Comments for How it is that the new Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 does not allow ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians at http://pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://pres-outlook.com Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:17:52 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/7679-op-ed-how-it-is-that-the-new-authoritative-interpretation-of-g-60108-does-not-allow-ordination-of-non-celibate-gays-and-lesbians.html#comment-4072 Al Yes. And what distresses me is that no one will say the word. When the issue was raised in Birmingham, the response was, time and time again, "The ordination standards will not change." This was the official response from the PUP TF and the ACC. There was a news report that Sylvia Dooling raised that argument in the Church Orders Committee in San Jose, and I am told the response was that this is not about "local option." I believe the strategies used to persuade have not been honest. I have followed the debate at two GA's now, and I have never heard an advocate for the AI or anyone in an official capacity ever say that it would allow local option. My position on the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians is clear and public. But I believe it is wrong to bypass the presbyteries to accomplish it, for the reasons you state. It damages the very fabric of our polity. - Ed Koster Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:40:43 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/7679-op-ed-how-it-is-that-the-new-authoritative-interpretation-of-g-60108-does-not-allow-ordination-of-non-celibate-gays-and-lesbians.html#comment-4071 >If the San Jose AI is found to take precedence over the Birmingham AI, then it would appear a presbytery could allow any departure from our confessional standards. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, I think that is EXACTLY what many who were pushing both the PUP report and the Knox overture were trying to do. Knowing they could never win an up or down vote on homosexual ordination, the move was to make ALL standards optional. When Mark Achtemeier visited our PBY before the PUP report was presented, I asked him a string of questions that were all in one simple form: “If PUP was passed, could a presbytery choose to ordain someone who _________ (fill in the blank)”. His answer was always a quick, simple “Yes!” The point was, in his mind, the PUP allowed for any and all beliefs and actions to be scrupled and approved if a church or presbytery chose to do so. Is this “absurd”? Apparently not to small majorities of the last two A’s. I think what the last two GA have given us is not a crisis about homosexuality, but a crisis about the constitution. If any constitutional provision can be negated simply by an AI, then the constitution is useless and the role presbyteries comes to nothing. This is just the beginning. Wait to see how many overtures come to the next GA that request an AI, not a constitutional amendment. Certainly, the real John Knox must have steam coming out of his ears to hear his name connected to any of this. - Al Sandalow Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:07:07 +0100