|
Constitution used to deny prophetic activity |
|
| Jim, I spent an hour from 5:30 to 6:30 this morning reading the eleven pages of the Presbyterian Church (USA) decision in the case against my friend and colleague Janie Spahr. I tried my best to understand the wording of the decision. It is certainly a mixed bag of the special language used by attorneys to allow for Janie to live out her faith relationship to Jesus the Christ among and on behalf of marginalized GLBTI Christians in desperate need of justice; and the PC (USA) on the other hand demanding the authority over her to define the boundaries in which Janie can operate. The most amazing claim to me was their assertion that they have the right to bind Janie's conscience to their statements adopted by majority vote when even those who wrote this decision were not in total agreement and availed themselves of the privilege of dissent on the closing pages thus freeing their consciences from what the majority had written. The PC (USA) had to have it both ways. Janie's attorney's outsmarted the church's attorneys by proving that, by their definition of marriage, a same-gender marriage is impossible; so Janie cannot be accused of something that is impossible to do. Gays have been working for change in this faulty language, but people are afraid of change because bringing the language up to date may open the church to the new possibility of full inclusion. However, they demonstrated in their closed session writing the decision that the PC (USA) can take away Janie's "excuse" for doing her ministry in Jesus' name: she can no longer claim to be following her "conscience" because they have "found" themselves right in binding her conscience to the rules of the church. What upset me the most was that they allowed Janie to be a prophet while warning her of the risks of being a prophet, i.e., being brought before the church courts on charges again and again until she shuts up. What is ignored is:
God, justice and the PC (USA) are shown to be incompatible. The oppressor silences or kills the prophet again while denying justice to LGBTI children of God. The problem with any of our "organized" churches, as I see it, is that constitutions allow for constituents to deny prophetic activity. The history of the treatment of the marginalized should begin with how Jesus treated them in the Gospels and the example of the early church in The Acts of the Apostles. Read Acts 10, 11 & 15. The Constitution of the early church was the Hebrew Bible. No Gentiles, period! Peter got the prophetic message that Cornelius and his household were not to be excluded from full inclusion in the fellowship of Christian believers because of their nationality. He proclaimed the message with positive results. Cornelius and the whole household were baptized. Peter was brought up on charges. The "constitutional" evidence was clear and unavoidable. Peter was guilty as charged. However, Peter testified that it was clear to him that at the baptisms in Cornelius' house, God gave those Gentiles the same gifts that had been given to all those Jewish believers in Jesus the Christ who had been gathered in the upper room when the Christian Church was brought into being with the Pentecost experience of God's Spirit filling each member. "Who was I, then, to try to stop God!" It is no problem, however, for organized churches to stop God. Is it any wonder that so many with common sense look on this and similar church decrees and say, "To hell with organized religion!"? What a stumbling block to faith! Janie has got to keep ignoring these decisions from on high or the church will die. The life of the church is in prophets like The Reverend Doctor Jane Adams Spahr. Who else will teach the organized church to say, "God gave those QUEERS the same gifts that were given to all other believers in Jesus Christ!" Peace, my brother! |
|