authority, but the Spirit of God,

speaking to the Christian believer. There is no assertion in the

Scriptures that their writers were kept from error. The

Confession of Faith does not make this assertion and it is not to

be found in any of the great Reformation confessions. In general

the affirmationists, as they called themselves, argued that the

Holy Spirit continues to speak through the scriptures to each new

generation, shedding new light upon our human condition,

contemporizing the eternal truths of scripture to fit the age in

they are read.

Finally, the Affirmation argued against any attempt to elevate

five doctrinal statements, or any such statements, to the

position of tests for ordination or for good standing in the

church. It argues against any attempt to commit our church to

certain theories concerning the inspiration of the Bible and

other matters as if they were the "only theories allowed by

Scripture and our standards as facts and doctrines of our

religion."

Taken together all of these arguments are a declaration that no

General Assembly, or any other governing body of the church, may

appropriately try to legislate uniformity of belief or practice

within its bounds beyond the basic evangelical commitment to the

unadorned Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the second to last paragraph

of the Affirmation, we read these words: "We do not desire

liberty to go beyond the teachings of evangelical Christianity.

But we maintain that it is our constitutional right and our

Christian duty within these limits to exercise liberty of thought

and teaching, that we may more effectively preach the gospel of

Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World."

It is time for another Affirmation such as this. It is time to

reclaim our church from those who would hold it captive to a

certain ecclesiastical and political agenda. It is time to rescue

the church from those who would impose an unseemly uniformity

upon it. It is time to restore the liberty that is our rightful

legacy of the Reformation. It is time to let the Holy Spirit

speak through the scriptures and through other means as well. One

of those means might be a convocation to be held in Auburn, NY

following shortly upon the General Assembly of 2001. I herewith

propose and call for such a convocation. May we not delay. May we

joyfully affirm these dearly held convictions, that the people of

God in the Presbyterian Church might be edified, encouraged and

given hope. And to God alone be the glory. Amen

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

MORE LIGHT ON ...

More Light on 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.* -- Adopted by More Light Presbyterians Board,

1999.

Trusting that God's Spirit is at work making all things new, we

are invited to delight in God's creation including our bodies and

sexualities, to confess our sin when this sacred gift is misused,

and to take responsibility for restoring relationships toward

healing and justice.

Sexuality is God's amazing, life-enhancing gift that includes

genital sex but refers more broadly to our capacity and longing

for intimate connection and mutually pleasurable, mutually

respectful touch. Throughout our lives we humans seek physical,

emotional, and spiritual embrace of others. Our desire and energy

for bonding is to be used responsibly to communicate love,

respect, and tender regard. This power may also be misused to

harm, control, or exploit.

Some traditional Christian attitudes have expressed suspicion

about the body, fear of sex and passion, and an interest in

controlling women, their bodies and their procreative power.

Patriarchal norms have legitimated male ownership of women and

children. Gay men, lesbian women, bisexual and transgender people

have been devalued and denied full participation in church and

society. The church has often failed to take seriously sexual

violence, abuse, and coercion that cause enormous suffering,

including sexual misconduct and abuse of power by its own

leaders. Too often, when it comes to sex and matters of sexual

injustice, the church has either reinforced our cultural

negativity or maintained a deafening silence.

To speak a word of hope and communicate the good news of the

Gospel, More Light Presbyterians boldly promote an ethic of

sexual justice that affirms the goodness of sexuality, honors

sexual diversity and respect for sexual minorities, and attends to

the socio-political as well as personal dimensions of sexual

injustice, abuse, and exploitation. In particular, we maintain

that sexuality is an indispensable component of our humanity and

vital to spiritual integrity and well-being. Each person,

regardless of gender, sexual orientation or bodily condition has

a moral right to love and be loved, as well as a responsibility

to express his or her sexuality in ways genuinely respectful of

self and others.

The renewal of Christian sexual ethics depends on a break with

the notion that there is a singular, ideal sexuality and that

those abiding by this standard should police and control others.

An ethic grounded in love of God and neighbor as one's whole self

will value the bodily integrity of every person and honor the

variety of ways in which people live sexually whole, morally

responsible, and spiritually faithful lives. This ethic focuses

on things that matter, including the dignity and worth of every

person, the right to accurate knowledge about human sexuality, a

single ethical standard for intimate relations, and the

recognition that commitment, fidelity, and integrity are

fundamental to all relationships of moral substance.

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

More Light on Same-Sex Unions

Following the risen Christ, and seeking to make the Church a true

community of hospitality, the mission of More Light Presbyterians

is to work for the full participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual

and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness

of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). -- More Light Presbyterians,

Mission Statement.

More Light Presbyterians -- as individuals and member congregations

of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) -- believe that God continues

to reveal liberating truth in scripture for living faithfully in

the modern day as the Holy Spirit works in our hearts and minds.

We are convinced that God has "yet more light" to break forth on

our church's understanding of committed covenantal relationships

between two people brought together in God's gracious mystery of

love.

Sexuality is one of God's amazing, life-enhancing gifts. Our

sexuality expresses our capacity and longing for intimate

connection. It is an indispensable component of our humanity,

vital to our spiritual integrity and well being. Each person,

regardless of gender, sexual orientation or bodily condition has

a moral right to love and be loved, as well as a responsibility

to express his or her sexuality in ways genuinely respectful of

self and others. Convinced of this fact, the More Light

Presbyterians board adopted this brief statement of 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.*

Same-sex covenantal services (holy unions) are a witness to the

church and world that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender

people of faith can and do choose to live out their lives of love

with integrity. These services express the fact that loving,

intimate, covenantal relationships between persons of the same

gender are authentic expressions of God's love. In a culture

where prejudice, fear and hatred of gay, lesbian, bisexual and

transgender people abound, we affirm that the church is called to

be an agent of love, wisdom and justice.

The blessing by a faith community of a same-sex union is an

affirmation of a couple's lifelong covenant. In addition to

providing a sacred context wherein life partners make their vows

and commitment of love public, the holy union service welcomes

joyful support for the couple by their families, friends and

larger community.

*For this is the message you have heard from the beginning,

that we should love one another .... Let us love, not in

word or speech, but in truth and action* -- I John 3:11, 18.

One way our denomination shows its commitment to live out Jesus'

love commandment is demonstrated as we create opportunities to

honor and bless the lives of its members. This commitment on the

part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is articulated in our

Directory for Worship:

*There are special occasions and transitions in the life of

the congregation and the lives of its members which are

appropriately recognized in worship* -- PCUSA Directory For

Worship, W-4.1000.

Pastors and congregations are becoming increasingly sensitive to

the authentic spiritual need of gay, lesbian, bisexual and

transgender people of faith (for whom marriage is not an option)

to have their love sanctified, honored and celebrated. Services

of Holy Union acknowledge this "special occasion" and can be

designed, for example, in a Quaker style. When the Quaker couple

"marries" they gather their community "in the presence of God and

witnesses" to solemnize the covenant being established.

In one such same-sex commitment service in the Quaker tradition,

for example, two Presbyterian women -- who have lived as committed

life-partners for nearly five years -- invited their family,

friends and extended church community to their home. After

scripture, prayer, words of encouragement and song, they

declared:

"We are domestic partners in the State of California

and the County of Los Angeles.

Now we convene a community constitutive of the worlds we inhabit

in the presence of you as witnesses

and in the eyes of The Holy

to choose each other and to make covenant with one

another ....

"Our life is love, and peace, and tenderness;

and bearing one with another,

and forgiving one another,

and not laying accusations one against another;

But praying one for another

And helping one another up with a tender hand."

In offering these brief thoughts, More Light Presbyterians hope

that people of faith will join us in the conviction that -- in the

tradition of Jesus -- we are called to judge the quality of lives

and relationships not by gender nor role, but rather by their

love, integrity and fidelity.

*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* -- Words adapted from The Reverend John Robinson

(1620) sending the Pilgrims to the New World.

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

PARENTS, FAMILIES, CHILDREN

A Mother's Story

by Mitzi Henderson

Our legislators are in a tizzy -- it's not over taxes or welfare,

crumbling schools or roads. It is over my child's desire to

marry.

As the mother of four children, one of whom is gay, this

perplexes and bothers me. Conservative alarmists moan that same-

sex marriage means the "decline of the family," but they are now

blocking efforts to provide opportunities for *all Americans* to

have a legal framework in which to form families.

Marriage is something most straight Americans take for granted. I

did. When I fell in love with a wonderful man many years ago, we

wanted to share our lives -- all aspects. We wanted to be

recognized as a couple, to officially undertake all the

responsibilities and benefits of being married. That included

filing joint tax returns, buying homes together, having legal

responsibility for our children, and being the true next of kin

for each other. Above all, it meant we saw ourselves, and others

saw us, as a family unit.

So my husband and I formed our own family of two. When we signed

our marriage license, it was never conditioned on a pledge to

have and raise children. But our family did grow to include four

children, their spouses and seven grandchildren. Now, our two

daughters and one son are happily married.

But our gay son, who has been partnered for more than nine years,

cannot be married. He alone among our children has no recognized

legal foundation for his own family unit.

As a mother, I am concerned about more than my son's recognized

definition of family. In fact, because he cannot marry his

partner, I have fears for my gay son that I do not have for my

other children. Two years ago, my son fell ill and lost

consciousness. Although it was his partner of more than nine

years who rushed him to the hospital, he could not authorize

necessary medical treatment because, according to the government,

my son and his partner are no more than strangers to each other.

In health care, every minute counts. Because my son was not

legally married to his partner, valuable time was lost, time in

which his condition worsened.

So it is particularly painful for me, as a mother, to see my gay

son denied the possibility of marrying his partner. Something so

fundamental to my own life and the lives of our other children,

so essential to our society, is unavailable to him.

We have rejoiced that perhaps events in Hawaii and now in Vermont

will eventually give him the same right to marriage that his

sisters and brother have had. But I resent the lawmakers and

special interest groups who are rushing to legally remove this

opportunity.

I've always presumed marriage was an individual personal choice. I

certainly would not have wanted the government to interfere with

my choice of spouse. Nor do I want the state dictating to my gay

son whom he can or cannot marry.

While churches can and do set their own religious requirements

for a "church wedding," this is not the issue in civil marriage.

Civil marriage is a contract. It deals with joint custody laws,

Social Security benefits, bereavement leave, tax returns, lease

agreements and health care. It is not an endorsement of the

individuals involved or a judgment of their relationship. This is

an important distinction over-looked in the current debates in

our legislatures.

Our society has a real stake in seeing that our personal

relationships are stable, responsible and supportive. We will all

benefit when same-gender relationships are permitted and required

to meet the standards of marriage. Marriage continues to be

essential in building a good society. Call off the rush to

legislation, and give all our children a part in that society.

Mitzi Henderson, co-moderator of MLP, is a former president of

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). This

opinion piece appeared in Scripps-Howard-owned newspapers around

the country under the headline "Gays Should Enjoy Rights of

Marriage." She is an elder of the Presbyterian Church, and holds

a political science degree from Wellesley College.

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

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, until recently 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

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

CONVERSIONS

The Conversion of William P. Thompson

At last Saturday's Lazarus Board meeting, we decided on the

honoree for the 2001 Lazarus Award. Of course, there are always

many people to choose from, but this year's award will be given

to William P. Thompson. There are many, many reasons why he was

chosen, but the most important consideration to those of us on

the board is that this is a person who has changed his mind and

changed his heart -- and who now lives in the light of his

conversion.

More will follow, of course, but the banquet will be held on

Saturday evening, February 24, in Pasadena, CA. -- Sonnie

Swenston.

The following is excerpted from "In Conversation with Joe

Rightmeyer" by former MLP co-moderator Scott Anderson, part of

"Sexual Orientation and Ordination Standards, a Conversation"

from: *The Nature of the Unity We Seek in Our Diversity: Papers form

the Atlanta Conference on Unity and Diversity, April 1999*,

edited by Theodore A. Gill, Jr., Louisville: Office of the

General Assembly, Oct. 1999. Available at

William P. Thompson

Some of you may know of William P. Thompson, former Stated Clerk

of the General Assembly. For those of us in the gay and lesbian

community, William P. Thompson is also known as the architect of

*definitive guidance*, the original policy of the Presbyterian

Church which disenfranchised us from participating as church

officers.

In 1979, I was elected by the General Assembly to be a youth

delegate to the Governing Board of the National Council of

Churches, on which William P. Thompson also sat. After our last

Board meeting together in 1984, the next time I saw Bill Thompson

was six years later at Nassau Presbyterian Church in Princeton,

New Jersey. He and his wife Mary had come to an adult education

class at Nassau Church to hear me tell my story of leaving the

Presbyterian ministry.

Bill and Mary invited me for lunch at their home, with other

members of the church, and then offered to drive me to the

airport for the my trip back to California. At the end of the

hour drive, as he helped me unload my bags from the car, Bill

Thompson turned to me and said, "I believe our church has made a

mistake." I struggled into the airport with my luggage, sank into

a corner, and wept.

Bill Thompson recently wrote, "... my mind was changed on this

issue over a period of years largely through factors outside of

my control. I felt that God was nudging me in the new direction

...."

A change of heart concerning the place of gays and lesbians in

the life of the Presbyterian Church comes through a process of

conversion. Bill Thompson's story is a contemporary

illustration of Acts 10, which describes Peter's conversion

to the gospel truth that "God shows no partiality" (vs. 34),

because, as Peter testifies, "God has shown me that you should

not call any person common or unclean" (vs. 29).

The *Book of Acts* brings to life the story of an unlikely group of

people who were caught up in the most dramatic institutional

change in the history of the Christian church. And Peter does not

seem a likely change agent. As leader of the Jerusalem church he

was an institutional man, not prone to risk taking. But after his

encounter with Cornelius in Acts 10, empowered by the Holy

Spirit, something profound happens to Peter. He garners the

courage to return to Jerusalem and silence the conservative wing

of his own movement, which demanded that all baptized gentile

Christians be circumcised as required by Jewish law, and which

wanted to continue the patterns of separation which the scribal

tradition had established.

It was Peter who laid the foundation for that seminal meeting of

the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 -- the New Testament version of

the Presbyterian General Assembly -- where the theology of

inclusion was institutionalized. It was a bitter conflict that I

believe ultimately cost Peter his leadership position.

As Luke recounted this history, Peter was the key figure, the one

who pulled the linchpin that brought down the whole structure of

separation and exclusion enshrined in scripture and in centuries

of tradition and simply taken for granted by ordinary people on

the street. Without his personal conversion, without his change

of heart, what happened institutionally would not have taken

place.

The hard truth is that you can't plan for someone's conversion.

You can't make one individual -- let alone an entire

denomination -- "experience a change of heart." You can't

manipulate it, or strategize for it, you certainly can't pass an

overture at General Assembly to make it happen. Conversion is the

work of the Holy Spirit, the activity of God, over which More

Light Presbyterians and Presbyterians for Renewal have absolutely

no control.

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

The Conversion of E.J. DiStefano

All right, I confess. I used to be a gaybasher. Wallowing in the

squalor of conservative politics, I was a "yes man" for every

antigay policy proposed and similar legislation introduced in the

Delaware Legislature. After all, I was considered a "rising star"

in the Republican Party. Selected as the Young Republican of the

Year in 1993, and chosen to be a member of the National

Republican Committee that same year, I was not about to say or do

anything that could derail my political gravy train. In 1994, I

became a candidate for the Delaware State House of

Representatives. Yet an even more significant event occurred that

year -- my mother died of cancer at the age of 62. This caused me to

reconsider the direction my life had taken. To the shock and

apparent dismay of my Republican cohorts, I abandoned all

political pursuits, and embarked on a spiritual journey that

continues to this day.

In 1997, after years of serving as an ordained Deacon in the

Presbyterian Church, I converted to Catholicism. This was the

result of very pragmatic thinking on my part. After five years of

attending church services in separate locations from my wife and

stepdaughter, who are Roman Catholic, I decided to remedy the

situation by joining the Roman Catholic Church.

I found this arrangement tolerable until very recently. In 1998,

I began formation studies toward becoming a Christian brother in

the Franciscan Order of the Catholic Church. During this time, I

began work as a minister, writer, and gay/lesbian advocate. Then,

in April of this year, I was suddenly asked to reconsider my

involvement with the Order. The reason offered for this decision

was that concerns had been raised regarding my ability to devote

the time necessary to the Order's mission. I found it interesting

that this decision was made subsequent to the initiation of my

pro-LGBT ministry and advocacy work.

Coincidence? Well, I guess that's one mystery that will remain

unsolved, because I have since resigned from the Franciscan

Order, and have founded my own ministry called the Friends of

Saint Dismus (F.O.S.D.) Ministries. It is named after Dismus, the

repentant thief who was crucified with Jesus Christ, and who is

the patron saint of prisoners.

I also thought it would provide poetic irony for me to donate my

Tau ring (the official membership ring of my former Order), as

well as my San Damiano Fraternity cross necklace to a gay/lesbian

charity . I have tried unsuccessfully to pawn these items of

jewelry for cash (I was going to donate the money to a

gay/lesbian charity). Therefore, if anyone has any ideas for me

in this matter, please write to me at F.O.S.D. Ministries, P.O.

Box 646, Hockessin, DE 19707-0646. or E-mail me at

ejauthor@aol.com. God's blessings to all! -- E.J. DiStefano

(DiStefano is a writer, minister, and LGBT advocate who has had

numerous articles published on the oppression of gays and lesbians

by the religious community. His essay "Manifesto to the

Pharisees," was recently featured in *Whosoever Online Magazine*.

A 1996 "Editor's Choice Award Winner," DiStefano is nearing

completion of a new novel, "Beloved Testament."

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

INTERNATIONAL SCENE

Reflections on Scotland 2000

A conference sponsored by the U.K.

Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement

May 3-6, 2000, Edinburgh

by Donn Crail, Director

Lazarus Project

West Hollywood Presbyterian Church

West Hollywood, CA

High Street in Edinburgh, called the Royal Mile, runs down from

the rocky promontory on which is situated Edinburgh Castle, to

Holyrood House at its other end -- the queen's official residence

in Scotland. On the Royal Mile are some significant historical

sites for Presbyterians. There is of course St. Giles, the high

Kirk of Scotland, with an imposing statue of John Knox in front

of it. Less imposing is his grave, which being in the parking

lot, usually has a car parked over it. Nearby is John Knox house,

where we were told he might or might not have actually lived. It

is a detail with which Scots do not overly concern themselves.

The tourists keep coming.

We met in historic St. Albans Anglican Church, just across a

narrow street from Edinburgh castle. Of 160 there, I was the only

person from the United States attending Scotland 2000, an

international and ecumenical conference sponsored by the Lesbian

and Gay Christian Movement. Absorbed as I am with issues of

sexual orientation in the U. S., the Presbyterian Church, and

Southern California, I had given little thought, and had only the

most general knowledge of these issues outside this country.

Being ecumenical the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, centered

in London, has for over 20 years united gay and lesbian

Christians and their allies in the U.K. It has linked itself with

similar ministries in Europe and through that has probably moved

this issue forward in ways that we have yet to see in the U.S.

Perhaps the Witness Our Welcome (WOW) conference will give us

similar momentum. A sort of testimony to the significance of the

Gay and Lesbian Christian Movement may be that a few years ago at

the Lambeth Conference, the Worldwide Assembly of Anglican

bishops, the archbishop of Nigeria tried to exorcise the

"homosexual demon" from Richard Kirker, the Anglican priest who

is its general secretary. Apparently it didn't work as he is

still openly and unrepentantly gay.

For me, James Alison, a young Roman Catholic lay theologian, was

the most interesting speaker. His address, "Clothed and in His

Right Mind," was an exegetical analysis of the story of the

Gerasene demoniac (Luke 8:26ff). Though not implying the demoniac

was gay, his exclusion from his Gentile village, their using of

him to define who they are not, and his self-destructive

behavior, are dynamics that resonate strongly with LGBT persons

and the Church. Jesus liberated him from the "legion" of demons

that have possessed him so that he is found "sitting, clothed and

in his right mind." This is a powerful image of persons through

Christ set free from their self hated and destructive behavior.

Remarkably the villagers respond not with thanksgiving but

hysteria. Sound familiar? Alison's presentation reinforced my

conviction that for all that is said and written about the

homosexual and scripture, the most relevant passages are often

completely missed. I had missed this one.

Politically the focus in the U.K. on gay/lesbian issues is

centered on efforts to repeal Section 28, legislation passed by

Parliament in 1992 during the Thatcher administration. It is

about the teaching of human sexuality in schools. The most

offensive part of this in the lesbian/gay community, and indeed

among almost all progressives, is that local authorities "must

not promote the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as

a pretended family relationship." The words "pretended family

relationship" have outraged almost all progressives in England,

and even more so in Scotland. Section 28 does not apply in

Ireland. The House of Lords has twice stopped the repeal of

Section 28, and will probably do so again this year. As I

understand it they can only do that three times and then the

House of Commons may override and vote for the repeal -- and is

expected to do so.

An English businessman, Brian Souter, put half a million pounds

(approx. $800,000) into efforts to keep Section 28 on the books.

Some clerics organized efforts to retain the article, especially

the Cardinal in Glasgow. Much of the rhetoric in support of

keeping Article 28 is focused on "protecting the family and

institution of marriage," very similar to what was done in

California on prop. 22.

There was much discussion of section 28 at the conference, and an

existing law that makes the age of consent for heterosexuals to

be 16, but for homosexuals it is 18; evidence of just how much

irrationality can come of homophobia.

Not all Lords are men. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh (think

"mayor") is a woman. One evening there was a welcoming reception

for us in an elegant hall of the Edinburgh City Chambers to meet

the Lord Provost. She was a charming woman and totally on the

side of full equal rights for gay and lesbian persons. She and

other Scots take some justifiable pride in not having done

business with Pat Robertson.

We also heard from Bishop Richard Holloway, in Scotland the

counterpart of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This Anglican Bishop

is something of a hero among those in the lesbian/gay Christian

movement as he is total in his support of them, and fearless in

addressing his colleagues on this issue. We also heard from the

current Moderator of The Church of Scotland, Rt. Rev John Cairns.

The moderator's message, while supportive, was more "moderate"

(no pun intended) than the Bishop's -- perhaps because a moderator

has less authority than a bishop does.

The Sunday closing worship service was filled to capacity. Bishop

Holloway gave the sermon. On the issue of scripture he excoriated

the hypocrisy of those who have used it against gay and lesbian

Christians. There had been some sort of ballot sent out toward a

public referendum in support of retaining Section 28. Before his

sermon Bishop Holloway publicly tore up his ballot.

A male Roman Catholic priest (what other kind is there) and a

woman Anglican priest led the service. We went forward to receive

communion by intinction. I was moved that there was no

distinction made between receiving from the Roman Catholic priest

and the Anglican one. Rome might not have approved, but our

oneness in Christ was so real that morning that denominational

distinctions at the table would have been conspicuously false.

I came away with the impression that the church has moved more to

the periphery of many person's lives than was true even 17 years

ago. My conversations, in and outside the conference, gave me a

chilling sense of what "post Christian era" means.

I return with fresh and passionate conviction that gay and

lesbian Christians are a great gift God is giving the Church.

When the Church finally embraces them she will receive back the

Spirit -- the breath -- the life, that has gone out of her. She has

been suffocating on her fears.

I saw a sticker on the back window of a car in Hollywood that

said, "Jesus Hates Me." The point I assume was cynical -- counter

to those bumper stickers that say, "Jesus Loves Me." Still, I was

startled by it. Perhaps this really is the message that much of

the Church is sending to many persons and the reason for those T-

shirts one sees for sale in some West Hollywood shop windows:

"Thank God I'm An Atheist."

I return knowing more deeply than I ever have that individuals do

not need the Church's permission to find God in their lives. To a

great degree the Church has already missed her opportunity to

love gay and lesbian persons. It leaves them to love themselves

and each other -- and to discover without the Church, sometimes

despite the Church, that God loves them.

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

BOY SCOUTS

No Boy Scout Badge for Bigotry

Speech delivered at Scouting for All Protest

August 21, 2000, San Leandro, CA

My name is Roger Scott Powers and I'm the Associate Pastor of

Montclair Presbyterian Church in Oakland.

I'm here today to join my voice with yours in calling for the Boy

Scouts of America to end its discrimination against gay youth and

adults.

I'm here because I believe in a God who loves all people -- male

and female, young and old, rich and poor, abled and disabled,

liberal and conservative, black, brown, and white, and yes, gay

and straight, bisexual and transgendered.

I'm here because I believe that we are all children of God --

created by God, in the image and likeness of God -- and that we

are all precious in God's sight, whatever our sexual orientation.

I'm here because I'm a follower of Jesus. And Jesus welcomed all

people into fellowship with him. He broke down barriers between

men and women, rich and poor, Jew and Gentile. His ministry was

radically inclusive. He reached out to the poor, the

marginalized, the outcasts of society, and said you are all

welcome.

Now, of course, you will hear some people argue that the Bible

says homosexuality is wrong. But we must be very careful how we

use the Bible. How often have we heard those words: "the Bible

says?" The Bible says slaves shall be subject to their masters.

So the church justified slavery and segregation. The Bible says

women should be subject to their husbands. So the church

justified sexism and patriarchy. The Bible says women should be

silent in church. So the church said women have no business

being ordained.

Today, these Bible passages are interpreted differently -- at

least by some people. Most people today wouldn't dream of using

the Bible to justify slavery. And growing numbers of people

would no longer use the Bible to justify the oppression of women.

It's high time we stopped using the Bible to justify the

oppression of people simply because of their sexual orientation.

The Boy Scouts of America claim that homosexuality is

incompatible with being morally straight. Let's be clear. A

person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality.

Whether we are gay or straight or bisexual is part of who we are.

It's a part of our very being, like having brown eyes or being

left-handed. Our sexual orientation is not something we choose.

And as it is not a matter of choice, it is not a matter of

morality. It is not a matter of right or wrong.

What is a matter of morality is discrimination, in this case the

oppression of people based on their sexual orientation. The sin

of heterosexism is alive and well in America. That is what the

religious community and our society as a whole need to repent

of. When we condemn homosexuality, when we say its OK to

discriminate against gay youth and leaders, when we ostracize

people because of their sexual orientation, we foster a social

climate that only encourages hate violence and pushes gay youth

to suicide.

We are here today to say with one voice: Homophobia is wrong!

Heterosexism is wrong! Discrimination is wrong! It's time we

joined together to demand that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and

transgendered persons are given the same rights and privileges

that heterosexuals enjoy. We're not asking for special rights.

We're demanding human rights.

I have fond memories of my years as a Cub Scout. I would like to

think that who I am today is due, in part, to the positive

influence that program of the Boy Scouts of America had on me.

But now the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America has

nailed a sign on its door that says "For Heterosexuals Only."

That isn't the Boy Scouts of America I remember.

I don't remember there being a merit badge for bigotry. I don't

recall discrimination being part of the Scout Promise. When did

intolerance become part of the Scout Law? No, that's not the Boy

Scouts of America I remember.

The Boy Scouts I remember encouraged mutual understanding and

respect for people who were different from me. The Boy Scouts I

remember taught tolerance. The Boy Scouts I remember practiced

the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto

you.

So, today the Boy Scouts of America have a choice to make. They

can choose to keep their doors closed to gay youth and leaders

and thereby teach our children bigotry and intolerance. Or they

can choose to open their doors to all persons regardless of

sexual orientation and thereby teach our children the real

meaning of "justice for all."

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

PRISONERS

A Decalogue for Writing to Inmates

Suggestions by Jud van Gorder

MLP Liaison for Prison Ministries

I. It may seem hard-hearted, but don't send money or give your

phone number, unless you know the inmate personally. He can only

call collect from jail or prison, and there will be many things

he wants from the institutional store.

II. The inmate's requests may sound reasonable, and it's hard for

you to know whether they're real or a con. If in doubt, politely

decline; stay in control of your response, and don't become co-

dependent or sentimental.

III. You may be asked to send a picture of yourself, so the

inmate can put a face to your letters. That's your choice; but

don't be surprised if it enhances his fixation on you as a sex

object. Try to understand his deprivation fantasies.

IV. You may feel repelled or overwhelmed by some things the

inmate wants from you now, or to provide him when he gets out;

remember, he may be abandoned by family and former friends, and

is desperate for some outside contact.

V. The inmate may focus on his zeal for religion -- because he's

figured out that will strengthen his appeal to you. Sure, he may

be using the church for his own needs; but welcome to the club!

Just take it with a grain of salt.

VI. With the explosive growth of incarceration, the inmate

population is more like your community's cross-section. So don't

write to a stereotype of someone deserving confinement; listen to

who your particular correspondent is.

VII. Forget allegations of "country-clubs" or claims of

"corrections"; the prison industry hides well its inhumane

warehouses from the public. Unless you've done time, don't tell

the inmate "I know just what it's like for you."

VIII. Of course you're curious what the inmate did to be

convicted, and how long he's in for. But in his society, it's

something you don't ask. If he wants you to know, he'll be more

specific. If he can't trust you yet, he may lie.

IX. To survive in prison, the inmate may have had to allow

himself to be raped, robbed, or beaten. False disciplinary

charges could be used to prolong his stay. So please don't

moralize about the virtues of being a "model prisoner."

X. You and the inmate share one basic resource: personal

integrity. So pay him the respect of encouraging his, and

expressing yours. It may be all you can do. Either one of you

could turn out the be the least of Christ's brethren.

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

CHAPTERS

New Chapter in Charlotte

Presbyterians meet to support homosexuals

Members' goal is advocacy group

By Tim Funk, The *Charlotte Observer*

Reprinted with thanks and permission

Charlotte, NC, Oct. 30, 2000. -- The 32 Presbyterians who

gathered Sunday afternoon at St. Martin's Episcopal Church began

by forming a circle, joining hands, and bowing heads. Cullen

Ferguson, the local TV anchor and the father of a gay son, was

asked to lead the prayer.

"Dear God," he said, speaking aloud for the others. "Our

denomination is deeply divided over your gift of sexuality. Some

within this room have been excluded from full participation in

your church."

Then, after the "Amens," Ferguson and his fellow Presbyterians

got down to the business of launching "More Light Presbyterians,"

a local chapter of a group that has been pushing the Presbyterian

Church (U.S.A.) to approve the blessing of same-sex unions and

the ordination of noncelibate homosexuals.

At a time when a war is raging within most mainline Christian

denominations about the issue of homosexuality, dissident members

representing gays and lesbians, and friends and families of gays

and lesbians are making their case through advocacy and outreach

groups with names such as Rainbow Baptists, Lutherans Concerned,

and Dignity/U.S.A. (Catholics). Within United Methodism, gay-

friendly churches are called Reconciling churches.

Instead of dropping out of their ancestral churches or joining

the Metropolitan Community Church -- a denomination formed by

gays and lesbians -- More Light Presbyterians and the others say

they want to work from within to change their long-time spiritual

homes.

"I grew up in the Presbyterian Church," said John Mayes, a former

youth minister at Covenant Presbyterian Church, where his father

was once associate pastor. Mayes, who initiated Sunday's meeting,

is an openly gay member of Seigle Avenue Presbyterian Church. "My

experience in the church has not been one of abuse, but it has

been one of neglect."

He wants to change that for other gays and lesbians by

undertaking what he called "the struggle for understanding."

The struggle could be an uphill one in Charlotte, which was

founded by Scottish-Irish Presbyterians in the 1700s and even now

is home to one of the more conservative presbyteries of the

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It was one of the four

presbyteries, in fact, that submitted an "overture" -- or motion

-- to officially ban same-sex unions. The proposal passed the

denomination's national General Assembly by 17 votes last summer

and is now up for votes by the 173 presbyteries around the

country.

Alan Elmore, the general presbyter of the Charlotte Presbytery,

said the More Light Presbyterians hold a minority view locally.

Most Presbyterians, he said, don't want to get bogged down with

such a controversial issue. He doubted the presbytery would

consent to hear a presentation by Mayes' new group.

"To get tied up in controversial things is not productive for the

life of the presbytery," he said.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is also on record as opposing

the ordination of anyone having sex outside of marriage -- a

stand that effectively rules out gays and lesbians.

The battle about whether to sanctify same-sex relationships and

ordain gay ministers who have partners has also dominated recent

meetings of other Protestant denominations. The United Methodists

voted in May to reaffirm their opposition to homosexual behavior,

gay unions and active gay clergy. And though there are no

Episcopal bylaws forbidding same-sex ceremonies, Episcopal

bishops voted in July to reject a proposal that church officials

develop rites to bless homosexual relationships.

Traditionalists argue that it's the Bible that condemns

homosexuality, citing Paul's letters in the New Testament and the

Books of Genesis and Leviticus in the Old Testament.

But members of More Light Presbyterians -- a name that comes from

a 1620 sendoff sermon to the Puritans -- said Sunday that the

Bible has also been used selectively in the past to justify

churches' support for slavery and second-class citizenship for

women.

"The churches have historically been behind on all of these

issues," said Gwen Ferguson, Cullen's wife and a co-founder of

Sunday's group. "Instead of being the headlights for us, they've

been the taillights."

North Carolina has been in the thick of these national clashes

about homosexuality:

The Cathedral of All Souls, an Episcopal church in Asheville, has

decided to offer blessings for gay couples who have committed to

each other and are members of the parish. The church cleared its

decision with the Rt. Rev. Robert Johnson, bishop of the

Episcopal Diocese of Western North Carolina, who has said he

wants to support whatever a congregation decides is appropriate

for its members.

Former United Methodist Minister Jimmy Creech, a long-time North

Carolinian who was defrocked for performing a same-sex union, has

become chairman of the board at Soulforce, an interfaith network

whose members were carted off to jail for civil disobedience at

some of the denominational meetings last summer.

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

POLITY

Here's the latest court decision regarding Amendment B -- this

one from the Synod of the Northeast. An appeal is under way to

the church's highest court, the Permanent Judicial

Commission of the General Assembly.

PERMANENT JUDICIAL COMMISSION

SYNOD OF THE NORTHEAST

Appeal Case 00-1

MAIRI HAIR and JAMES McCALLUM,

Appellants/Complainants

SESSION of the FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT,

Appellee/Respondent

DECISION

This is an appeal of a decision of the Permanent Judicial

Commission (PJC) of the Presbytery of Southern New England (PSNE)

dated April 13, 2000, involving claims of irregularities by the

PJC of the Presbytery of Southern New England.

On August 2, 2000, the Executive Committee (moderator and clerk

pro-tem) of the PJC of the Synod of the Northeast determined that

a. this PJC had jurisdiction;

b. the appellant had standing to file the appeal;

c. the appeal papers were properly and timely filed; and

d. the appeal states the grounds for appeal set forth in D-

8.0105a, e, f, and g.

At its meeting on November 2, 2000, in Newark, New Jersey, the

PJC of the Synod of the Northeast affirmed that decision of its

Executive Committee.

Oral argument was heard by this PJC on November 2, 2000.

HISTORY

Wayne Osborne is a member of First Presbyterian Church (FPC) and

an ordained elder. He previously served on term commencing in

June, 1994, on the FPC Session. At the time of his ordination as

an elder, Osborne had made no public disclosure of his sexual

orientation. Between the time of that service, and the events

underlying this complaint, Osborne publicly declared his

homosexual orientation at a regular meeting of the PSNE.

In the Spring 1997, the FPC Session declared a "scruple" taking

exception to the *Book of Order* section G-6.0106b, commonly known

as "Amendment B." In the early months of 1998, the FPC Nominating

Committee began its work of nominating a new slate of elders and

deacons. In February, 1998, it received Osborne's name in

nomination as an elder. The Nominating Committee subsequently

placed Osborne's name on its list of nominees for elders to begin

service in the Spring of 1998.

Between the May 1997 "Declaration of a Scruple" and the final

Session meeting in Spring 1998 in which Osborne was examined and

approved, the congregation of FPC conducted a variety of

educational events regarding homosexuality.

The entire slate of nominees was elected by the congregation in

April 1998. The Session next examined the elders and deacons on

May 27, 1998. The Session approved all the nominees, and the

ordination/installation service was scheduled. A Stay of

Enforcement and the complaint followed before PJC of the PSNE.

After trial and deliberation on February 26-27, 1999, the PSNE-

PJC issued its opinion. The PJC Opinion upheld the Session on

Count One [to determine that Session's examination of Osborne was

irregular] and declined to adjudicate Counts Two [to determine

the approval of an elder who is living in a same sex

relationship, contrary to Section G-6.0106b of the *Book of

Order*] and Three [to conduct all other investigations and

processes that are appropriate.]

On March 5, 1999 the Complainants appealed the PJC Opinion to the

Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast

(Synod PJC). The appeal of the PSNE-PJC's Opinion identified the

following three specifications of error:

a. The PSNE-PJC erred in failing to rule that the Session

acted irregularly by approving Osborne for installation as

an active elder when the Session's official minutes record

that the Session was knowingly acting in violation of

Amendment B.

b. The PSNE-PJC erred in failing to rule that the Session

acted irregularly by approving Osborne for installation as

an active elder notwithstanding his disqualification under

Amendment B.

c. The PSNE-PJC erred in failing to rule that the Session

acted irregularly by proceeding to approve Osborne's

installation when it should have declared the examination

incomplete and inconclusive, thus precluding his approval

for installation.

After oral argument on October 7, 1999, the Synod PJC issued its

decision on October 9, 1999. The Decision overruled the first

specification of error, sustained in part the second

specification of error, and sustained the third specification of

error. The decision also directed the PSNE-PJC to remand the case

to the Session with instructions to re-open and complete

Osborne's examination. Further, the Synod PJC ordered the PSNE-

PJC "to complete their consideration of compliance with the

requirements of G-6.0108b with the information received [by

Session] from the reexamination of Osborne."

An appeal of the decision of the Synod PJC to the General

Assembly PJC was dismissed on May 22, 2000, on joint motion by

both sides.

The PSNE-PJC met and discussed the Decision and then conveyed,

via certified letter dated December 7, 1999, the directive of the

Synod PJC to the Session.

On January 18, 2000 the Session reexamined Osborne. The pertinent

details of this reexamination are discussed fully below.

On February 10, 2000 the Session filed with the PSNE-PJC its

report regarding its further actions, including the text of its

reexamination of Osborne, along with background materials and an

account of the procedures taken by the Session in response to the

Decision.

The PSNE-PJC then reviewed the Session Report to determine

whether Session had complied with the Decision and the Letter of

Instructions. The PSNE-PJC had two meetings to discuss and

evaluate the Session actions on March 10 and 22, 2000. Two

meetings were needed to provide additional study time to new

members of the PSNE-PJC who had not participated in the original

Opinion.

At its meeting on March 22, 2000, the PSNE-PJC upheld the actions

of the Session. A Stay of Enforcement was entered on April 14,

2000. A Notice of Appeal was received on May 2, 2000.

COMPLETION OF EXAMINATION

As ordered, the PSNE-PJC directed the FPC Session to re-open and

complete the examination of Mr. Osborne as set forth in

Specification 3 of the Synod PJC's October 9, 1999, decision:

First, the FPC session failed to explore with Osborne what

he meant by his expression "chaste in God's eyes." Lacking

an explanation of Osborne's intended meaning by this

characterization means that the session failed to complete

their examination.

Osborne's indication that "... there are many 'sins'

mentioned in the confessions that I believe are outdated or

out of step with current beliefs and teachings" opens an

area of further question [sic] that session cannot let stand

without further information to enable the session to make an

informed decision regarding the candidate's qualification to

be installed as an elder in active service.

Finally, Osborne's response "I decline to answer this

question" when asked, "Is this a sexually active

partnership?" leaves the issue in limbo. Session at this

point had an obligation to ask Osborne to explain his

response, as pertinent to the issue of eligibility in light

of Osborne's earlier comment as well as the express standard

in G-6.0106b, second sentence.

On January 18, 2000, the Session of First Presbyterian Church of

Stamford convened in regular session. During this meeting the

session continued the examination of elder-elect Wayne Osborne.

Official minutes of the January 18 meeting report:

Continued examination of elder-elect Wayne Osborne

Moderator Mary Theis opened this part of the meeting with a

review of the history of actions taken by our congregation and

session and a review of the judicial history of the subject case

before the Presbytery and Synod PJCs. She then discussed the

meaning of discernment as regards the Session's responsibility

and task before them. The Session spent an extended period of

silence in meditation, with spontaneous prayers offered by

Session members, closing with the Lord's Prayer.

... [Clerk's Note: Session had previously been informed of

Complainant's counsel's offer to pay for 50% of the cost of

stenographer to prepare a verbatim transcript of the examination,

which offer had also been communicated to the Presbytery PJC by

letter dated 12/13/99.] ...

EXAMINATION OF WAYNE OSBORNE

Wayne responded to the Session's inquiries using and referring to

his Bible and the *Book of Confessions*, but did not read from any

prepared text and did not refer to any prepared notes.

QUESTION: What did you mean when you described yourself as

"chaste in God's eyes"?

Wayne explained that when he responded to the examination

question on 5/27/98, he was thinking of chaste as meaning

purity/holiness/righteousness imputed to him out of pure grace by

Christ's holiness and sacrifice. Citing the Heidelberg Catechism

and Hebrews, he said he believes that Christ the High Priest has

done the work of salvation so that we sinful humans can stand

boldly in the presence of God. In that sense Wayne believes that

he is chaste -- i.e., holy and pure -- in the merciful eyes of

God.

QUESTION: Have you looked at how "chaste" is used in the

scriptures?

Yes. Wayne read the Heidelberg Catechism question & answer 108,

which states that God condemns all unchastity and that we should

detest it, living chaste lives in wedlock or in single life. He

found that chastity as used in the scriptures did not exclusively

mean sexual abstinence; it has a much broader use consistent with

what he had said. He cited 2 Corinthians 7:11 which references

presenting oneself as a "chaste virgin" to Christ, showing

"chaste" has a scriptural meaning beyond sexual abstinence.

QUESTION: Please explain further your statement that "there are

sins mentioned in the Confessions that I believe are outdated or

out of step with current beliefs and teachings."

Wayne amended his original answer by saying that it was not

simply his own view that he was representing, but the view taught

him by his church. Citing a number of examples from the

Confessions, he noted that the church clearly does not adhere to

every "sin" described. He cited the Scots Confession #22 which

states that Roman Catholic ministers are not true ministers of

Christ and that the Holy Ghost will not permit women to preach or

to baptize. He cited the Confessions' prohibition against

picturing God or Christ in any way. He pointed to the Second

Helvetic Confession 5.258 which requires that we pour out our

blood for the local magistrate and which by its language, clearly

prohibits pacificism in Christian conscience. He also cited

strict Sabbath day observance (prohibiting work or even thinking

about working on Sundays). The Westminster Larger Catechism (Q&A

139) condemns the "undue delay of marriage," and dancing and

attending stage plays as sin. He concluded by stating that when

he responded on 5/27/98 he was not referencing anything in the

Confessions regarding sexual orientation or practice.

QUESTION: What is your interpretation of Question & Answer 87 of

the Heidelberg Catechism which quotes Paul (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

saying that those unrepentant of homosexual perversion" cannot be

saved?

Wayne noted that the English translation of the Heidelberg

Catechism adopted by the Presbyterian Church includes this

reference to "homosexual perversion" which is absent in the

original German text, but acknowledged that this translation is

what's in our *Book of Confessions*. Speaking of the quotation from

I Corinthians 6:9-10, Wayne said he agreed with Paul that such

behaviors as male prostitution are evil. He drew a distinction,

however, between Paul's understanding of homosexuality and his

own experience of sexual orientation. He concluded that he does

not believe that his is condemned as sinful by Paul's text.

QUESTION: Do you wish to amend your answer to the question asked

in May 1998 as to whether you are engaged in a sexually active

relationship?

Wayne said he did not.

QUESTION: On what grounds do you understand your answer to be

acceptable under the Constitution of the PCUSA?

Wayne said he felt that asking such a question or demanding an

answer was intimidating not only to him, but would be

intimidating to anyone. Such questions create an atmosphere of

intimidation and fear. He felt the question was directed to him

on a discriminatory basis -- because he had declared his

homosexual orientation. Wayne stated that G-6.0106b and case law

require "self-acknowledgement" of a practice, which allowed him

to choose how to answer. By declining to answer the question, he

was not implying a "yes" or "no" answer.

Wayne went on to say that he was deeply offended by the

Complainant's Counsels' repeated allegation that his conscience

is not held captive to the Word of God. He said his conscience is

held captive to the Word of God. He has read the scriptures

almost all his life. He submits to the Word of God in the Bible,

and as interpreted in the *Book of Order* and the *Book of

Confessions*, and as taught by the church today.

QUESTION: Being familiar with G-6.0106b, G-6.0108b and other

pertinent Constitutional provisions, is there any reason you are

not eligible or qualified to be installed as an elder? Wayne

answered "No."

ACTION: The Session voted to arrest the examination at this

point.

The examination took approximately 45 minutes. Throughout the

course of the examination the Moderator repeatedly asked if any

Session members had any more questions. After the exam, Wayne

left the room and the session discussed his responses.

SESSION DELIBERATIONS

Session spent at least 30 minutes discussing Wayne's responses

and consulting their Committee of Counsel, considering, among

other things, the Synod PJC's decision, pertinent Constitutional

provisions, the church's understanding of the meaning of

chaste/chastity, self-acknowledgment & essentials of the Reformed

faith, the absence of any evidence barring Wayne's installation

under G-6.0106 or G-6.0108, and their continuing sense of Wayne's

call to this office. Pastor Blair Moffett led the Session in

prayer expressing gratitude and petitioning God's presence as we

discerned His will in the matter at hand.

ACTION: The Session voted unanimously by secret written ballot to

approve Wayne Osborne for installation as an elder (Vote 21:0).

The Session also acted unanimously in making the following

findings:

During the further examination of elder-elect Wayne Osborne on

January 18, 2000, all session members were given the opportunity

to ask any questions they wished of the candidate.

The Session understands the phrase "refusing to repent of any

self-acknowledged practice" (ref. G-6.0106b) to mean that a

candidate retains a right to refrain from self-disclosure without

prejudice. The language of "self-acknowledgment" has been used by

the General Assembly repeatedly in regard to homosexual persons,

expressly proscribing the requirement to respond to invasive

probing beyond the bounds chosen by the candidate. The Session

understands its responsibility to inquire and its freedom to use

evidence independently obtained in making its decision.

In consideration of Wayne Osborne's examination responses of

5/27/98 and 1/18/2000, and upon all of our knowledge of Wayne

Osborne, we find:

* Wayne's comportment and humility commend him for

installation as an Elder of First Presbyterian Church of

Stamford, CT, and that his answers to direct inquiry are in

accord with G-6.0108b, G-6.0106b and our entire

Constitution.

* Wayne Osborne has explained to our satisfaction what he

meant by his expression "chaste in God's eyes" and his

statement "there are many 'sins' in the confessions that I

believe are outdated or out of step with current beliefs and

teachings"; he has also adequately explained his 5/27/98

response, "I decline to answer this question," all as

regards his eligibility or qualification to be installed as

an elder.

* Wayne Osborne leads a life in obedience to Scripture and

in conformity to the historic confessional statements of the

church and that he adheres to the essentials of the Reformed

faith and polity as expressed in the Book of Confession and

the *Form of Government*, as required by our Constitution

(ref: G-6.0106b; G-6.0108a). We find that he does not

"seriously reject the faith expressed in the confessions"

(ref: G-2.0200).

* We find no evidence contrary to the PSNE PJC's finding of

fact: "Osborne has not made any public acknowledgment of

personal homosexual practice(s) or any sexual practice(s)

indicating non-celibacy," nor do we have any independent

evidence of same.

* Wayne Osborne has not refused to repent of any self-

acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin which

we find essential to the Reformed faith.

In considering Wayne's freedom to exercise his conscience within

certain bounds, specifically within the context of our Church's

covenant community, we find that Wayne Osborne's conscience is

captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the

church (ref: G-6.0108b).

We find no constitutional bar to the installation of Wayne

Osborne as an elder.

Session Report was filed with the PSNE-PJC by First Presbyterian

Church of Stamford on February 10, 2000. This report was reviewed

by the PSNE-PJC during two meetings (March 10, 2000 and March 22,

2000). The PSNE-PJC once again upheld the actions of the Session

(Opinion on Remand from Appeal dated April 13, 2000).

... At its meeting on March 22, 2000 the PSNE-PJC again upheld

the actions of the Session, after full discussion and

deliberation, by the affirmative vote of five members.

Specifically, on remand the PSNE-PJC determined that:

a. The Session fully complied with the December 7, 1999

Letter of Instruction;

b. The reexamination of Osborne was sufficient, procedurally

and substantively, to satisfy the requirements of the Synod

PJC Decision;

c. The Session, having the ultimate responsibility to decide

on its elders, acted responsibly in completing the

examination of Osborne and has met its constitutional

responsibilities and complied with the requirements of G-

6.0108b;

d. The Session has not acted irregularly under Amendment B

in its reexamination and approval of Osborne for

installation; and

e. Consequently, the PSNE-PJC hereby lifts the Stay on the

installation of Osborne that has been in place since the

initiation of this remedial case in June of 1998. Absent

further appeals, the way is clear to proceed with Osborne's

installation.

SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR

1. Appellants specify that "The PSNE-PJC erred when it failed to

rule that the examination of Mr. Osborne was irregular because he

is ineligible for active service on session under G-6.0108b (8b)

and G-6.0106b (6b)."

The specification is not sustained for the reasons set forth

below.

2. Appellants state that "the PSNE-PJC erred when it failed to

rule that the examination of Mr. Osborne is still incomplete and

inconclusive -- leaving unsettled (still in 'limbo') the issues

stated in Synod Decision, Case No. 99-5, Specification of Error

3, p. 5 and 6, which are pertinent to his eligibility for

installation under 8b and 6b."

The specification is not sustained.

This Commission upholds the finding of the PSNE-PJC that the

session's examination was "sufficient, procedurally and

substantively" (PSNE-PJC, April 13, 2000), and we find that the

PSNE-PJC correctly interprets the record when it states that the

"Session has not acted irregularly under Amendment B in its re-

examination and approval of Osborne for installation." The

session's submitted record of its January 18, 2000, examination

shows evidence for the session's determination that "Wayne

Osborne has explained to our satisfaction what he meant by his

expression 'chaste in God's eyes' and his statement 'there are

many "sins" in the confessions that I believe are outdated or out

of step with current beliefs and teachings'; he has also

adequately explained his 5/27/98 response, 'I decline to answer

this question,' all as regards his eligibility or qualification

to be installed as an elder" (Session Minutes, January 18,

2000).

In affirming the presbytery PJC's confirmation that the session

fulfilled its responsibilities for examination of Mr. Osborne

under G-10.0102(l), G-14.0205, and especially as specified in G-

6.0108b as that provision requires a governing body to decide

"whether a [candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church

(U.S.A.)] has departed from the essentials of Reformed faith and

polity," we rely on these General Assembly precedents:

A) Hardwick v. Permanent Judicial Commission of Synod of North

Carolina (Minutes PCUS 1983) states that "... the lowest court of

jurisdiction, in this case the Presbytery, is in the best

position to determine the issues of fact, including the

justification of those involved for their acts or omissions.

Judgments of a lower court on factual issues are favored with a

presumption of correctness and are not to be disturbed unless

plainly or palpably wrong, without supporting evidence or

manifestly unjust." In this case the PSNE-PJC found that the FPC

session, in compliance with the order accurately transmitted from

the Synod PJC through the PSNE-PJC, did complete its examination

of Mr. Osborne according to our specific guidance, that is,

utilizing additional examination questions created according to

the directions received from the PSNE-PJC on December 7, 1999.

Following its examination of Mr. Osborne using these questions

and with full opportunity for additional questions to be asked,

the session deliberated and determined that Mr. Osborne had not

departed from the essentials of Reformed faith and polity. The

record indicates that the session's findings were reviewed by the

PSNE-PJC in accordance with the requirements set forth by this

Commission in its October 9, 1999 decision and were affirmed. In

keeping with Hardwick this Commission finds no sufficient

supporting evidence in the record to disturb the PSNE-PJC

decision, which it finds is neither plainly or palpably wrong nor

manifestly unjust. The PSNE-PJC fully carried out this

Commission's order of October 9, 1999, which includes the

direction to "complete their consideration of compliance with the

requirements of G-6.0108b with the information received from the

re-examination of Osborne," an investigation required under

LeTourneau, et al., v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area

(Minutes, PCUSA 1993) because previously the candidate had

acknowledged his homosexual orientation.

B) We also rely on Rankin, et al., v. Presbytery of National

Capital Union (Minutes, UPC 1981) as it recalls that the adopted

Report of the Special Commission of 1925 (Minutes, PCUSA 1927)

specified that "the review of presbytery's primary responsibility

in determining the qualifications of ministers within the

framework of our Constitution is subject to review by a higher

judicatory only for the most extraordinary reasons." We do not

find any such extraordinary reasons in the record of this case or

in this Commission's own discussions of the Constitution's

dynamic tensions of an individual candidate's or officer's

freedom of conscience operating captive to the Word of God as

interpreted in the standards of the church (G-6.0108 a-b).

Therefore we do not here "substitute our own judgment for that of

the lower judicatory, which is best able to judge" the

eligibility of Mr. Osborne under G-6.0106a-b and under G-6.0108.

Our PJC holds that current *Book of Order* provisions and GA-PJC

decisions do not enable us to go further than we have.

Complainants have specified that the PSNE-PJC erred in upholding

the FPC examination of Mr. Osborne because the examination has

left "unsettled (still in 'limbo')" the issues stated in this

Commission's October 9, 1999 decision. We do not sustain this

specific point, but note that the FPC session's examination has

been regularly found by the PSNE-PJC to have responded to the

issues set forth in 1999 as specifications of error requiring

attention (that the PSNE-PJC had not ruled on the implications of

G-6.0108b, and that Mr. Osborne's examination required

completion).

In this Commission's Order both of these "unsettled" issues were

directed to be addressed by the PSNE-PJC in specific ways, and

they were, although we acknowledge that Complainants' judgment

differs from that of the PSNE-PJC and with that of the Synod

through the PJC.

ORDER

It is therefore ordered that

1. The Clerk of Session of FPC report this decision to the

Session of the church at their first meeting and that an excerpt

from the minutes showing entry of the decision be sent to the

Stated Clerk of the Synod of the Northeast; and

2. The Clerk of PSNE report this decision to the Presbytery at

their first meeting, and that an excerpt from the minutes showing

entry of the decision be sent to the Stated Clerk of the Synod of

the Northeast.

ABSENCES AND NON-PARTICIPATION

Commission member Stewart A. Pollock, a member of the Presbytery

of Southern New England, took no part in the deciding of this

matter on the basis of D-5.0205. Commission member Craig C.

Kerewich was not present for any part of this hearing.

Dissent for Specification of Error 1 -- Stamford

We respectfully dissent as to Specification of Error 1 in that

Mr. Osborne should have been ruled to be ineligible for

installation for active service under G-6.0108b and G-6.0106b.

1. G-6.0108b

Mr. Osborne's freedom of conscience (his choice not to amend his

earlier response to the question regarding whether or not his

affirmed homosexual relationship is sexually active) exists

within "certain bounds." Such boundaries include "the Word of God

as interpreted in the standards of the church."

The manifest witness of *Book of Confessions* (one of our

standards) rejects as sinful someone who lives in an unrepentant

homosexual relationship. Just as a heterosexual relationship is

not narrowly defined by a sexual act, neither should a homosexual

relationship be thus defined. By Mr. Osborne's own self-

disclosure, he is actively involved in a very intimate homosexual

relationship. The question of sexual practice as a "litmus test"

for determining "homosexual practice" is foreign to the

Confessions of the Church.

2. G-6.0106b

Mr. Osborne's definition of "chastity" as imputed is alien to the

context of G-6.0106b. All persons, married or single who know

Christ have an imputed "chastity", but the context in this

provision is sexual purity. In marriage sexual purity requires

fidelity (not having sex with someone who is not your spouse) and

in singleness it requires chastity (celibacy). Mr. Osborne's

definition of chastity avoids the obvious issue of sexual

celibacy.

Mr. Osborne's previous "self acknowledgement" as to living in a

loving, long term homosexual relationship" is a self-

acknowledgment of "something the Confessions call sin." Nothing

in the second examination retracts this self-disclosed

acknowledgement and therefore Mr. Osborne continues to remain

ineligible for installation.

Respectfully submitted: Rev. Dr. D. Dean Weaver, Michael D.

Young, Sandra D. Grillo.

Dissent on Specifications of Error 2

The PSNE-PJC erred when it failed to rule the examination of Mr.

Osborne remained incomplete and inconclusive under G-6.0108b and

G-6.0106b, thus precluding his approval for installation.

This specification should have been sustained.

We find the Session's examination once again incomplete and

inconclusive when Mr. Osborne was asked:

"Do you wish to amend your answer to the question asked in May

1998 as to whether you are engaged in a sexually active

relationship?"

This is not a "casual question" to quote the Kenyon case. Mr.

Osborne's response that he did not wish to amend his answer

leaves the original question still unanswered and "in limbo." A

response regarding a sexually active relationship was an area of

inquiry where the Synod PJC required a response under the third

Specification of Error and under the Order:

"Session at this point had an obligation to ask Osborne to

explain his response ...."

"Direct the session of FPC to re-open and complete the

examination as set forth forth in Specification of Error 3" (SNE-

PJC Decision dated October 9, 1999 at page 6).

The question, "Are you engaged in a sexually active

relationship?" to a reasonable persons requires a "yes" or "no"

answer. Any other response is clever wordsmithing or semantics.

Such a conscious disregard for the decision of the SNE-PJC

constitutes reversible irregularity and therefore the second

specification of error should have been sustained.

We find nothing in the PSNE's brief that would dissuade us from

following the reasoning of LeTourneau v. Twin Cities:

"Sexual orientation and practice is relevant to a candidate's

qualifications for ordination and must be investigated ... when

... the candidate has taken the initiative in declaring his or

her sexual orientation."

Nor do we ignore the guidance to examining bodies provided by

Polity Reflections Note 19, Q & A numbers 4, 7, 10 and 13

regarding interpretation and application of G-6.0106b.

The Synod PJC is not unmindful of the "scruple" (reservation)

taking exception to applying G-6.0106b issued by the FPC Session

and Pastor Advisor Reverend Blair Moffett's admonition to the

Nominating Committee that Mr. Osborne's "installation" would be

in conflict with the *Book of Order* (April, 1998 letter). There

could not have been a less "intrusive, intimidating ..." forum

for responding to the Synod's PJC directive than was present at

the FPC Session meeting. The way had already been prepared by

"scruple" and instruction to provide Mr. Osborne with the least

threatening surroundings in which to respond honestly and

forthrightly to the examination. Mr. Osborne and the FPC Session

chose intentionally to seek other recourse.

The Session of FPC voted unanimously to approve Mr. Osborne and

in its findings stated:

"The Session understands the phrase "refusing to repent of any

self-acknowledged practice (ref. G-6.0106b) to mean that a

candidate retains a right to refrain from disclosure without

prejudice."

The PSNE's PJC erred in not ruling such a rationale inconsistent

with case law and constitution of the Presbyterian Church

(U.S.A.) (LeTourneau v. Twin Cities) and as such risks setting an

erroneous precedent by allowing candidates for ordination and

installation to substitute unresponsiveness for a direct answer

to a valid area of inquiry.

An examiner's "discretion" does not extend to a careless

disregard for determining the truth. Such disregard is negligence

which cannot stand as a valid examination. In the Hardwick case

this point was raised as follows:

"Judgments of a lower court on factual issues are favored with a

presumption of correctness and are not to be disturbed unless

plainly or palpably wrong, without supporting evidence, or

manifestly unjust."

We find the action of the FPC Session plainly and palpably wrong,

without supporting evidence and manifestly unjust. The FPC

Session chose to consciously disregard the constitutional

requirements for the examination of their candidate. Neither do

we find Rankin v. The Presbytery of National Capital Union

controlling since such an irregular examination in fact

constitutes "extraordinary grounds" Rankin would find applicable.

Since the FPC Session chose to so act they have accepted the risk

that a reviewing body would disagree with their examination and

overturn their decision. Against such a background it is

understandable that the stage was being set to facilitate Mr.

Osborne's election to office regardless of his responses to

questions regarding sexual practice. Such an examination does not

test the bounds of freedom of conscience as much as it tests the

boundaries of the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity. As

a reviewing body we choose to uphold the Constitution of the

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A). -- Rev. Dr. D. Dean Weaver, Michael

D. Young, Sandra D. Grillo, Casper P. Boehm, Jr.

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

BOOKS

Called OUT!

Goes to a Second Printing

**Chi Rho Press reports:** We have received from our printer our

second printing of the very popular book, *Called OUT! The Voices

and Gifts of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Presbyterians.* Compiled and edited by the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr,

Kathryn Poethig, Selisse Berry, and Melinda McLain, *Called OUT*

was our first anthology and contains essays by thirty-nine LGBT

people who are members (or former members) of the Presbyterian

Church.

It is divided into six sections, "The OUT-Stretched Hand of God,"

"OUT of Order," "OUT and Organizing," "OUT from the South," "The

Importance of Being OUT," and "OUT and Moved On." It also

contains a brief history of the movement for full inclusion of

LGBT people in the Presbyterian Church, a Brief Introduction to

"Presby-Speak," a Chronology by James D. Anderson, and a

Bibliography.

In addition to the editors, contributors include Lisa Bove,

Lawrence Reh, Rodger M. Wilson, Marvin Ellison, Daniel E. Smith,

Charlotte Sindt (writing about her late son David), Doug

Calderwood, Scott D. Anderson, Kathleen Buckley, Lisa Larges,

Chris Glaser, James D. Anderson, George Link, Dick Hasbany and

Craig Machado, Laurene Lafontaine, Howard B. Warren Jr., Winifred

Legerton, Will Smith, Jim Earhart, Georgann Wilcoxon, Kathryn

Cartledge, Walter Jay Kleine Jr., Barbara Lynn Smith, Merrill

Proudfoot, Martha Juillerat and Tammy Lindahl, Charles Collins,

Lorna Shoemaker, Susan Leo, James Graves, Kathleen Morrison, Bill

Silver, Bet Hannon, Diana Vezmar-Bailey, and Sandy Brawders.

The second printing of *Called OUT* retails for $17.95 and can be

ordered from Chi Rho Press at Orders@ChiRhoPress.com, or my mail

to: P.O. Box 7864, Gaithersburg, MD 20898, 301-926-1208,

http://www.ChiRhoPress.com. For the convenience of our friends

outside of the USA, we suggest ordering our books through

Amazon.com. Our Canadian friends can order through our Canadian

distributor, MAP Enterprises, Mary Ann Pearson, Box 340, 54

Centre St., Odessa, ONT., Canada, K0H 2H0; e-mail:

mapenterprises@home.com; phone or fax: 1-613-386-5711; or toll

free (leave a message) 1-877-245-9569.

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

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., MLP Liaison for Latin America;

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 with 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 over-simplifications 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.

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

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 AND YOUNG ADULT 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

PRINCETON: BGLASS, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Straight

Seminarians, c/o Ken Evers-Hood, 208 Loetscher Pl., #2-A,

Princeton, NJ 08542-1438, kenneth.evers-hood@ptsem.edu

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

UNION-PSCE: Whosoever More Light Chapter, Union-PSCE, c/o Jason

B. Crawford, 3401 Brook Road, Richmond, VA 23227,

whosoeverunion_psce@yahoo.com.

MACPROTESTANTS AT MACALESTER COLLEGE: Macprotestants, Lucy

Forster-Smith, Chaplain, 1600

Grand Ave., St. Paul, MN 55105, 651-696-6298

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

Presbytery & Regional Chapters

Persons listed are moderators or contact

persons for each chapter.

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

NEW CASTLE PRESBYTERY (Delaware): Patrick Evans, 91 E. Main St.,

#402, Newark, DE 19711, 302-266-9878, pevans@UDel.edu

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Open Doors," 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

CHARLOTTE: John Mayes, Gwen and Cullen Ferguson, Chapter

Coordinators, www.gaycharlotte.com/morelight, mlpcharlotte-

owner@egroups.com, John Mayes, 704-358-8042,

amayesd@worldnet.att.net

TRIANGLE (NORTH CAROLINA): James R. Foster, 500 Meadow Run Dr.,

Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8022, 919-933-0498, j-efoster@mindspring.com;

Jack Cover, Chairperson, 919-933-0498.

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

LAKE MICHIGAN PRESBYTERY: Rev. Janet Duggins, Westminster

Presbyterian Church, 1515 Helen Avenue, Portage, MI 49002

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): Jean Martin, 1220

Brookside Dr., Hurst,TX 76053, 817-282-7449.

GRAND CANYON: Kimberly Murman, 303 E. Patrician Drive, Tempe, AZ

85282, 480-967-2767 kmurman@worldnet.att.net ; Rosemarie Wallace,

710 West Los Lagos Vista, Mesa AZ 85210, forster@asu.edu

NORTHERN NEW MEXICO (Santa Fe Presbytery): Jeanne and David

McGown, 2751 Via Caballero Del Sur, Santa Fe, NM 87505, 505-471-

7371.

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 details!

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

MASTHEAD (Publication Information)

MORE LIGHT UPDATE, Volume 21, Number 3, January-February 2001.

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: MoreLightPresbyterians@egroups.com (To

join, send email to: MoreLightPresbyterians-

Subscribe@egroups.com; to leave, send email to:

MoreLightPresbyterians-Unubscribe@egroups.com).

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 12-17-00