The last three days the Permanent Judicial Commission of Redwoods Presbytery has been hearing arguments in the disciplinary case of Redwoods Presbytery v. Jane Adams Spahr.  The Rev. Spahr is accused of conducting ceremonies for same-sex couples that are prohibited by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) but were legal civil marriages under the laws of the State of California at the time.  If this sounds familiar it is — this is a variant on the case filed against Rev. Spahr in 2004 that lead to General Assembly PJC Decision 218-12 that gave us the, shall we say interesting, decision that the Rev. Spahr could not have been guilty of conducting same-sex marriages because “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.”  It may be a unique legal decision, but it is the prevailing interpretation on this subject and figures in the Commission decision.

This Commission sustained three of the four charges against Rev. Spahr, all related to the authority of the Book of Order and her persisting in preforming these ceremonies after the previous GAPJC decision.  But the Commission also weighed in with their judgment about the current polity situation in the the PC(USA).

Before I get to a discussion of the decision, I want to make a couple of observations about the trial itself.

One aspect of this trial is that it was probably the first one with significant real-time commentary on Twitter.  You can find most of the tweets under @revjanespahr and #revjanie.

It was interesting to follow the trial play-by-play, but as with most things on Twitter these days it also came with the attendant amount of snark, such as: “Oh God, she just mentioned the ‘silent majority.'” and “Blackstone: Same old same old — GAPJC.”  I would also note that virtually all of the tweets I saw were from Rev. Spahr’s supporters with none, that I saw, from anyone clearly supporting the prosecution.  Maybe I just didn’t find the hashtag.

A couple of items came across in the tweets that I wanted to comment on.
1) The argument that the Directory for Worship is descriptive and that it contains no “shalls.”  This was the argument that carried the day in a Presbytery PJC decision that acquitted the Rev. Jean Southard in a similar case in Boston Presbytery.  However, on appeal the Synod PJC found that the Presbytery PJC was in error in this reasoning and we await a General Assembly PJC case to clarify this.  But I will also say that after serving on the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Religious Marriage I came away with the understanding that W-4.9001 was the equivalent of a “shall” section and that is why I wanted to recommend to the General Assembly wording to make the civil marriage section of the definition more flexible.

2) Also related to the Special Committee and the definition, I think several of us on the Committee, myself included, came away from the study wondering if the church should be acting as the agent of the state in executing marriage licenses.  In my own experience I know that in such diverse settings as Mexico and Germany the civil marriage and the religious marriage are two distinct events with the religious ceremony possibly happening minutes or years after the civil ceremony.  This concept came up in this trial, based on the tweets, with arguments by the defense that the two are linked in the Book of Order and by the prosecution that they are not.  At least that is what I gathered from two 140 character messages.

Anyway, with that as preface, and with the understanding that this case probably has two appeals to go before it is settled, what did Redwoods Presbytery PJC give us this time?

Charge 1 was that Rev. Spahr solemnized a marriage “in direct violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (GAPJC) in its Decision and Order in Disciplinary Case 218-12.”  This effectively says that W-4.0991 is a constitutionally binding requirement of the Book of Order.

Charge 2 was that Rev. Spahr “persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience concerning the aforementioned authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order.”  In other words, since the previous GAPJC decision she had conducted multiple same-gender marriages.

Charge 3 was that Rev. Spahr “By intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the above-referenced authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order as set forth in Disciplinary Case 218-12, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, failed to be governed by polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in violation of your ordination vows (W-4.4003e).”

These three charges were sustained by the Commission on a 4-2 vote.

The fourth charge was unanimously not sustained: By publicly, intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the Book of Order, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, have failed to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church (W-4.4003g).

OK, that is the verdict.  Expect an appeal and another trip to the GAPJC. (And expect mainstream media reports to miss the nuances of the polity.)

What is most interesting about the decision is the second page with the commentary by the Commission.  They begin:

The Permanent Judicial Commission, in sustaining the first three charges, recognizes that while the Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr has indeed performed these marriages, which were and continue to be legal marriages, she did so acting with faithful compassion in accord with W7.3004. These marriages were legal in the State of California, being civil contracts (W4.9001), and are different from same sex ceremonies. The testimonies of those at court clearly demonstrated this difference.

We commend Dr. Spahr and give thanks for her prophetic ministry that for 35 years has extended support to “people who seek the dignity, freedom and respect that they have been denied” (W7.4002c), and has sought to redress “wrongs against individuals, groups, and peoples in the church, in this nation, and in the world” (W7.4002h).

But their commentary goes on as a word for the whole church:

In addition, we call upon the church to reexamine our own fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.(G3.0401c) We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the Gospel.

But the decision concludes with these words:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we are constrained to accept that the following language in GAPJC Disciplinary Case 218-12 is authoritative and should be followed until and unless modified: “We further hold that the officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.”

and

We implore the Synod and General Assembly levels of our church to listen to these testimonies, which are now part of this record, to take them to heart, and to do what needs to be done to move us as a church forward on this journey of reconciliation.

The penalty imposed is censure with rebuke (D-12.0102) and she is “enjoined to avoid such offenses in the future.”  If the decision is appealed the censure is held until the completion of the process if this decision is upheld.  Censure with rebuke is the lightest option available to the Commission and is effectively a formal declaration that what she did went against the constitution of the PC(USA).

Addendum:  A couple of additional words of commentary on this decision.  I waited a few hours to add this both to give me time to think about it and because I thought the decision pretty much spoke for itself. But to cast this in light of our polity the members of the PJC walked the fine line between “God alone is Lord of the conscience” [G-1.0301a] and “It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government.” [G-6.0108a]  Their commentary clearly, to me at least, reflects their personal frustration that while they agree with the pastoral care Rev. Spahr has carried out and disagree with the applicable sections of the Constitution and the current interpretations, the majority none-the-less recognized their obligation to abide by the current standards enacted by the majority.  One can object to the strength or extent to which the PJC majority expressed their personal beliefs, but one must admire and appreciate their faithfulness to the PC(USA) process and connectionalism.  So yes, they effectively said “These are the rules, you have broken the rules, we think the rules are wrong but we must still find you guilty.”  This was further expressed in the penalty, which is the lightest that can be imposed and is effectively saying “Go and sin no more.”

Also in contemplating this decision the question keeps coming round of what specifications of error could be cited as grounds for appeal?  Since the defense seems to have focused on the idea that W-4.9001 is descriptive and prescriptive, that is that there is no “shall” language in there, that is certain to be one of the points.  This has been discussed for a while now and it will be useful if the GAPJC does provide guidance on what it means for the Directory for Worship to be descriptive.  From what I have seen and heard I don’t think I can pick out any procedural points that would be grounds for appeal but I did not follow extremely closely.  I don’t think that either personal conscience or the difference between civil and ecclesiastical definitions of marriage would be strong points of appeal.

Expecting an appeal, or possibly a decision in the Southard case that could impact this one, it is far too early to say this is the final word on this decision and this issue.  However, it does highlight where the PC(USA) is right now with different understandings on marriage and the fact that there needs to be a recognition that same-gender marriages are legally recognized in some jurisdictions and countries.  As the Special Committee report said…