Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Church|Wed, Mar. 25 2009 05:49 PM EDT

Court Blocks Presbyterian Lesbian's 3rd Attempt at Ordination

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

The court of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Pacific Synod has nullified a narrow vote that deemed an openly gay church deacon in San Francisco ready to move forward in the ordination process.

“The [San Francisco] Presbytery erred when its CPM (Committee on Preparation for Ministry) recommended the Candidate was ‘ready for examination,’” stated the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific, “because it ignored the Candidate’s clear statement of defiance to the mandatory qualifications for ordination found in the Book of Order and specifically, section G-6.0106b.”

According to the PC(USA)’s Book of Order, ordination is limited to those who “live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”

On Dec. 5, 2007, Lisa Larges of Noe Valley Ministry Presbyterian Church in San Francisco, had presented a written “statement of departure,” saying she could not and would not concur with the denomination’s long-standing church law after affirming in April 2004 a relationship not in compliance to the Book of Order.

She called the requirement a “mar upon the church and a stumbling block to its mission” and said it did not express essentials of Presbyterian faith, according to the PC(USA)’s news service.

The following month, the San Francisco Presbytery voted 167 to 151 to certify Larges as ready for examination “with departure,” marking the first time a presbytery had approved action to consider a candidate who declared a conscientious objection to the denomination’s ordination standards involving sexual practice.

Under a controversial policy adopted by the PC(USA)’s 217th General Assembly in 2006, ordaining bodies were given greater leeway to ordain candidates who declare conscientious objections to specific Presbyterian teachings, as long as the ordaining body does not consider them “essentials” of church belief.

According to the Pacific Synod court, however, the San Francisco Presbytery erred when its CPM “presented false, misleading, incomplete, and errant to the presbyters voting on the Candidate’s departure.”

“The Presbytery erred when its CPM recommended the Candidate was ‘ready for examination’ because it misled the commissioners by stating that ‘essentials’ rather than ‘departures’ from the essentials must be determined on a case-by-case basis,” stated the court.

Furthermore, it added, "In voting to advance the Candidate as 'ready for examination' the Presbytery erred because it improperly granted the Candidate an exception to the mandatory behavioral ordination standard of G-6.0106b."

For these and other similar reasons, the court granted the request to rescind the presbytery’s certification that the candidate is “ready for examination,” thus barring Larges from ordination for a third time.

Larges, who was blind from birth, has reportedly been blocked from ordination for more than 20 years.

In a statement regarding Tuesday’s decision, Larges said the ruling “has deeply personal and painful repercussions for my life and in the lives of other LGBT people earnestly seeking to serve the church.”

“Procedural decisions like this, while important, pale in comparison to the greater urgency of removing all barriers to ordination for those who are called to freely serve the church,” she stated.

Larges also expressed hope in an amendment now being voted on across the country by the PC(USA)’s 173 presbyteries that aims to delete the fidelity and chastity requirement for clergy from the constitution and open the way for the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.

“It gives presbyteries clear authority to recognize the gifts and call of candidates for ministry they believe are fully qualified, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity,” she stated Wednesday. “Candidates, presbyteries and committees who have sought to act faithfully under the current constitution have only been rewarded with challenges and allegations.”

Larges became a candidate for ministry in the Twin Cities Presbytery in 1986 and has been under the care of the Presbytery of San Francisco since April 1997.

Her denomination, the PC(USA), is the largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ezekiel continued on to say that because they were full of those things they did wicked and detestable things in His sight.

  • Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:09 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't just about homosexuality, but it was part of it." Nope, Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality as Ezekiel will attest. You really need to read the Bible. hide

  • Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:06 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "There were men in that city wanting to have sex with men, which is homosexuality. But yet, nothing that proves it was rape. The men had sexual attraction towards other men. Men having sexual consensual relations with other men isn't rape" This is about the dumbest post yet. The whole town demanded that the visitors be sent out so that they could have sex with them. Since the visitors DIDN'T consent, it would be RAPE, not homosexual sex. Since the Bible says THE WHOLE TOWN we can assume that there were probably women there as well which would NOT make it homosexual sex, but RAPE. You really need to actually read the Bible. hide

  • Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:02 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "Duh. I've known for a long time that Sodom and Gomorrah involved homosexuality as one of its sins. " Nope it never did and the Bible never says that it does. For those who actually read the Bible, Ezekiel tells you about the "sin" of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. hide

  • Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:00 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "But the issue here is about the sin of the men of Sodom who demanded to have sex with the two messengers from God. " The sin was that the WHOLE town wanted to rape the visitors. Ezekiel tells you the truth. It had NOTHING to do with homosexuality. hide

  • Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    bel, no one is overlooking Lot's sin of offering his daughters to the men, he was wrong. But the issue here is about the sin of the men of Sodom who demanded to have sex with the two messengers from God.

  • Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Why is it that no one has a problem with Lot offering his daughters to the rape mob? How is this the action of a good man?


    ------------------------------

    As you see in Lot's history that he wasn't near as Godly as Abraham, but he did have a sense of morals apparently for God to save him. He may have been a good man, but he wasn't a perfect man. That's the thing I like about the Bible. It shows men in their true light.
    Maybe with the stress of being visited by angels, he knew something strange was going on, and then to have a multitude of people banging on his door to take the angels, he may have done something out of lack of faith, or just under the pressure of the situation.

  • Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Why is it that no one has a problem with Lot offering his daughters to the rape mob? How is this the action of a good man?

  • Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "First of all it was the WHOLE town, not just the men. Obviously unless the angels had sex with the men willingly it would have been rape. Bible is pretty clear that the problem was RAPE."

    -------------------------------------------------------

    There were men in that city wanting to have sex with men, which is homosexuality. But yet, nothing that proves it was rape. The men had sexual attraction towards other men. Men having sexual consensual relations with other men isn't rape.

  • Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Glad you finally figured that out."

    ------------------------------------


    Duh. I've known for a long time that Sodom and Gomorrah involved homosexuality as one of its sins.

  • Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't just about homosexuality, but it was part of it. There was lots of stuff wrong with those two cities. But we see that when the angels visited Lot, that homosexuality was very prominent.

  • Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "mike22685, if the issue is only about rape then why did these men refuse to sexually take Lot's virgin daughters when they were offered to them?"

    First of all it was the WHOLE town, not just the men. Obviously unless the angels had sex with the men willingly it would have been rape. Bible is pretty clear that the problem was RAPE.

  • Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:15 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show ""Since the story of Sodom has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, how do you figure?" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. " Glad you finally figured that out. hide

  • Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mike22685, if the issue is only about rape then why did these men refuse to sexually take Lot's virgin daughters when they were offered to them?

  • Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mickey,

    "Since the story of Sodom has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, how do you figure?"


    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

  • Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mike,
    So does what I said. You claim that homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Bible because the word "homosexuality" isn't in there. And I said that the word "atheist" isn't in the Bible, but it's spoken of.

    In other words...just because the word "homosexual" isn't in there, the description of homosexuality is. And homosexuality is a sin.

  • Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "Homosexuality has been around since at least Sodom and Gomorrah. " Since the story of Sodom has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, how do you figure? hide

  • Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, what I said was relevant to the conversation, what you said was way out in left field.

  • Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    The same place your comment "Seeing as how the word homosexual doesn't appear there..." is going. Nowhere.

  • Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ...yea that has nothing to do with atheism, so I'm not sure where you were trying to go there.

  • Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Seeing as how the word homosexual doesn't appear there, it seems that you're interpreting as well.'

    Either does the word "atheist", but we can see that the concept is there. Homosexuality has been around since at least Sodom and Gomorrah.

  • Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Actually I know quite a few people who aren't gay and hold the same opinion. There's no twisting going on, just logical interpretation. Seeing as how the word homosexual doesn't appear there, it seems that you're interpreting as well.

  • Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    " Hello, the Bible passage screams about rape!"

    Actually, it doesn't. But it does talk about men wanting to have sex with men.

    Well said!!!!!!!

    It's amazing how it only screams "rape" to homosexuals who want to make excuses for living in their perverse lifestyle. They love to twist verses to support their sin so they could feel justified for continuing to engage in sodomy. How sick!!!!!!!!!!

  • Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Explain what you mean please.

  • Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Compared to many. Not so with others.

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Yea, I bet you do.

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "We have perfectly good morals, its unfortunate that the folks in S + G did not."

    And I'm sure they thought they had good morals too.

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    In education we frequently discuss root causes, i.e. "Our students didn't perform well on the state tests this year. Why not?" We discuss attendance, motivations, new teachers, etc etc etc, but the root cause is that the monitoring of student progress and subsequent instruction wasn't where it needed to be for all students. Same thing applies to this. Was there some gay sex? Absolutely! Is promiscuous sex a sin! Absolutely! Why? Because it hurts you emotionally and can certainly lead to physical as well. In a morally driven society, monogamous, long term relationships are honored. Although people like yourself tend to cling to the idea that homosexuality is solely about the club scene and promiscuity, my partner and I, as well as hundreds of thousands of gay couples throughout the US prove that being gay is not reduced to that stereotype and that we are perfectly capable and want a committed relationship with our soul mate. My partner and I have pledged to work through good times and bad, and we hope that someday our state will recognize that. We have perfectly good morals, its unfortunate that the folks in S + G did not, and perhaps more unfortunate that you cannot read to the root cause of the story.

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, they may have wanted to "rape" the angels, but you can bet that they were involved in consensual sex with each other before that. As you see, God wanted to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah before the angels visited there. Why? Because there were homosexuals in those cities. Homosexuality wasn't the only reason, but it was one.

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    They weren't talking about about consensual sex, so yes, it was rape. Interpret it how you will, but obviously I think you are wrong.

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    " Hello, the Bible passage screams about rape!"

    Actually, it doesn't. But it does talk about men wanting to have sex with men.

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wow, thats the first time I've actually heard someone say that a man wanting to have sex with a man wasn't homosexuality.

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Haha, "homosexual enablers?!?" As if my parents had tied me down to a bed and thrown holy water at me I wouldn't be gay today? Hello, the Bible passage screams about rape! A bunch of horny folks want to have sexy times with the men inside. Sorry, but that is not homosexuality, that is forcing sex onto a stranger and someone's house guest, which is rape and inhospitable, to say the least. My relationship with my partner cannot be compared to that, although I'm sure you'll try!

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:36 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "S+G were about rape and inhospitality, so if anything, God is apologizing for not making this clearer."

    The same twisted message coming from homosexuals!

    S&G was destroyed because of sodomy, hence taken from it's name! No where in Scripture was it ever about rape! Homosexual enablers have gullible people believing this nonsense to keep homosexuals in their sin. I'm convinced that nearly 100% of what come from homosexuals concerning the Word of God are clearly illogical!

  • Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:28 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Prophet stated:

    "Mickey,

    "Good question. Why ARE you here?"

    Because this is a Christian site, and we Christians choose to post here. It's not hard to understand.

    Hahahahaha OWNED!!!!!!!

    Thanks Prophet for answering this question.

    Every Christian site I've joined, you got these pro-gay folks on all of them trying to preach out of their gay bibles. That inhospitality argument for the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah is senseless and lame at BEST! These homosexuals refuse to believe that homosexuality played a major role in the destruction of these cities as well as the surrounding ones.

    True Christians will NEVER bow down to the gay theology so they should stop wasting their breath here. If I was one of the administrators here, I would have banned them a long time ago and deleted all of their pro-gay twisted comments! Why aren't they on a site that represents their beliefs? It makes you wonder again, what is their twisted purpose for being on a site that is obvious anti-gay in it's theology. What are they hoping to achieve here? We Christians here will still believe Homosexuality is a Sin, so let them go back and forth for another five years wasting their time. Go for it!

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Mickey,

    "Good question. Why ARE you here?"

    Because this is a Christian site, and we Christians choose to post here. It's not hard to understand.

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mickey C

    It is not hateful to stand for Biblical values. It is not hateful to live by God's Word. In fact, just the opposite is true. A life lived in the Word is a life that expresses love, sacrifices for others, does many charitable works, comforts the grieving, visits the sick and imprisoned, but none of that means that we are required to endorse what the Bible clearly opposes. In fact, we too must oppose women in the ministry, the homosexual agenda, ordination of homosexuals, ordination of women deacons, fraud, theft, murder, abortion. You assume this means we hate those who are for these unbiblical agendas.

    We do not. We love the Lord. We do our best to adhere to the Bible. We recognize our shortcomings, our sin nature, our past and sometimes our present sins, and that we are saved by grace alone, not by any works of ours. We also love our enemies.

    That's who we are. If it offends you, then you must just be offended. I'm sorry that you can not respect our beliefs, and I pray that one day you will share in them.

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    S+G were about rape and inhospitality, so if anything, God is apologizing for not making this clearer.

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:26 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Aside from the fact that God is pretty clear about His position on homosexuality, she is a member of a church body which does not allow the ordination of homosexuals. She can dissent from that statement of faith all she wants, but why would a church body ordain someone who will not defend and live out all the statements of faith, let alone live a lifestyle that is against the will of God?

    More importantly, why is it that we think God's standards have been relaxed or changed? Are we so enlightened that God would all of a sudden change is standard? If so, He has a huge apology for Sodom and Gomorrah!

  • Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:00 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Rolln, you ignored what I said. Is it because its true that you're a liar?

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:01 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "uh! Aren't you on a Christian site! So again, why are the non-Christians here? " Good question. Why ARE you here? hide

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:00 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "Wolves have always hovered around the sheep! " Now we know why you are here. Thanks for admitting it. hide

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    dixon -

    Wolves have always hovered around the sheep!

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    "Fundamentalists, stay out of our ministry!"

    Duh! Aren't you on a Christian site! So again, why are the non-Christians here?

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:47 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    Rolln, I'm not sure why you're posting the same thing in multiple threads, perhaps its because you get it up each time you try to bash someone who is gay (but unknowingly fail.) I have never said or implied such a thing, so you are lying (which means you're sinning!)

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:21 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    "You both seem to think that to gay individuals are able to produce biological children! Would you enlighten us on how this is done?"

    And you just claimed on another board that adopted children and those created by artificial means were 2nd best and part of Satan's design. We can see that you are not a Christian and, in fact, have a heart black with hate for so many. How sad.

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    mickey and mike -

    You both seem to think that to gay individuals are able to produce biological children! Would you enlighten us on how this is done?

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:04 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "My - what big ears you have ----"

    Looking in a mirror, or do you not appear in mirrors?

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    My - what big ears you have ----

  • Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:57 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    "Notice how Micky likes to give himself thumbs up. That's another thing about the gay agenda - they're the most selfish lot know to man. Name a gay organization that is out to serve others other than their own. It's all about themselves - yet another characteristic of Satan!"

    Yet I have "thumbs down" and you have "thumbs up". Now we see how those whose purpose is to deceive work. Sorry but you will not turn others to your life of hate and evil while a few of us are here to who you for what you are. Get thee behind me Satan!

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Church Fundraisers
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links