Movement of the People

Think of a ship, an old metaphor, I know.  The ship has some problems and has been drifting through unfamiliar waters for quite some time.  Some in the ship think a drastic overhaul, which includes all sorts of modern advancements is the only way to really move forward.  Others think that modifying the boat in ways that were never thought of before are heresy of a sort and will ultimately lead to an unstable craft, doomed for Davey Jones Locker.  Over the course of time it becomes apparent that the two opinions are more or less deadlocked, until a few modifications are painfully made, and some of the purists leave in a huff, claiming they have found a better boat, a boat with fewer problems, that is faithful to the good old designs.
This leaves the craft, somewhat worse for wear, in the hands of those who are willing to move forward into uncertainty and adapt, maybe even sacrificing some of the distinct features that once made the ship the great vessel that it used to be.  They're scared by what they now seem to have the freedom to do, and they're a little sad that so many of the former crew no longer feels they can call the vessel home, but they're pretty sure the ship is not going to sink, at least now that they can finally do the things they have felt were necessary for so long.
You have probably seen through the parable by this point and know that I am talking about my denomination: the Presbyterian Church (USA).  From the outside, whether you celebrate it or not, you will note the rather bold decisions that the 221st General Assembly has made this past week.  They have decided, after several false starts to adapt our polity to allow freedom of conscience on perhaps the biggest hot-button issue facing most main-line churches today: marriage equality.  This is an even hotter button in the church than it is in secular politics, because we have this troublesome book that refers to same gender relationships as "abominations," and no matter what you do to explain that away (and some people have done some pretty solid explaining), the words remain and they are stuck in some pretty persnickety places in both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.
At the same time, for Christians, we have this guy named Jesus, who constantly talks about how we need to love each other and forgive sins and be forgiven, and heal and be healed, and he seems to have a way of dealing with rules that doesn't get too hung up on black and white interpretations, but which does give great weight to the Scriptures of his ancestors.  We can't really follow Jesus very well if we just throw the book out the window, but...
This is where it gets difficult.  Some people in the church don't think that there should be a "but..."
I have to admit, it gets a little worrisome to me as well.  I can make a good intellectual case that we need to interpret what God is doing by the standards of the world we actually live in rather than the world of the bronze age world of tribes and kings.  I can also feel that we need to interpret what God is doing through the stories of those who have felt oppressed and denied their basic humanity at the hands of a church that is supposed to love them and proclaim the grace of God into their brokenness.
But in the end, I probably can't convince anyone who wants to hold on to those old words like "abomination" that they ought to think any differently.
I have lived through this debate about what the church should do with regard to these issues since I was in seminary.  I have changed my opinion, I would say I have grown, but that runs the risk of being pejorative towards those who feel the way I used to feel.  I used to feel that this issue was a crux on which would hang the very future of the church.  I used to feel that God might just get so fed up with us constantly disregarding the rules that he just gave up.
Then I spent ten years preaching the Gospel and ministering to God's people, many of whom felt (many of whom still feel) the way I used feel about this issue.  I began to see this disconnect between the message of grace in the gospel and the desperate clinging to rules.  I saw that God is really quite interested in forgiveness and really only has a use for conviction where it leads to repentance and healing.
But I cannot impose that on people who honestly feel that there's more to it than that, because then, I'm not walking what I'm talking.  It grieves me to see people I love, "Take a Stand," by saying, "NO!" when I really believe that the way of Christ is to say, "YES!"  But I also understand that grief is a part of the Christian walk of faith, and so I guess I ought to just live with it.
I am proud of my Church in this moment, because after decades of searching for the faithful path, and several false starts the 221st General Assembly finally did something really hard, they said, "yes, if you please."
I feel we need to understand that the actions of GA did not impose on congregations or clergy any action that would violate their conscience.  The only thing it did was allow those who have heretofore had to violate either their conscience or church polity, a way to avoid that dilemma.
The only thing that has been imposed on those who disagree with these actions is the duty of remaining in community despite those disagreements.
I have read a variety of responses so far, and there is hope that maybe we will be able to navigate these waters together.  The grieved side has said that they expect we will eventually see the destructive nature of the choice we have made.  The victorious side has said that they will try to be gracious to the dissent and sensitive to the hurt that has been caused.  At least a few people are saying the right things.
On the outside though, and I understand that external judgment of the church is rightfully seen with a suspicious eye, we are being praised and noticed, not just for the content of the decision, but for the graciousness of the process.  I have to admit, watching the way GA made its choices, you could easily forget how contentious the past few decades have been.
That's not for nothing.  We are a witness to the Gospel, and for better or worse in the age of mass media, public image counts for a whole lot.  Nobody was much impressed by those times where we hemmed and hawed and deferred the issue.  We didn't look faithful to the standards of righteousness, we just looked like a bunch of stuck old prudes who were out of touch with the world they were working in.
You could look at this as caving in to the values of the world, or you could look at it as adapting to the reality of the world we have been called to serve.
Which is the right approach?
I don't know yet, this decision still has some ground to cover before it's done.
If you're grieved, please try to stay with us, we do need your voice
If you're happy, don't gloat, stay humble and live in grace.
If you're not sure, wait and pray with us please.