No matter how absurd your thoughts might be, someone has already done it.  I quipped in a little meme about Anne Rice and Rob Zombie collaborating on a Jesus movie (I made it up, they really have not).  So Frank commented that it was real, or something like it.  I was about to respond with a “ha-ha”.  Then I did a Google search and found this:

What Would Five Biblical Studies Types Write?

Der Zwingli Fetishizer actually tagged people with something which is a shock.  Although he probably tagged me mainly for all of my gay love.  To that I say - fierce and fabulous

The Rule
This meme is very simple. You choose five Biblical studies types and invent a post that they might have written over the last couple of months. Those parodied are entitled, yea, obligated to tag five other bibliobloggers in similar fashion. Don’t forget to link to this original post.

• Nick Norelli - These Books are off the Chizang!: Confessing My Book Addiction and How Rap Music Has Saved Me, Fashizzle
• Ken Brown - Richard Dawkins is a Big, Fat Poopy-Head
• Chris Brady - Talmudic Reflections on Widgets, Mashups, and iBooks
• Nathan Stitt - Why All I See is Greek - Everywhere
• Bryan L - Rob Zombie Collaborates with Anne Rice to Produce Movie About the Life of Jesus

The thoughts and discussions are coming now at a regular clip. I will be editing this as the blogosphere continues to multiply this story.

The official PCUSA release can be found here. Homosexuality and ordination standards were obviously not the only topic of conversation during the week long event. There were other decisions rendered such as interfaith relations with Muslims and the adoption of the Belhar Confession which came out the apartheid struggle in South Africa.

What is clear and needs to be emphasized is that these decisions were not without controversy and not without often strong disagreements from the floor.

The most press and discussion will follow the discussions regarding the status of the ordination of homosexuals. To wit, I am looking to track this discussion here. If you have posted or know someone who has posted regarding this issue on either side, please let me know and I will include a link here in order to follow the conversation and log it to the best of my ability.

I would hope that we can reach an understanding of why this is deeply concerning for some and deeply relieving for others. If we do not allow ourselves to experience the “other side” I fear that the directive to converse and discern at our local presbyteries will be sabotaged before the process even commences from now through June 28, 2009.

Some have been positive affirmations of the vote:

• Tony Hoshaw says, “Unity cannot precede justice - unity must be funded by the holy, other God - who rejects heterosexism and homophobia - as a cursory reading of the Gospels reveals.”
• John Shuck places it in the context of a litany. “I love the sound of that. “No further force or effect.” Say it with me, “No further force or effect.”
• Identity Mixed simply says, “Well finally…”
• Michael J. Adee writes, “There is clearly a sea-change in our Church, society and world as more people are letting go of the old beliefs and prejudice about homosexuality, same-gender loving persons and embracing what it means to recognize Christ and the divine image within all of God children, no exceptions.”
• AlanLK says, “We’ve been here before. The GA has voted to repeal the ban three times before, and three times it’s been sustained by the presbyteries. So, there’s plenty of work to do over the next several months. But, it is a hopeful sign, nonetheless.”
• Adam Copeland closes his astute summary with this statement that summarizes the directions that local presbyteries should now take, “We’re all a bit unsure about the future of the denomination, as some uber-conservative churches have or do threaten to leave. The trick moving forward will be to discuss the proposed changes in presbyteries kindly, faithfully, and humbly. Unity in the midst of our diversity is one of the denomination’s best qualities, but it ain’t easy.”
• Doug Hagler discusses the language that is resulting from the decision here. “Because of a 55/45 split on amendment b and homosexual ordination that we’ve known was there for 30 years at least, suddenly the loyal opposition seems to be lamenting in sack-cloth and ashes.”
• Iris follows with a note of caution and apprehension at how the church will actually work toegther and move beyond positions in the issue. “So, I am feeling torn between cautious optimism that we may soon rectify what I believe to be a grave injustice to our LGBT brothers and sisters and really and truly feeling the pain of those who believe that the church (small “c”) is moving away from them.”]
• Mark Smith urges us to play nice. “I urge my fellow progressives not to celebrate too loudly. Your cheers and in some cases jeers are painful to conservatives. Be a good winner. I also urge my conservative peers not to give up. You are doing what you believe to be the most faithful thing right now (as are the progressives). Don’t take any hasty actions. Take time to hear God’s call for you. Then do what you need to do.”
• Heather Reichgott offers sound advice. “What this means, for me and many others, is that we will be able to be ordained in a year if a majority of the presbyteries agree.  What this also means is that it’s time for as many people as possible to start conversations in presbyteries. Study the Bible together. Find out what people’s disagreements and obstacles are, and talk about them as genuinely as possible. And be in prayer.”
• I urge you to read Ray Bagnuolo’s affirmative and pastoral reflection here. “(W)e share joy with others for the chance to create a more just, inclusive, and loving church, acknowledging that these proposals have at the same time, created terror for others who believe these changes will mark the end of their beloved church.”

This concern is not without merit.

• Toby Brown has several posts, but one simply says, “My grief is too deep for words.” And he did start blogging again today.
• John “Stushie” Stewart writes, “We are a bunch of narcissistic hypocrites looking to justify our politically correct ways and cultural orientations. We cast aside our allegiance to Christ because we don’t want to submit to Him.”
• Chris Larimer is succinct. “I think conservative Presbyterians should rush in droves to join the Covenant Network.” (Note: Not the Covenant Network of Presbyterians).
• Reformed Pastor has numerous posts on the GA. This one is in keeping with the general theme. “Once again, whether the proposed repeal of G-6.0108b happens or not, the PCUSA is now officially in the camp of gay-approving denominations, along with the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.”
• John Erthein writes, “Well, the General Assembly has placed a spoiled cherry on the rancid sundae of these past several days.”
• Bill Crawford says, “(T)he PCUSA has once again opened the door to the ordination of non repentant sinners.”
• Deutero Q uses what might be a consistent metaphor, “Many different words and metaphors come to mind as I continue to process the lunacy that characterized the GA meeting. Pardon my bluntness, but the crap coming out of the PC (USA) colon stinks to high heaven. (I’ve used that metaphor quite a bit lately, but I think it is a fitting one.)”
• From Adel Thalos, “In my opinion the PCUSA is no longer part of the larger body of Jesus Christ, but has separated itself becoming just another “church of what is happening among cultural progressives now,” like the Episcopal Church and the UCC.”
• The title alone from the Institute on Religion & Democracy (IRD) press release is clear enough, “Presbyterians Plant Seeds of Self-Destruction”.
• The Presbyterian Global Fellowship from the “pen” of Vic Pentz says, “San Jose offered an unconditional invitation for the “outside” to come in without asking the “outside” to be transformed by “inside.”  Anything inside (confessions, Scripture, Book of Order) that did not fit comfortably with the outside was asked to leave. Or as I heard someone say, “The Bible got voted off the island.”

It could very well be.  Out of committee the proposed amendment has to be approved by a majority of the presbyteries of the denomination.  This is unlikely, but this is getting farther into the heat of the General Assembly than some previous years.

SAN JOSE – A committee is recommending that the 218th General Assembly approve a constitutional amendment to strike from the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) language that restricts ordination to those who practice fidelity if they are married or chastity if they are single.

Instead, the committee – approving an overture from Boston presbytery – voted 41-11 on June 24 to replace that with a provision that those being called for ordained service “pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church.”

Each governing body examining candidates would need to establish “the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards,” the overture states.

The committee also is recommending that the assembly pass an authoritative interpretation declaring that interpretive statements the assemblies of the northern and southern branches of the Presbyterian Church made in 1978 and 1979 regarding homosexuality “and all subsequent affirmations thereof have no further force or effect.”

This is not a new thing and has been under scrunity as “Amendment B” for the past 10 years.  What is new is that other presbyteries than Milwaukee and San Francisco are challenging it and presenting overtures to amend it, or remove it from the Book of Order, the PCUSA constitution.  This could be sign of an increasing trend to change this part of the consitution.

Roald Dahl’s father and younger sister died when he was young.  The schoolmasters in the UK under which he received his tutelage were not immune from corporal punishment with the use of a cane.  Perhaps this is where we learn of Dahl’s unique association of parents and their world with something distasteful, cruel and evil juxtaposed with the child’s world of innocence, imagination, and escapism.  He began writing following his decorated service as a Royal Air-Force pilot in WWII.

Dahl gives paints images in words of two worlds that give us a sense that as we get older we get corrupted by modern life and lose that childhood innocence and playfulness that is the source of human hope.  Dahl gives us characterizations of the seven deadly sins and eight deadly thoughts in the Christian tradition frequently as we can see in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  It is clear that selfishness and cruelty among children finds its source in the parents that raise them to be successful and popular adults.  Here, we learn that this is not what being a kid is all about.  His book The BFG gives a different spin on this role confusion by pitting a friendly giant who befriends a child against the wicked and cruel giants with whom he is affiliated.

What we learn is that childhood is not something limited to children and that the cruel and evil behaviors of adults can be transferred to their children who are not aware of the difference.  the message is not so much “Don’t be like them” as much as “See how they are?  Do be like that.”  But rather than belabor us with such transparent lessons, Dahl makes the distinction between good and evil behavior clear.

He does this with a characteristic darkness and an almost gleeful exploration of cruelty that is loaded with off-beat dark humor and irony.  Take the grandparents in George’s Marvelous Medicine.  After reading what punishment she would give George in the form of what he would eat, I could never look at earwigs the same way, and still do not.  I am always taken back to the indelible impression and fantastic wit that Dahl left on me with such visceral and salient pictures of a reality that was distant, but somehow close to home.

I read these books too many time to enumerate as a child.  I will have each of them on tap for my kids as well.  They have a different kind of imaginative framework that took me perhaps from the often cruel surrounds of my own childhood, to a place with George, or James, or Charlie that reminded me that with my own imagination, I could make the world what I wanted it to be in spite of reality.  More than C.S. Lewis, Dahl taught me what good and bad behavior was all about and how if we are not careful, our very human nature as children with hope and promise in the world can be crushed by the whims and jaded values of modernity.

Am I right.  Or left?

This post is part of a blogging summit called by John Hobbins @ Ancient Hebrew Poetry.

Roger Mugs came up with this little nugget*. It is like an opportunity to give, as the say in the black church, testimony (emphatically as appropriate unlike us white folk). Nick Ditty @ Rightly Dividing tagged me to participate. And so here I go!

The rule:

In an effort to keep it simple, short, and easy to follow, I’d like to challenge you to quote one verse (not one chapter). And then say what the Lord has been teaching you in one sentence (not one paragraph). Then tag 5 peeps (you know the drill).

The Verse
Mark 12:29-31: Jesus answered, ‘The first is, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” The second is this, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.’

The Lesson
God has continually been teaching me that Christians are often the worst exemplars of this commandment.

The Tag
I think I am going to tag a few of my Presbyterian brothers and sisters as I think this thought-experiment offers a nice resource to ground people in what is important in the midst of the General Assembly meeting in San Jose, CA (live-blogged here). Adam is also live-blogging it at Pomomusings also linked below.

• Bruce
• Sarah
• Adam
• Ed
• Jim

* I can’t stand using the word “meme” since it gives the concept too much press. I prefer the term “autobiographical widget™” which I coined here.

Jim West found it and quotes it here.

Right. It is an agenda. It is an agenda to have equal protection under the law regarding the civil contract of what marriage guarantees. The problem is that this rather reasonable agenda is cast in conspiratorial terms that somehow gays want to rule to country at the expense of other groups’ equal protection under the law (e.g. religious organizations) which is a far cry from the case.

With regard to the responsibility of the state, there is not a single legal argument to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman unless you rely on extra-legal foundations such as religion or outmoded understandings of tradition. Note that I am not talking about how votes have been cast in the past. Just because you vote for something does not mean that it is constitutional, correct, or even ethical.  I am talking about formulating a legal argument that makes the definition of marriage as between man and woman necessary.

Just because something is so, does not therefore mean it must be so.  The challenge for those who oppose a gender neutral definition of marriage is to argue why marriage must be so.  So far the courts are ruling that marriage as between man and woman proponents are not doing a good job with this argument and I whole-heartedly agree.

My suggestion is to stop whining about meritless and speculative conclusions that the man/woman qualification of marriage will destroy society, marriage, religion, etc.  Make the case with a solid argument built on solid legal foundations or the man/woman definition will continue to crumble as perhaps it should.