Editor’s note: This article is one response to POL-01, the “Olympia overture.” To read more opinions, click here.
I am among those in Olympia Presbytery who brought POL-01 forward. It is important to say that Olympia is not an “activist” presbytery — we have only put forward a handful of overtures over the past three decades. So the fact that the overture passed with nearly unanimous support is a testament to its intent. As we drafted the overture and brought it before the body, there was never implication that the requested amendment exclude and/or push people out.
We believe this overture is necessary because too often LGBTQIA+ people, who have engaged in the long and faithful labor of seminary and discernment, are discredited in examination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity — two things that a person cannot change.
If we do not discriminate on the innate aspects of a person’s humanity – such as their race, gender or ability – why would we do so for one’s sexual orientation or gender identity?
The decision on ordination took place 14 years ago, yet queer clergy still face far fewer opportunities for calls and advancement than their straight peers. In my experience, I’ve witnessed that LGBTQIA+ people must apply to a select, limited group of churches that are open to considering them, and which are in safe enough presbyteries that the call is likely to be approved. Candidates vary in their willingness to make themselves vulnerable to overt prejudice or lack of understanding. Even if they find plausible positions, they often face an uphill battle competing with candidates deemed “safer.” Even when they receive a call, LGBTQIA+ candidates often discover the place isn’t as affirming as they were led to believe, compromising their ministry and creating problems for advancement.
Our overture, as it is plainly written, does not compel churches or presbyteries to ordain anyone, it merely ensures that examinations determine whether a candidate will uphold the principles of participation, representation and non-discrimination. If we do not discriminate on the innate aspects of a person’s humanity – such as their race, gender or ability – why would we do so for one’s sexual orientation or gender identity? Asking a candidate about their ability to commit to this important tenet of our Book of Order seems reasonable and should be expected.
If we are to believe that our church will continue not just for the coming years, but for the coming generations, our General Assembly should act definitively with one voice in support of this overture.
There is a generation coming of age that does not bat an eye at someone’s sexuality or gender identity, let alone question their validity and imago dei. The idea that we are still debating this settled question is shocking. If we are to believe that our church will continue not just for the coming years, but for the coming generations, our General Assembly should act definitively with one voice in support of this overture.
The Presbyterian Outlook is committed to fostering faithful conversations by publishing a diversity of voices. The opinions expressed are the author’s and may or may not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the Outlook’s editorial staff or the Presbyterian Outlook Foundation. Want to join the conversation? You can write to us or submit your own article here.
