Category Archives: same-sex unions

Breaking news: PC(USA) GA PJC finds for Spahr in Same-sex Unions Case

Leave a reply

The decision in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission case 218-12, Spahr v. Presbytery of the Redwoods was issued shortly after noon Pacific Time.  The decision is posted.

Bottom line:  Rev. Jane Spahr was found not guilty of conducting “same-sex marriages.”

Quick and dirty summary of the legal reasoning:  The Book of Order prohibits same-sex weddings but permits blessing same-sex unions.  These were not weddings, there for Rev. Spahr should not be disciplined.  Here is a quote from the decision:

The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order. It is not improper for ministers of the Word and Sacrament to perform same sex ceremonies. At least four times, the larger church has rejected overtures that would prohibit blessing the unions of same sex couples. By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage. The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.

Later in that section the PJC seems to reason their way out by saying “The charge was for preforming a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be preformed.”  It sounds like they are saying that no one can ever be found guilty of preforming a “same-sex marriage ceremony” because there is no such thing in Presbyterian polity.

Where does this leave us?  In my quick reading it appears that this decision has maintained the status quo:  no weddings but there may be blessings.

Reaction:  I have seen none yet but I suspect in the next couple of hours there will be a reasonable amount.  I would also guess that while there will be some approval on the progressive side that Rev. Spahr was acquitted, I also suspect that neither progressive nor conservative side will be satisfied because it appears that this decision dodges the issue of breaking ground and brings no additional clarity or precedent to what a “wedding” is.

My initial take:  The GA PJC seems to be operating in the same mode it has in other decisions by crafting a central body that the whole commission can sign on to.  This one appears a bit more frayed at the edges than the others because there are four minority reports, one of which dissents with regard to certain parts of the main decision.

Now, I’ll get back to work and analyze this decision in more detail on my commute home.  More later.

Coverage of a new film on the Bible and Homosexuality

Leave a reply

Yesterday a newly released news story from the Presbyterian News Service, a part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), caught my attention and while the tone of the coverage concerned me, I’ve commented on this slant in coverage before and decided to let this one pass.  Until…  I read the entry Viola has at her blog, Naming His Grace, titled Reporting on Reporting and For the Bible tells me so.”

First, some background:  Earlier this year First Run Features released the film “For the Bible tells me so” ( official film web site) that examines how the Bible and the church view and deal with homosexuality and homosexual behavior from the progressive perspective.  As the Presbyterian News Service (PNS) article says, this film was shown at the Covenant Network of Presbyterians’ conference in Atlanta in November and is highlighted on the front page of their web site.  In addition, it is mentioned positively on the Witherspoon Society web site.  The PNS article is generally positive about the film and has positive and encouraging quotes from Pam Byers, the executive director of the Covenant Network.

Now turning to Viola’s comments, you would not know that she was talking about the same film.  Viola comes from the evangelical perspective and is not a fan of the film, although she does say she has only seen the trailer and the promotional information.

While I have only looked at the film’s web site and have not seen the trailer, my problem and part of Viola’s problem is not with the film, but again with the PNS coverage.  And rather than my restating my complaint, I will quote Viola:

Today the Presbyterian News Service had an article, Biblical examination, about the film. It is written by Toya Richards Hill. While it is true that this particular film has won quite a few awards at the Sundance film festival, so it is a news worthy film, it is also true that the Presbyterian News Service is, well, officially Presbyterian. So it seems to me in their news reporting they should be handling the subject of this film from a two-sided position.

That is, the Presbyterian News Service could write about how the Covenant Network likes this film and here is what all of those who made the film and agree with the film, including some theologians, say about it. (Which they did.) But on the other hand, there are those scholars and theologians and Christians in the pews who don’t agree with the film’s take on the subject and this is what they have to say about it. (Which
they did not do.) And hopefully as the film is shown across the country PNS will do that?

It is interesting to note that there is a film or video expressing an alternate conservative/evangelical viewpoint called “Speaking a Mystery.” ( official film web site) This video was produced by OneByOne and Presbyterians for Renewal and was released in April 2006 in advance of the 217th General Assembly.  Now, that film did not go into theatrical release and does not seem to have won any awards, but it was produced by PC(USA) affiliated groups.  Some browsing through the PNS archive, using the search function on the PC(USA) web site, and even doing a Google search on it I could find no mention of it on the PC(USA) web site.

Well, I’ll again say, that if the PC(USA) is trying to present themselves as an organization for all Presbyterian viewpoints, they need to be much more intentional about the balance of the news they cover and balance within the articles themselves.

On a related note, today the PNS announced a realignment of which of their reporters covers what news based on the new structure of the PC(USA) General Assembly Council.  It just looks structural and not fundamental so I’m not sure it will have any impact on how news gets reported.

Overturn on appeal of Redwoods vs. Spahr: Synod PJC decision

Leave a reply

Thanks to Rev. Jane Adams Spahr’s web site we have a pdf with the scanned image of the Synod of the Pacific PJC decision overturning the Presbytery PJC acquittal of the Rev. Spahr for preforming same-sex weddings.  Since it is an image I won’t be including as many quotes from the decision as I might if I could cut and paste the text.

There were three points of appeal for the Presbytery of the Redwoods prosecuting team.  The substantial one was that the Presbytery PJC’s decision that same-sex weddings were not specifically prohibited by the PC(USA) Book of Order and a 1991 Authoritative Interpretation was in error.  By a vote of 6-2 the SPJC sustained this error citing the Book of Order, the 1991 AI, and the GAPJC case of Benton vs. Presbytery of Hudson River.  The decision says:

Taken as a whole, the Book of Order, the 1991 AI, and the Benton case, make clear that ministers are not to conduct ceremonies represented as marriages between persons of the same sex.  Regardless of the expression of conscience by the Rev. Dr. Spahr, she may not circumvent the standards of the Church.  Although the Rev. Dr. Spahr had acted with conscience and conviction, her actions were contrary to the constitution as it is authoritatively interpreted, is therefore subject to censure. [sic]

On two technical matters the SPJC sustained the errors unanimously.  The first was a PPJC commissioner who should have been recused because she participated with Rev. Spahr in another “marriage ceremony.”  The SPJC decision says

We view the likelihood of tainting the proceeding as substantial.  A 6-1 vote on the decision does not cure the error. In judicial proceedings avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest is critical.

The second technical matter was that the PPJC did not enter the decision on each charge separately in the decision.  They were advised to follow the proper procedures in the future.

The Synod PJC imposed the censure of rebuke.

There are two minority reports.  One signed by both dissenting commissioners argues that since these ceremonies are not an essential tenent of the Reformed faith they should be subject to freedom of conscience.  The second minority report, signed by only one of those two dissenting commissioners, argues that none of the cited authority actually prohibits ministers from preforming these ceremonies.

Since my initial post with the news, the Rev. Spahr has issued a press release which is posted on her web site quoting her as saying she is “deeply saddened that the church has chosen not to recognize these loving relationships.”  The press release is also posted at That All May Freely Serve.  I have seen nothing yet from the Presbyterian News Service.

The press release from Rev. Spahr does confirm that she will appeal to the GAPJC.

Breaking news: Synod PJC reversals acquittal on Spahr case

Leave a reply

Three days later than expected, the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific has just issued its decision in the review of the Presbytery of the Redwood’s acquittal of the Rev. Jane Spahr where she was charged with preforming lesbian weddings.  According to an Associated Press story now posted as a news article from the San Jose Mercury News the synod pjc ruled 6-2 that the Rev. Spahr had acted with “conscience and conviction” in preforming the weddings reversing the presbytery decision.

The article also says that the decision was delivered to the parties yesterday evening by certified mail.

I expect: 1) A lot more details to be released shortly and 2) the decision to be appealed to the GA PJC.

I’ll post again in a couple of hours.

Appeal of Rev. Jane Spahr’s PJC decision

Leave a reply

Last Friday, August 17, the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission heard the appeal of the acquittal of the Rev. Jane Spahr by the PJC of the Presbytery of the Redwoods.  Back in March, 2006, the Rev. Spahr was acquitted of having violated the PC(USA) prohibition on ministers preforming same-sex weddings. As a recent PC(USA) New Service article summarizes the decision at that time:

But since the section of the PC(USA)’s constitution that reserves
marriage for a man and a woman “is a definition, not a directive,”
Spahr “was acting within her right of conscience in performing marriage
ceremonies for same-sex couples,” the presbytery tribunal of ministers
and elders said in a written ruling.

The decision was appealed to the synod PJC by the Presbytery of the Redwoods.  The decision is expected today or tomorrow.  Whichever way the synod PJC goes and appeal to the GA PJC is expected.

The Rev. Spahr is set to retire at the end of this month from her position as the Founding Minister Director of That All May Freely Serve.  The weekend of August 11-12 there was a series of events honoring her and her service at the Downtown United Presbyterian Church of Rochester, NY.

And now a comment:  I found a quote from the Rev. Robert Conover, the stated clerk of the Presbytery of the Redwoods interesting.  The PC(USA) news articles quotes him as saying

“My sense is that our presbytery more or less
reflects the denomination as a whole in that we’re relatively evenly
divided in our perspective. A significant portion of the presbytery is
very supportive of Janie and her actions and a significant portion of
the presbytery is not. So regardless of how the case is ruled on, at
whatever level, there will be those who are disappointed.”

From the south end of the state of California the Presbytery of the Redwoods carries a very distinct reputation as a liberal, not a divided presbytery.  In addition to the Jane Spahr case, the evidence from down here includes an acknowledged lesbian candidate for ministry who transfered her presbytery of care from the Presbytery of San Gabriel to the Presbytery of the Redwoods when it looked like she would not be approved for ordination by San Gabriel.  She was ordained by Redwoods in the Fall of 2001.  As a story from the Presbyterian News Service at that time describes it the approval hinged on what is meant by “chaste.”  Maybe the Rev. Conover is right, I know that some of the presbyteries around here are not as conservative as we are sometimes made out to be, but because of evidence like these two stories this is the reputation Redwoods has.

GA of the Church of Scotland: Same-sex relationships report

Leave a reply

With the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland coming up in less than a month the reports are becoming available and the press releases are flowing.  If you want to check out the reports they are available on the General Assembly Reports page and the Online Newsroom is dominated by releases for each of the major reports.

However, the highest profile report appears to be coming from the Mission and Discipleship Council and is titled “A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality.”  The report is available in MS Word, RTF and Text formats.  You can find all three formats under Mission and Discipleship Council on the Reports web page or if you want you can jump straight to the MS Word format.  The report is 37 pages long and I have barely had a chance to skim through it yet.  I’ll try to read it in more detail tomorrow.  However, looking at the reactions that have come out about it there are a wide variety of reactions and opinions on it.  More on that in a minute.

First, a brief note on the history of this issue and this report.  It is important to remember that the major controversy at last year’s GA came not from this report but what was supposed to be a more routine report from the Legal Questions Committee.  That began not as a theological question as much as a civil legal question in response to the government passing the Civil Partnerships law permitting civil unions.  This year’s report is much more involved in the theology.  There was an earlier report adopted in 1994 and in 2004 the process began to update that report with the 2005 General Assembly commissioning this present two year study.

I have not had a chance to read the report in detail but in scanning it a few things stand out.  One of these is section 4.8 – The Church and Power.  In that section the report says:

But while churches participate in sexuality debates, there is a newer emphasis within the churches that power is exercised through service, according to which the churches align themselves not least with the poor, weak, marginalised and alienated in society and in the world as a whole.  In other words, the church increasingly identifies with people conventionally excluded from power.  Part of this emphasis includes listening to the voices of gays and lesbians, especially gay and lesbian Christians.  Hitherto it has been very difficult for people to speak openly in the church of homosexual desire or orientation, fearing judgment and punishment.  This report plays a small part in developing this process of listening to voices from previously unheard quarters.

Beyond this the study seems to cover the usual ground:  The differing approaches to interpreting scripture, the current scientific and psychological understandings, and how should homosexual persons live in the context of a Christian life.  And maybe the most significant thing about this report, is that it really comes to no conclusion about the issue in the section marked “Conclusion.”  The working group basically says “Here are the issues, we need to be talking about these questions and circumspect about answering them.”  To quote the final part of the conclusion:

Therefore the Mission and Discipleship Council presents this report, prepared by a Group of Christians who shared in debate their own unique perspectives and
convictions, and in so doing represented the wider Church. The report
endeavours to present different approaches to issues in homosexuality
generously and charitably, trying always to avoid caricature.  The unity within the Group – and Christians’ unity more generally – does
not however come simply from courteous debate, listening to all points of view, and attempting to understand the other more deeply, although these are virtues which the Group members tried to exhibit… The Council hopes then that readers of the report will be aided by it as they read it, reflect on it and discuss it together, worship and break bread together and journey on in faith.

I have found no specific recommendations for the church or theological affirmations being put forward in this report.

Now, for the press coverage. 

The one that intrigued me the most was the press release from the Church of Scotland itself.  It is titled “Kirk admits to ‘historic intolerance’ toward gay people.”  That headline is sure to grab interest and raise a few people’s tempers.  Reading through the article the basis for the headline is a line in the article which is taken from a very similarly worded line in the Process section (4.5) of the report: “…and the working group has listened to testimonies which have led members to recognise pastorally insensitive – indeed, sinful – attitudes on the part of the Church towards gay people.”  From a polity standpoint there is a problem here in that this is a report of a committee and it is not until GA adopts it does it speak for the Kirk as the headline suggests.  (Any Church of Scotland polity wonks out there who want to correct this point please let me know.)  However, I am further surprised that a point in the process section of a report that has no real action points would be singled out for the headline.  Finally, there is also the implication in the line that it was some, but not necessarily all, members of the council who were led to recognize the insensitive and sinful attitudes.

The web site Christian Today has an article titled “Kirk Report on Homosexuality a ‘Major Disappointment.'”  The article reports that the liberal group OneKirk welcomes the report as a step to “greater openness” while the evangelical group Forward Together finds the report a “major disappointment” because it says nothing new.

Finally, among some other news articles, is an article in the The Guardian titled “‘Sinful’ Church of Scotland told it must accept gays in its ranks.”  Now, I must admit that I’m not sure where that headline comes from because the article covers the same territory the others do.  Again there seems to be an emphasis on that one line in the process section.  I highlight this article because in the last paragraph there is a comment from Callum Phillips of the gay rights pressure group Stonewall Scotland that the report was a “cop-out”  because it was a theological document and did nothing practical.

This promises to be an interesting item on the docket.

American Episcopal Bishops Decline to Participate in the World Anglican Communion’s Proposed Solution

Leave a reply

Back in February the Anglican Primates met and requested that the American Episcopal Church be clear that it intends to affirm the Anglican standards on ordination and marriage.  Last week the Episcopal House of Bishops met and by voice vote approved a “mind of the house” resolution that said they do not like the scheme that the Anglican Primates approved.  To quote the official Episcopal article:

On the second to last day of the meeting, the bishops had approved a “mind of the house” resolution by voice vote. While affirming the desire to remain within the councils of the Anglican Communion, they said a proposed pastoral scheme recommended by the Anglican primates in February would be “injurious” to the church and urged Executive Council to decline to participate in it.

The full text of the three “mind of the house” resolutions can be found in another press release.

In addition, the Bishops have asked for a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.  As Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was quoted as saying in the article the meeting would be “about concerns around polity issues, how this church is governed, that we do not make decisions lightly or easily, but after lengthy conversation and deliberation through a very reasoned process.”  She is also quoted as saying “I think there is some belief in this House [of Bishops] that other parts of the communion do not understand us very well.”

That Archbishop Williams would attend such a meeting is uncertain since it is also reported that he does not have a place in his schedule for it.

In related news, it is being reported that the it was recommended to the House of Bishops that the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox, retired Bishop Suffragan of Maryland, age 86, be tried in the church court for “illegally performing sacramental acts without the permission of the local Episcopal bishop.”  Specifically, he participated in the ordination of two priests and a deacon at Christ Church in Overland Park, Kansas, under the direction of the Primate of Uganda.  The primary source for the information is an article on The Living Church Foundation web site and it has been picked up by one of my regular reads, the Global South Anglican.  (The comments on Global South Anglican following this article are interesting as well.) This news is reported as coming out of the March 16-21 House of Bishops meeting, but I have found no mention of it on the official news service, Episcopal Life Online.  In a breaking development, The Living Church web site reported on Friday that Bishop Cox has informed the Presiding Bishop that he has left The Episcopal Church and has been received into the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.  The article quotes Bishop Cox as saying “I don’t want a fight among Christians,” and that he left to avoid financial and public relations problems for the Episcopal Church.

(Brief commentary note:  The Episcopal Life Online web site is a brand new portal that went live last week.  If you are a casual Episcopalian who is looking for info on what is generally going on in the church, it is probably good.  If you are a news junkie who is trying to drill down into important or relevant news stories I found it to be a more clumsy and difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.  In addition, at the present time the search function seems to be having problems.  But that can be fixed I’m sure.)

Complaint re-filed against Rev. Janet Edwards in Pittsburgh Presbytery

Leave a reply

This past fall I was following a case in the PJC of Pittsburgh Presbytery where the Rev. Janet Edwards was accused of conducting a wedding for two women.  (My previous posts of  Sept. 18, Nov. 15, Dec. 11)  The charges again the Rev. Edwards were dismissed because the investigating committee filed the charges four days late.

It was announced and expected that the complaint would be re-filed and late last week the Rev. James Yearsley did so.  The original complaint was by Rev. Yearsley alone; the new complaint is also signed by seven additional ministers and six elders.  It is interesting to note that of the fourteen individuals signing the complaint, only Elder Robert Gagnon is currently in Pittsburgh Presbytery.  And of the signers of the complaint two are recognizable names in the Presbyterian commentator community:  Professor Gagnon and the Rev. Toby Brown (A Classical Presbyterian).

The PC(USA) New Service has issued a press release on the developments as well as some coverage in the popular media, including the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

A new investigating committee will be formed.

Scottish Pastor to Bless Same-Sex Civil Partnerships

Leave a reply

An article in Scotland on Sunday posted on Scotsman.com says that the Rev. Kim Cran of Aberdeenshire will bless same-sex civil partnerships.  The 2006 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland did pass a policy permitting this but it passed by a narrow margin and the Assembly, over the objections of the reporting committee, did send it to the presbyteries where it failed by a large margin.  As the article points out the status of blessing these unions is in a bit of a legal limbo since the approval was not approved, but a prohibition is not explicit.  So, disciplinary action will be up to the presbytery and the urban presbyteries voted in favor of blessings civil partnerships. If the PC(USA) experience is any guide disciplinary action will not result.

Church of Scotland Presbyteries voting against blessing same-sex unions

1 Reply

Scotsman.com is reporting today that the voting by Church of Scotland presbyteries on a General Assembly action to permit ministers to bless same-sex civil partnerships is trending strongly against the action and the presbyteries will probably defeat it.  They report that at the present time only six presbyteries have voted in favor and 21 have voted against.  There are 48 presbyteries in the Church of Scotland so with 3 more needed for defeat of the GA action both sides are reportedly acknowledging defeat.  The GA approved the blessing of the partnerships until, under the barrier act, the presbyteries have voted but I don’t know if under their polity the presbytery vote becomes binding upon the next GA or at the point the vote is decisive.