{"id":76,"date":"2008-05-01T15:20:01","date_gmt":"2008-05-01T20:20:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/marktime.org\/?p=76"},"modified":"2009-02-17T10:07:55","modified_gmt":"2009-02-17T15:07:55","slug":"ga-pjc-tries-to-please-everybody-but-pleases-nobody","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marktime.org\/?p=76","title":{"rendered":"GA PJC tries to please everybody but pleases nobody"},"content":{"rendered":"

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission issued a ruling in the case Jane Adams Spahr vs. Presbytery of Redwoods (218-12)<\/a> this week.\u00a0 I have an IQ well north of 100 and have read the entire Book of Order (and the annotated version), and I<\/strong><\/em> find the ruling confusing.<\/p>\n

In 2004, the Rev. Jane Spahr conducted two “weddings” between two pairs of women.\u00a0 \u00a0All parties in the case admit that she called these ceremonies “marriages”.\u00a0 She was charged with a violation of W-4.9001, which states:<\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 She was given censure, the lowest possible punishment and what amounts to a slap on the wrist.<\/p>\n

The General Assembly PJC used a curious bit of logic in reversing the Synod decision:<\/p>\n

In summary, Specification of Error No. 1 is not sustained because by definition, \u201cmarriage is . . . between a man and a woman.\u201d (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.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now, understand that I am an unabashed supporter of gay marriage and gay ordination.\u00a0 I find this ruling to be curious.\u00a0 This seems to me to be a bit of double-speak.\u00a0 “X happened, but since the rules say that X can’t happen then X didn’t happen.”\u00a0 This ruling completely ignores the fact that our rules are stated in the affirmative “X is<\/strong><\/em> Y” in order to draw boundaries around allowed behavior.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 One conservative blogger<\/a> asks “What if I baptized my dog?”\u00a0 Would the dog be listed on the rolls?\u00a0 The Book of Order states that baptism is for “children of believers” or “adults” – it never states human.<\/p>\n

I would personally prefer that the rules be changed in this case explicitly.\u00a0 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”.\u00a0 That’s simply not true.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

I like our polity’s requirements for consensus and for making decisions face to face.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Something happens when we are together than can change the equation.<\/p>\n

I also like our polity’s flexibility.\u00a0 I don’t want to see a day when the Book of Order is published in volumes like law books – covering an entire bookcase.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The General Assembly and presbyteries can’t do that in every circumstance without reducing our faith to a list of rules and regulations.\u00a0 This ruling ducks the decision on semantic grounds.
\nIt helps to improve viagra buy australia<\/a> sensation in your genitals. You will survive; our grandkids will survive and thrive, as will their young best viagra pills<\/a> children. So, if you have this problem, consult the doctor right important link<\/a> prescription de cialis away. Azoospermia can be mainly divided into two types: The first type is spermatogenic view this link<\/a> on line levitra dysfunction, men cannot produce sperm. <\/span>
\nI’m also particularly concerned with a new rule made here.\u00a0 The new rule is:<\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is the PJC legislating from the bench.\u00a0 It gets worse in the first concurring opinion:<\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is an example of a decision made by a rule-bound vice-principal in a cartoon that I remember watching once.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The rule was changed immediately.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 This is a few PJC members saying, “You got away with it this time, but I’ll get you next time.”\u00a0 Can they do it?\u00a0 Yes.\u00a0 Is it good for the church?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 If the church wants to prohibit ministers from performing same-sex marriages, it should do so with an amendment.\u00a0 After all, this ruling already states that a same-sex marriage isn’t a marriage under the Book of Order!<\/p>\n

Is this good for the church?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 We have the election of a new Stated Clerk which could substantially change the way the national office operates.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, this ruling is really a lose-lose ruling.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The progressive side loses because the practice of same-sex marriages is banned outright.\u00a0 The center loses because this ruling is confusing and only serves to anger the folks at the extremes.\u00a0 This ruling solves nothing.<\/p>\n

I’m not sure that the GA PJC could solve the root cause.\u00a0 The root cause here is a very deep split over theology.\u00a0 It’s not about homosexuality.\u00a0 It’s not about marriage.\u00a0 It’s really about the split between legalistic Christianity and wide-open fully-accepting Christianity.\u00a0 The two sides aren’t pro-gay and anti-gay – they’re pro-big-tent and pro-rules.\u00a0 The PJC can’t fix that problem.\u00a0 The General Assembly has only a tiny chance of fixing that problem.\u00a0 It’ll take a decision by everybody to either learn to live with each other and support each other’s strengths, OR to split.