Same-sex marriage The Janie Spah

Same-sex marriage
The Janie Spahr case in 2008

The PJC Decision on Same-Gender Unions

by Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Society Issues Analyst
[5-2-08]

A "late-breaking issue" that will doubtless create much heat and, we hope, a bit of light is the decision in late April by the GA's Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC for short) in a case involving the Rev. Janie Spahr, Presbyterian minister who serves in the GLBT community. She had conducted two same-gender services in 2004 and 2005. In response to a complaint, the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific directed Redwoods Presbytery to issue a rebuke to her.

The Decision

The GA's PJC looked at the Directory for Worship (W-4.9001), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. In addition, the 1991 GA had issued an Authoritative Interpretation (AI for short) that did not prohibit the blessing of same-sex unions, but declared that they should not be called marriage ceremonies and should not even look or sound like them (this is a difficult call to make, of course).

In view of these authoritative statements, says the PJC, Spahr could not be held guilty "of doing that which, by definition, cannot be done."

It went on, "One cannot characterize same-sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes."

The PJC acknowledged Spahr's caring and compassionate ministry, in ways that are authorized by a number of statements in the Book of Order, to persons who have been marginalized, and that her work has been characterized by some in the church as "prophetic."

The PJC was following church law, which is what lawyers and courts are supposed to do. But legal reasoning can look narrow and nitpicking to non-specialists, and that's how many people reacted to the decision. That impression was intensified when they read the decision to the end. They found that the majority's ruling is followed by several concurring opinions that put different "spins" on the matter.

The Concurrences

● One concurrence adds that while Spahr could not be disciplined for something that happened earlier, the PJC has now ruled and she is on notice that any further actions would be subject to disciplinary action.

● Another alludes to an unspecified conflict of interest at one stage of the process.

● A third said that Spahr's compassion and advocacy, even though in tension with the rules of the church, could well be compatible with her faithfulness to her calling.

● And a fourth warns that the majority has engaged in legislation rather than interpretation, suggesting that several issues (which it doesn't specify) should have been left to the General Assembly.

Reactions

In the days following the decision there were many reactions on web sites and blogs. Perhaps the most interesting was on Presbyblog.com, edited by Bob Davis, who will be a commissioner at the 2008 GA. He emphasized the puzzling number of concurring decisions and, turning the decision against itself, suggested that it is self-contradictory.

What Will Happen at General Assembly?

Many conservatives have reacted to the PJC decision with alarm, and their first thought may have been to counteract it at the upcoming GA. But the decision comes too late for overtures to be sent from the presbyteries. The only way new business can be introduced is through Commissioners' Resolutions, and the rules will not allow CRs to be introduced concerning constitutional issues, nor on business already before the GA.

There are two items of business that are related and will be before the Assembly. Ironically both of them are designed to broaden our view of marriage, not narrow it.

● Baltimore and Hudson River have sent overtures proposing a broader definition of marriage as a "covenant between two people."

● An overture from New Brunswick and Denver would affirm equal civil protections for same-sex couples and calls for a special committee to study marriage laws and their effects and examine the unique needs of pastoral care for same-sex couples.

Since these overtures put the issue of marriage on the GA's agenda, it is possible that conservative groups will try to freeload on them, attaching amendments or offering substitute language that would be even more restrictive. That is quite possible under parliamentary procedure, and commissioners should be on the lookout for it.

The General Assembly Council has taken a position against the Baltimore overture, but its reasons are puzzling at best. It acts as though the current Book of Common Worship is an authoritative statement on marriage, when it is no such thing; and it uses the much-debated theory of "complementarity" (misspelled) between male and female.

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution has made a more nuanced analysis of the issues. Among other things, it asks whether the church should be limited by civil definitions of marriage, which of course vary. If not, there could be a place for "acts of prophetic and compassionate witness against civil definitions it deemed too narrow."

Can We Live With Pluralism?

This decision by the PJC does not really change anything in church law. It simply confirms what W-4.9001 tells us about marriage and what the 1991 AI tells us about blessings of same-gender unions. All that is new is its declaration that Janie Spahr cannot be found to be in violation.

It is quite unlike the other PJC decision, which has tried to reverse the 2006 GA's Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108. The AI had expressly permitted divergence from provisions of the church's constitution if they do not affect "essentials" of Reformed faith, practice, or polity. Then the PJC decreed that the second sentence in the Form of Government (G-6.0106b) is an "essential," though it expressly excludes the first and third sentences.

In this matter of blessing same-gender unions, we remain in the same situation as before, allowing a diversity of actions on the principle that GLBT people, too, ought to be able to expect the ministrations of the church, especially during life's important transitions (W-6.3010). Pluralism seems to frustrate many people if they have clear convictions and are convinced that they are right. A moment like this may be calling us to learn to live with our diversity and develop policies that respect all our members.

Following on Gene TeSelle’s reflections, we offer these “second opinions” —

Can we agree to disagree?

Bruce Reyes-Chow, one of the four people standing for Moderator, responds by asking, “Can we agree to disagree about homosexuality?” He seems to see reasons for answering this with either a Yes or a No, and asks for responses from other visitors to his blog.

Bob Davis answers with a resounding No.

What do you think?

Should we approach the 208^th General Assembly seeking ways to “agree to disagree,” or is some more definitive action needed, one way or another?

Just send a note,
to be shared here!

Scroll down to the next story for one interesting response!

Can we agree to disagree about homosexuality?

A comment from John Shuck, on his blog, Shuck and Jive
[5-3-08]

That is the title of a recent post by candidate for PC(USA) moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow. Predictably, his post has received a great deal of response. The quick answer is that some of us can and some of us cannot.

I am all for agreeing to disagree in thought and in practice.

I wrote about this very thing in 2001 when the presbyteries were considering removing G-6.0106b and the Authoritative Interpretation. That would have allowed a level playing field for people to agree to disagree and would have allowed all to act from their own consciences. It failed.

The Theological Task Force report tried the agree to disagree approach by keeping the (in my view) discriminatory language but allowing for scruples of conscience. The General Assembly passed it, yet how that will be interpreted in church courts is still up for grabs.

In reading between the lines, I think the GAPJC decision regarding Jane Spahr was an agree to disagree decision. I think their decision was this: Stop taking people to church court for acting according to conscience. I applaud that.

The only way to have an agree to disagree answer to this question is to remove discriminatory language and create a level playing field. That is why I support removing the AI at this General Assembly and sending to presbyteries the removal or modification of G-6.0106b.

Then we will be free to agree to disagree in thought and in practice.

Jane Spahr found innocent in same-sex marriage case, suspension reversed

GAPJC rules that by definition, same-sex ‘marriage’ cannot be performed [4-29-08]

Presbyterian News Service reports from Louisville: In a reversal of a lower church court ruling, the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr has been found not guilty of violating the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s constitution by performing same-sex ‘marriages’ for two lesbian couples.

The complicated verdict of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) — the church’s highest court — was released on Monday (April 29).

It found that Spahr, who conducted two same-gender marriages in 2004 and 2005, could not be “found guilty of doing that which, by definition, cannot be done.”

The ruling reverses a decision by the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific, which on appeal had ordered the PJC of Redwoods Presbytery to “rebuke” Spahr for conducting the ceremonies after the presbytery’s court had found her “not guilty.”

The full news report >>

For the full text of the GAPJC decision (about ten pages in PDF format)

Just added:

A press release from That All May Freely Serve, the organization with which Janie Spahr has served for many years, including comments from Spahr herself which point to some of the limitations in the decision.

PC(USA)’s top court reviews Spahr’s same-sex wedding case

Spahr’s lawyers: There’s no constitutional ban on same-sex weddings [4-25-08]

From Presbyterian News Service – Lawyers for the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr, who is facing charges for performing weddings for two lesbian couples, told members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s highest court on Friday (April 25) that there is no language in the denomination’s constitution that prohibits same-gender couples from marrying.

Spahr, in a reversal of an earlier decision, was found guilty last year of violating the PC(USA)’s constitutional ban on performing same-sex marriages. In August, the synod PJC ruled 6-2 that while Spahr, who lives in San Rafael, CA, “acted with conscience and conviction,” her actions were still at odds with the church’s constitution when she married the couples in 2004 and 2005.

The synod ruling reversed a March 2006 decision by the Presbytery of the Redwoods’ PJC that found Spahr acted within her rights as an ordained minister when she married the two couples.

General Assembly PJC members will deliberate and then issue a written decision on Monday (April 28), which is to be released the following day online at www.pcusa.org/gapjc/decisions/decisions.htm after confirmation that both parties have received the ruling. But the ruling probably will be no secret by then since Spahr has scheduled a Monday press conference in Tiburon, CA, to respond to the ruling.

Spahr has organized several events surrounding the appeal hearing, such as a silent witness at the Presbyterian Center before the PJC hearing, and a worship service and reception following the hearing at Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati.

The full story from PNS >>

Comments and details on the witness actions in Louisville and Cincinnati, from MLP >>

Here's a little background, from 'way back in 2006.

From the Witherspoon Society:

A comment on the PJC decision in the case of the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr

Gratitude for another step toward the fullness of the Gospel
[3-9-06]

The Witherspoon Society welcomes warmly the decision of the Permanent Judiciary Commission of the Presbytery of Redwoods, finding that the Rev. Jane Spahr was acting appropriately, in light of the guidance of the Spirit through her own conscience, to officiate at services of marriage in each of which two women pledged their faith and love to each other.

The decision offers a helpful distinction between definitions and directives, and seems to acknowledge that definitions in themselves do not carry the force of law. Further, it seems to imply that individual Christians may differ in their understanding of definitions, and in their conscientious interpretation of them.

The PJC states clearly that "conscience takes precedence over propriety." As we understand this statement, "propriety" is defined by received customs generally accepted in a community, and these should be given less weight than matters of real moral significance – matters in which we trust conscience, guided by Scripture and the confessions (and the Spirit) to lead us in right paths.

In affirming Rev. Spahr's "right of conscience," the PJC sounds rather similar to the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, in its recommended authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108, that would allow people to declare "scruples" in matters deemed unessential.

Marriage, which was the issue in this case, is both a moral matter (a relationship of commitment, fidelity, mutual caring and nurture of children), and a matter of propriety, the forms of which have varied widely over the centuries and across lines of culture.

This decision reminds us that the Book of Order is not simply a set of directives or prohibitions, but a living document by which a community regulates its life, sometimes by directives and prohibitions on matters it judges to be long-term moral guides, and sometimes by simply defining the meaning of those directives in terms of its current situation. And sometimes, of course, the community recognizes that matters which it had once considered clear moral issues (in matters such as race and gender roles, for instance) no longer can be seen in such a clear light of absolutism.

Our church has a long way to go before it takes those distinctions with true seriousness, and sets aside ancient condemnations of certain forms of loving relationships. But this decision offers a helpful step toward greater respect and justice for all people in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

We also express our deep appreciation for the role that the Rev. Janie Spahr has played in providing the occasion for this step forward. Many of us find inspiration and the presence of the Holy Spirit in her work, which we believe has enabled her to persist with the spirit of loving generosity with which she greets others in a church that treats her with such derision.

We are thankful that in this decision, one part of the Presbyterian Church has indeed affirmed, in the closing words of the decision, "that the fundamental message of the Scripture and Confessions is the proclamation of the Good news of God’s love for all people. It is a message of inclusiveness, reconciliation, and the breaking down of barriers that separate humans from each other, and that this proclamation has primacy in the conduct of the Church."

We pray for the day when that Gospel message will bear good fruit in the lives of all of us, and in our Church.

We welcome comments on these reflections.
Just send a note
to be shared here.