Kopp Disclosure
(John 3:19-21)
@#$%
@#$%
This motion was
seconded and prevailed by an overwhelming majority at Blackhawk Presbytery's
stated meeting on 11/11/14 at Oregon, Illinois' Stronghold Camp and Retreat
Center: "Acknowledging same-sex nuptials are legal in Illinois and the
PCUSA affords discretion to its teaching elders by the authoritative
interpretation of the 221st General Assembly to preside or not preside at such
rituals+ceremonies=rites and particular churches may host or not host such
ordinances upon session approval subject to the review of higher judicatories,
Blackhawk Presbytery will honor the consciences of teaching elders and particular
churches within its bounds; noting its members are divided among those who
embrace the authoritative interpretation as witness to progressive theology and
those who reject it according to traditional Christianity.
Presiding/participating teaching elders and hosting churches may exercise their
consciences as permitted by the authoritative interpretation. No efforts
to force teaching elders and sessions who decline to preside/participate/host
will be encouraged, enabled, or condoned. Those who embrace and those who
decline do not need to fear ministerial infringements or vocational reprisals
in Blackhawk Presbytery."
Practically,
Blackhawk Presbytery has become a you-don't-bother-us-and-we-won't-bother-you
oasis for progressives and
traditionalists in a denomination reflecting its host country's increasingly
divisive and ultimately destructive my-way-or-the-highway
partisans.
Indeed,
I hope that floor debate about the aforementioned motion was
recorded.
I think others
could benefit from BP's increasingly uncommon civility; as the PCUSA,
sister franchises, America, and rest of the world betray their collective thanatos libido.
@#$%
Having said that
and praised God for that, we're going to be voting on making same-sex nuptials
a part of our denominational constitution throughout the rest of 2014 and into
the first half of 2015.
Essentially, the
PCUSA may/will, uh, evolve from allowing 'em to advocating 'em by
allowing/advocating/ordering 'em in its rule book with decreasing
correspondence to you know who based on you know what.
Specifically,
everybody's gonna be voting to approve or reject the recommended change to the
constitution from marriage being "between one man and one woman" to
"between two people."
Get it?
Our
family's dog Kopper, fondly referred to as "our gay dog" because
he's so sweet on me while assuming he's human not canine, is hopeful.
C'mon, folks on
the hard left and right, lighten up!
Anyway, to become
a part of the constitution, all that's needed is a simple majority of 86
out of 171 presbyteries.
If it doesn't
pass, I predict Crazy Joe or Texas Teddy will be our next President.
@#$%
I asked several
folks who are really into this with much more litigious interest/sophistication
than moi to address three questions.
If it prevails,
what will it mean?
If it does not
prevail, what will it mean?
If it fails, what
happens to the nuptials that were performed since the authoritative
interpretation of the 221st General Assembly?
A common general
response: "The authoritative interpretation is not a part of the
constitution. It remains an authoritative interpretation of the
constitution regardless of the vote on the amendment to the constitution."
Precisely
addressing the three questions, here are the collective responses as summarized
as simply as possible by moi.
Q. If it prevails, what will it mean?
A. Freedom...without bounds!
Q. If it does not prevail, what will
it mean?
A. Nothing! The authoritative
interpretation remains/applies no matter how the vote goes.
Q. If it fails, what happens to the
nuptials already performed?
A. Nothing! That's the, uh,
genius of the 221's GA. The AI supercedes the amendment.
Whoa.
Sooooooo, mes amis, folks
who wanna get hitched to someone from the same gender can, uh, do it in the
PCUSA because it's always gonna be allowed and maybe advocated yet, at minimum,
always allowed.
The train has
left the station.
Uh, score one for
the, uh, hard left!
@#$%
Getting back to
Blackhawk Presbytery, we get to vote on advocating it even though it will be
allowed no matter how the vote ends up/down on 2/10/15 at Rochelle, Illinois'
First Presbyterian Church.
Sooooooo how do
non-progressive traditional theologians like moi remain faithfully?
Well, I
think/pray this will maintain integrity despite not pacifying spirit,
intellect, or gut.
Knowing anyone
who hasn't made up her/his mind on this since the topic's been raging in
the franchise for, ooooooohhhhhhh,
40+ years must be living in the ozone layer of reality with an
indecisiveness only matched by BBPBHO on most moral/national/global matters,
I'm gonna get in line as soon as the debate starts; and when my lips hit the
mic, I'm gonna move the previous question. Again, ya gotta wonder what
the anything but heaven folks have not been thinkin' if they haven't already
made up their minds on this one. Reeeeeeeaaaaaaaly,
are we inclined to keep the floor open for a few hours more of venting,
pontificating, advocating, antagonizing, bantering, and moaning?
Assuming the vote
to amend the constitution will prevail in BP, I'm gonna ask the stated clerk
aka ecclesiastical secretary to record me as dissenting from both the AI and
the amendment just so I'm covered on both at the same time in an exercise of
time/emotions stewardship: "I
ask the stated clerk to indulge my constitutional right to be recorded in the
minutes by name and church as dissenting from the authoritative interpretation
of the 221st General Assembly and our presbytery's vote to amend the
constitution from marriage being 'between one man and one woman' to 'between
two people' as categorically contradictory to over two thousand years of
Biblical, confessional, constitutional, historical, traditional, and common
sense Christianity."
If the vote
prevails in our presbytery, I hope other presbyters will dissent; using
the suggested wording or, probably, something much better to express this
amendment as an abomination and insult to Jesus by the book.
If the vote
prevails in other presbyteries, I hope presbyters will dissent; using the...
@#$%
Jesus never said
it would be easy to be part of the remnant.
Read Matthew 10
for more on that.
It's like our
administrative assistant aka my boss in Belvidere said as we discussed the
folks who have left over the years because they picked up their marbles and
walked away because of their my-way-or-the-highway
weltanschauung, "We're sure glad Jesus never gave up on us
every time we disappointed Him."
She's so much
wiser than me; even if only a year older.
@#$%
@#$%
Blessings and Love!
No comments:
Post a Comment