In response to an inquiry from your WebWeaver, Lynne Reade, who
served as attorney for Redwoods Presbytery in the case involving
complaints about the ordination of the Rev. Katie Morrison, sent us this
letter. [5-22-02]
__________________________________
Lynne Reade, Attorney at Law
3610 Dunbar Court
Fremont, CA 94536
__________________________________
May 22, 2002
Doug King, Newsletter Editor
Network News
The Witherspoon Society of the Presbyterian Church
7833 Somerset Circle
Woodbury, MN 55125-2334
Re: Edgar
Hart, et al.; Presbytery of San Joaquin; Session of
Rockville Presbyterian Fellowship v,
Presbytery of the Redwoods
(Remedial Cases 01-03, 01-04; 01-15; 01-16)
Dear Doug,
In answer to your inquiry about the Redwoods
Presbytery case and my involvement in it, I was pleased to be asked to
serve as Counsel to the Presbytery's Committee of Counsel. The Committee
was made up of Rev. Beverly White, Chair; Rev. Herman Waetjen and Elder
Jody Berger - all very helpful and supportive.
The two attorneys for the parties who filed formal
Complaints against the Presbytery are also fine people, as are the
parties themselves.
All Counsel in this case worked without fee but, even
so, the case cost the parties thousands of dollars that the church could
have better used for mission purposes. This is ominous when we consider
that those opposed to ordination of homosexual Presbyterians have
reportedly declared this to be the "judicial season" in the
church.
Since gays and lesbians and their allies are being
targeted in this "judicial season", I am particularly pleased
that the decision in the Redwoods Presbytery case should result in the
closing of most of the investigations already underway against those who
participated in Katie Morrison's ordination. It is a sad day when
members of a duly-appointed Presbytery Commission have to worry about
facing disciplinary accusations - especially when the accusations can
come from a single individual a continent away who has never even met
the many people he is accusing.
There is a rough road ahead until our denomination
eventually changes its position on this issue as it did with slavery and
women.
I think the next big battle will be about the term
"chastity" as used in G-6.0106b since there are different
interpretations of the word. (In doing my research for my Pretrial
Brief, I found that twelve different Overtures to the 1996 General
Assembly had wanted the term "celibacy" used in what became
G-6.0106b. One of them wanted "chaste celibacy" and I am still
wondering about that! Instead, the word "chastity" was used
and it has yet to be finally defined. We never got to that point in the
Redwoods trial because my Motion to Dismiss was granted, properly, at
the beginning of the trial.)
In my Pretrial Brief, I quoted the Heidelberg
Catechism that instructs that we should all "live chaste and
disciplined lives, whether in holy wedlock or in single life."
(4.108) I said there, "This certainly does not mean that married
couples should be celibate. This is a clear illustration that the
Confessions do not tell us that chastity and celibacy are the same
thing."
For those who think differently, maybe they will have
to include this as a warning to every man and woman in the process of
having a Presbyterian marriage - that even after the marriage ceremony,
the newly-wed husband and wife will have to remain celibate or risk
facing disciplinary charges because they are doing something the
Confessions call sin!
Best wishes,
Lynne Reade
Lynne Reade
Attorney at Law
