Moderator
About this blog
Moderator's blog
Recent posts
Categories
- Religion (1)
- View all categories →
Archives
Ordination Standards
Months ago, Nancy Grittman, the Stated Clerk of Twin Cities Presbytery, invited me to attend a Twin Cities Presbytery meeting. After consulting calendars, we agreed that the date that worked best was May 10, 2011.
Twin Cities, in planning its voting on Amendment 10-A, the new Form of Government, and the Belhar Confession, decided at some point that it would vote on 10-A on May 10.
Little did Nancy or I know that Twin Cities' vote on 10-A on May 10 would be the determinative vote on its adoption.
I expected to come to Twin Cities to talk with presbyters about the current state of the presbytery, how it sees its future, what it envisions as the future structure not just of presbyteries but of the PC (USA) generally -- conversations that I've been having in many presbyteries.
Instead, I witnessed a significant moment in our life together as the PC (USA).
I was privileged to listen as Twin Cities commissioners wrestled with the issue that has dominated our life together for these last 30 years. What was shared Tuesday night in Minneapolis are the same emotions that have been shared all across our denomination: the pain of gay and lesbian Presbyterians who feel excluded from full participation in leadership unless they renounce any participation in a committed relationship, juxtaposed with the pain of those who feel that any change in our ordination standards violates the clear commands of Scripture.
Twin Cities' affirmative vote on Amendment 10-A gave 10-A the necessary majority vote needed to mean that it will replace the current G-6.0106b in our Form of Government.
We all know, however, that the vote by Twin Cities it does not mean that we as the PC (USA) are of one mind on this issue. We are not. We are, and we continue to be, divided on whether gay and lesbian persons in committed same-sex relationships should be considered for ordination and/or installation.
That conversation will continue. But as we continue that conversation, I call on us to also focus on an important part of 10-A: its directive that standards for ordained service "reflect the church's desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life." I've highlighted "in all aspects of life" because I believe that we, as a church, have all too often failed to heed what a high calling all of us -- as deacons, ruling elders, or teaching elders -- are called to when we are ordained.
I believe that we are in danger of losing our historic parity between ruling elders and teaching elders (aka Ministers of Word and Sacrament). There are many reasons for that. One main reason is that all too often we sidestep the demands of what it means to be a ruling elder. Ruling elders are called to measure their community of faith's fidelity to the Word of God, which is an awesome task. Being able to do that goes way beyond sexual practices -- although sexual fidelity is one part of whether they are suitable candidates for ordained office.
How often do candidates for ruling elder get asked whether they are tithing, or working sacrificially towards tithing? How often do Nominating Committees, or Sessions, really ask whether a candidate for ruling elder has the emotional maturity to serve as a ruling elder?
"Measuring a community faith's fidelity to the Word of God" -- how often does that high bar really get used in choosing candidates for ruling elder?
I've seen a lot of blog comments talking about how the PC (USA) is descending into moral laxity. I'll save discussing whether a committed same-sex relationship constitutes moral laxity for another day.
For today, I ask this question: does your congregation ask prospective elders whether they tithe, or are moving towards the goal of tithing?
Sacrificial giving -- and not just of time and talent, but of money -- now THAT's a standard for ordained service that we ought to be talking about.
- Posted at 12:06 a.m.
-
- Tweet