GA PJC tries to please everybody but pleases nobody

May 1, 2008 by
Filed under: Religion 

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission issued a ruling in the case Jane Adams Spahr vs. Presbytery of Redwoods (218-12) this week.  I have an IQ well north of 100 and have read the entire Book of Order (and the annotated version), and I find the ruling confusing.

In 2004, the Rev. Jane Spahr conducted two “weddings” between two pairs of women.   All parties in the case admit that she called these ceremonies “marriages”.  She was charged with a violation of W-4.9001, which states:

Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.

The Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission dismissed the case, stating that there was nothing in the Book of Order or Authoritative Interpretations of it that prohibited a marriage between two people of the same gender.  This was appealed to the Synod Permanent Judicial Commission, which ruled that she had violated the Book of Order and a 1991 Authoritative Interpretation that stated that sessions should not allow same-sex unions to be held in their church if the ceremony is not clearly stated that it is NOT the same as a marriage.  She was given censure, the lowest possible punishment and what amounts to a slap on the wrist.

The General Assembly PJC used a curious bit of logic in reversing the Synod decision:

In summary, Specification of Error No. 1 is not sustained because by definition, “marriage is . . . between a man and a woman.” (W-4.9001) Specification of Error No. 1 and Specification of Error No. 2 are sustained because W-4.9001 does not state a mandatory prohibition on performing a same sex ceremony. The charge was for performing a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be performed.

Now, understand that I am an unabashed supporter of gay marriage and gay ordination.  I find this ruling to be curious.  This seems to me to be a bit of double-speak.  “X happened, but since the rules say that X can’t happen then X didn’t happen.”  This ruling completely ignores the fact that our rules are stated in the affirmative “X is Y” in order to draw boundaries around allowed behavior.  My conservative fellow bloggers are right in that this ruling calls into question the Book of Order’s ability to mandate any specifications of practice or definition for our worship.  One conservative blogger asks “What if I baptized my dog?”  Would the dog be listed on the rolls?  The Book of Order states that baptism is for “children of believers” or “adults” – it never states human.

I would personally prefer that the rules be changed in this case explicitly.  Let’s broaden the rules for marriage, or narrow them, but let’s not say “anything not ruled out by the Book of Order is acceptable”.  That’s simply not true.  Shoot – we don’t even define sin (except for sex outside of marriage, of course) but we have Rules of Discipline that assume we’ll know it when we see it.

I like our polity’s requirements for consensus and for making decisions face to face.  This is important – it’s really easy to throw stones at someone from afar (particularly over the Internet) but it’s another thing entirely to do it in someone’s presence.  Something happens when we are together than can change the equation.

I also like our polity’s flexibility.  I don’t want to see a day when the Book of Order is published in volumes like law books – covering an entire bookcase.  However, the role of the GA PJC (actually, the Presbytery PJC or Session, with backup from the GA PJC) is precisely to make decisions on where the boundaries are.  The General Assembly and presbyteries can’t do that in every circumstance without reducing our faith to a list of rules and regulations.  This ruling ducks the decision on semantic grounds.
It helps to improve viagra buy australia sensation in your genitals. You will survive; our grandkids will survive and thrive, as will their young best viagra pills children. So, if you have this problem, consult the doctor right important link prescription de cialis away. Azoospermia can be mainly divided into two types: The first type is spermatogenic view this link on line levitra dysfunction, men cannot produce sperm.
I’m also particularly concerned with a new rule made here.  The new rule is:

We further hold that officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.

This is the PJC legislating from the bench.  It gets worse in the first concurring opinion:

We join in the foregoing Decision and Order (Decision). We understand the Decision to be an authoritative interpretation of W-4.9001, to mean that officers of the PCUSA who are authorized to perform marriages shall not hereafter perform a same sex union ceremony in which or with respect to which such officer states, implies or represents to be a marriage or the equivalent thereof. While the Commission did not find Spahr guilty as charged herein, in part because her conduct occurred under prior authoritative interpretations, we understand that future noncompliance with the authoritative interpretation of the Decision will be considered to be a disciplinable offense.

This is an example of a decision made by a rule-bound vice-principal in a cartoon that I remember watching once.  Kids were out skateboarding on school property, and when the vice-principal tried to give them a detention they pulled out the rules and showed him that there was no rule against it.  The rule was changed immediately.  Then the kids were playing roller hockey, the vice-principal got mad, the kids pulled out the book … and it continued for the rest of the episode until the rule book looked like a phone book.  This is a few PJC members saying, “You got away with it this time, but I’ll get you next time.”  Can they do it?  Yes.  Is it good for the church?  No.  If the church wants to prohibit ministers from performing same-sex marriages, it should do so with an amendment.  After all, this ruling already states that a same-sex marriage isn’t a marriage under the Book of Order!

Is this good for the church?

This ruling is clearly an attempt by the GA PJC to make an issue go away before a General Assembly meeting that will clearly be contentious.  This year we have the complete Form of Government rewrite to consider (a change that if anything makes the rules even blurrier), the fallout of the PUP report, and lots of difficult overtures.  We have the election of a new Stated Clerk which could substantially change the way the national office operates.  Also, the PJC in their G-6.0108 rulings in February and in this ruling are clearly showing a frustration with segments of the church using the judicial process to force consensus or at least obedience within the denomination.

Unfortunately, this ruling is really a lose-lose ruling.  The conservative side loses because one of of their primary targets “gets off on a technicality”, and because the practice of same-sex civil unions is not banned outright.  The progressive side loses because the practice of same-sex marriages is banned outright.  The center loses because this ruling is confusing and only serves to anger the folks at the extremes.  This ruling solves nothing.

I’m not sure that the GA PJC could solve the root cause.  The root cause here is a very deep split over theology.  It’s not about homosexuality.  It’s not about marriage.  It’s really about the split between legalistic Christianity and wide-open fully-accepting Christianity.  The two sides aren’t pro-gay and anti-gay – they’re pro-big-tent and pro-rules.  The PJC can’t fix that problem.  The General Assembly has only a tiny chance of fixing that problem.  It’ll take a decision by everybody to either learn to live with each other and support each other’s strengths, OR to split.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

10 Comments on GA PJC tries to please everybody but pleases nobody

  1. Alan on Thu, 1st May 2008 5:26 pm

    2. It makes perfect sense to me. The other side has been saying for years that “you can’t change the definition of marriage; it is one man and one woman, period.” And, that definition is enshrined in our Book of Order. In addition, I’ve had any number of them, including some of the famous conservative PCUSA bloggers we all know and love, tell me I’m not actually married, even though we had a service with cake and everything. 😉 Heck this decision is ripped straight from some of the blog comments I’ve read in the PCUSA blog-o-sphere (from some of the very people who are now whining about it.)

    They’re simply reaping what they’ve sown. Here they have a to-the-letter literal interpretation of the Book of Order that absolutely agrees with what they’ve been saying all along: Marriage is one man and one woman, and anything else isn’t marriage.

    The Book of Order cannot possibly regulate everything that is not contained in it. How would or could that make any sense? So, if people want to regulate something, they need to get an amendment passed. Isn’t that *precisely* what they’ve been telling us for years?

    What I can’t understand about this is why they’re *still* whining. The PJC simply parroted the same thing the other side has been saying for years. Seems like a win to me. Yet every time the other side wins, it’s yet another opportunity for them to complain, complain, complain. Did their mothers never teach them the importance of being a good winner?

    “The progressive side loses because the practice of same-sex marriages is banned outright.”

    I’d say we lose because once again justice wasn’t served. But, I’m not sure it’s at all clear that same-sex marriages are banned outright. Looks like they’re completely fine since they’re not marriages. It isn’t clear to me how anyone could be disciplined for conducting a same-sex marriage ceremony. You can’t discipline someone for doing something that isn’t even mentioned in the Book of Order.

  2. Charlotte on Fri, 2nd May 2008 8:07 am

    3. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue:) http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com

  3. Mark on Fri, 2nd May 2008 8:58 am

    4. “I’d say we lose because once again justice wasn’t served.”

    Alan, if you’re looking to the disciplinary process to change hearts, you’re looking in the wrong place. If justice is going to be served, it’ll need to be done by changing the rules through the existing Book of Order amendment process, not the PJC.

  4. Mark on Fri, 2nd May 2008 9:09 am

    5. Charlotte,

    I’ve decided to let your comment stand.

    However, you need to realize that any trailer that starts by tearing into the straight community and labeling them as the threat to the institution of marriage is NOT going to change the hearts of your opponents. The trailer is clearly not speaking to a straight audience – it’s speaking to a gay audience. That hold true from the dance music under the credits through the narrator’s biased statements against straights.

    You’re not making any friends here by tearing into straights. This, like the “invalidate marriages without children” effort in Washington state will just distance you from your straight supporters (like me).

  5. Charlotte on Fri, 2nd May 2008 9:30 am

    6. We are totally speaking to the the heterosexual community with the truth on the gay marriage issue. Discrimination is wrong on any level. I’m sorry you took offense to our perspective. What if someone told you you couldn’t marry because you have the wrong religion? Maybe then you’d understand…

  6. Alan on Fri, 2nd May 2008 9:39 am

    7. Oh, I agree Mark, I don’t believe that a PJC is going to change minds. I don’t believe that changing the Book of Order is going to change minds either. I don’t believe we’re going to change minds at all. I think it’s pretty clear that it is too late for that, unfortunately.

    Charlotte, I don’t know who exactly you think you’re arguing against, but Mark is clearly not the guy who needs to hear something like this: “What if someone told you you couldn’t marry because you have the wrong religion? Maybe then you’d understand…” I don’t know him personally, but I’ve been reading things he’s written for quite a while. Perhaps you should do the same, and then maybe *you’d* understand.

    (The trailer is funny, but clearly isn’t going to appeal to a straight audience when all it does is stereotype all straight marriages as Las Vegas weddings. And really, did anyone think about the look and feel of it? Some marketing professionals should have been consulted. If you want to appeal to straight people, perhaps using a thumpa-thumpa disco beat isn’t necessarily the way to do it. LOL)

  7. Mark on Fri, 2nd May 2008 9:55 am

    8. Charlotte,

    The gay community has already tried to invalidate my marriage (well, not directly but close enough). The Washington state gay community tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would make any straight marriage that failed to produce children within 3 years null and void.

    My wife and I have decided not to have children.

    That effort strikes directly at me.

    It’s funny, but if you shoot at your friends you’d be surprised how quickly they can become your enemies.

    Alan’s right. You should read my blog further, particularly:
    http://msmith.typepad.com/mark_time/2006/10/nj_and_gay_marr.html
    http://msmith.typepad.com/mark_time/2006/12/gay_civil_union.html
    http://msmith.typepad.com/mark_time/2006/11/the_bigots_are_.html
    http://msmith.typepad.com/mark_time/2007/02/the_dangers_of_.html

  8. Charlotte on Fri, 2nd May 2008 10:28 am

    9. No one is trying to invalidate your marriage. Why are you so threatened by marriage equality?

  9. Mark on Fri, 2nd May 2008 10:33 am

    10. “Now, understand that I am an unabashed supporter of gay marriage and gay ordination.”

    I wrote that IN THIS POST.

    Charlotte – I think you must be seeing disagreement where there is none. You’ll be hard pressed to find someone else who supports gay marriage more.

    READ WHAT I SUGGESTED! For Pete’s sake – in one of those posts I not only applauded civil unions in New Jersey but suggested that you invite me to the wedding so that I can give you a nice gift! How much more support do you want?

    Also see the last note that I listed: http://msmith.typepad.com/mark_time/2007/02/the_dangers_of_.html In some cases it’s clear that no matter how supportive you are of a minority unless you’re actually part of that minority you’re not good enough.

  10. jodie on Sun, 4th May 2008 10:22 pm

    11. I kind of think Alan is right. This ruling says that trying to marry a same gender couple is a farce. Protestants in Spain who did not marry in the Roman Catholic Church up till the late 50s were not considered married. Their children were legally bastards with no right to an inheritance or even a marked grave upon their death. The legal position of the state was that the marriage ceremony was a farce and no marriage took place.

    (Baptism of a pet is likewise a farce.)

    The ruling upholds the conservative position that marriage is only between a man and a woman. It actually punishes the couple she married by publicly stating their marriage never happened. To censure Rev Spahr would have recognized (as a precedent) that same sex marriage unions do exist and can be performed – even if a minister who performed such a ceremony would stand to be defrocked as a consequence. It is the most airtight conservative victory in the PCUSA to date.

    The only thing it failed to do was to tar and feather Rev Spahr.

    I think some of the bloggers Alan mentioned would have preferred the tar and feathering.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!