Hudson River 'holy union' trial testimony is presented By John H. Adams The Layman Online Monday, November 8,1999 NEWARK – The "fidelity/chastity" clause in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is a moral standard for members just as it is an ordination requirement for officers, a former staff theologian for the denomination said during a Presbyterian trial in Newark. For that and other reasons, said John Burgess, "holy unions" of same-gender couples violate the constitution and should not be permitted. Burgess, former associate for theology in of the Office of Theology and Worship for the denomination, is now an associate professor of theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He was testifying Nov. 4 via speakerphone in a trial in which the Hudson River Presbytery is accused of unconstitutionally permitting sessions to allow their ministers to conduct the so-called holy unions, and to use church property to do so. Definition of marriage an issue The presbytery's authorization includes a statement that holy unions do not constitute marriage and therefore are not constitutionally forbidden. The denomination's constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast conducted the 10-hour trial. Fred Denson, moderator of the commission, said a decision would be mailed to trial participants within two weeks. Two key issues in the case were whether "holy unions" are permitted by the constitution and whether the "fidelity/chastity" clause, G-6.0106b in the Book of Order, is a moral standard for members as well as a requirement for ministers, elders and deacons. Considered together, the testimony of Burgess and Episcopal scholar Stephen Noll, author of Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriages, was that "holy unions" are a theological aberration with no justification in Scripture, the Book of Order or the 11 confessions of the PCUSA. "It's theologically impossible for same-sex unions to be holy or receive the blessing of the Church," said Noll, a theology professor at the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. He will soon become president of an Episcopal seminary in Uganda. "To use 'union' for a same-sex relationship is to obscure and confuse our definition of marriage," Burgess said. He quoted citations from the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions, including a sentence from the Confession of 1967: "Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man's alienation from God." Respondents: Application limited Sharon Davidson, the counsel for the Hudson River Presbytery, repeatedly argued that the PCUSA's ordination standard did not apply to homosexual members unless they became candidates for office, and that holy unions were not the same as marriage. But testimony for the complainants showed that the ministers who conducted holy union services, gays and lesbians, the general public and independent Presbyterian organizations seeking to affirm the services all use the term wedding interchangeably with holy union. The testimony included a minister's verbatim notes of comments by Joseph Gilmore, who officiated at several same-sex unions at South Presbyterian Church at Dobbs Ferry. The Rev. Thomas Unkenholz produced a day scheduler with notes about the June 30, 1999 Hudson River Presbytery meeting, during which Gilmore's said, "It's just semantics; it's a wedding." Neither Gilmore nor Susan DeGeorge, his co-pastor at South Church, attended the trial. Together, they had conducted more than a dozen "holy union" ceremonies at South Church. Secular news accounts by The Journal News, a 160,000-circulation daily, and The New York Times brought the issue to the attention of the Hudson River Presbytery. Requested citations denied Before the trial, Julius Poppinga, a Presbyterian elder and an attorney, requested that the Northeast Permanent Judicial Commission issue citations requiring Gilmore and DeGeorge to testify, but his request was denied. He repeated his requests twice during the late stages of the trial, and they were again denied. Poppinga made it clear to Denson that denial of those requests would be included in his argument if appeal to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission becomes necessary. Poppinga sought to have Gilmore and DeGeorge testify about what occurred during a same-sex ceremony. The participants in the trial said they had not attended such a ceremony and were unsure what a "holy union'' constituted. DeGeorge, who is a member of the Northeast's Permanent Judicial Commission, recused herself from hearing the Hudson River case. The next day, Nov. 4, she sat with the commission when it heard another case involving the denomination's ordination and sexual standards. Through the testimony of Unkenholz and John Paul Scavarda, Poppinga sought to demonstrate that whatever language was used, the common perception of holy unions is that they were marriages and that they violated Biblical and constitutional definitions of marriage. Furthermore, Poppinga said, the Hudson River Presbytery erred by failing to conclude that "holy unions" are contrary to Presbyterian law and polity. Gays: 'Unions' are marriages Scarvada, a member of Pleasantville Presbyterian Church in the Hudson River Presbytery, said the belief that the events were marriages was being expressed on independent Presbyterian web sites operated by More Light Churches and Hesed. Both groups, along with Covenant Network of Presbyterians, Voices of Sophia and the Witherspoon Society, have been in the forefront of efforts to overturn the denomination's ban against ordaining practicing homosexuals and to allow same-sex ceremonies. Scarvada quoted from articles published on the two web sites in which the services conducted by DeGeorge, Gilmore and other Presbyterian ministers were termed "marriages." One article on a More Light Churches page was headlined "Presbyterian lesbian and gay marriages," Scarvada said. Another article, referring to a service held at Clayton Valley Presbyterian Church, was titled "Getting married: Two cowboys get hitched." He said another page on the More Light web site included an article stating that the gay-lesbian community considered the same-sex unions "to have the same spiritual sense as marriage." He referred to a comment on the Hesed web site which called for a revised definition of marriage so that same-sex unions "can be called by their right name." Findings not contested On cross examination, Davidson did not challenge Scarvada's findings at web sites – but she did demand, "Who asked you to search the Internet?" Scarvada, who is a candidate for elder at his congregation, recently transferred his membership from a More Light Church because of his disagreement with gays on ordination issues. He said he was seeking to be better informed as part of his preparation for serving as elder. He said he was not coached by anyone to do his Internet research. The Rev. Gordon G. Benton, minister of Bethlehem Presbyterian Church in the Hudson River Presbytery, was one of the first to complain about the services at South Church. A complainant in the synod trial, Benton said he read a news account that stated, "South Church has hosted about 15 same-sex weddings in the last four years." The account used the words "weddings" and "holy unions" interchangeably, he said. Benton said his session authorized him to write a letter of complaint to presbytery. As a result of that complaint, the presbytery appointed a three-member special administrative review committee headed by elder Wanda Lou Glasse. While Presbyterian polity gives administrative review committees broad authority – including access to minutes and correspondence – Glasse said her committee focused on trying to improve "dialog" between Benton and the South Church pastors so that they could reconcile their differences. That never occurred, she said. Dialogue wasn't working Benton also testified that the dialogue wasn't going anywhere. He mentioned a meeting called by the Glasse committee on Oct. 21, 1998. "Shortly after the meeting began, Joe (Gilmore) and Susan (DeGeorge) made statements that they were feeling that they had been betrayed. They said no further dialogue was possible and they walked out of the meeting." Benton said that to his knowledge that was the last time DeGeorge and Gilmore attended a meeting on the issue. Glasse testified that her committee made its report to the presbytery council. The council prepared the resolution allowing sessions to authorize the same-sex ceremonies by their pastors and in their church buildings. The presbytery overwhelmingly approved the resolution on June 30, 1999. Benton asked his session whether it was willing to file a formal complaint and initiate a church trial – "whether we could afford the time, energy and money to do it.'' The session authorized that action. No description of ceremonies Davidson questioned Benton pointedly about whether he had made an effort to attend a "holy union" at South Church to determine whether the service was theologically acceptable. Benton said he had not – "I am not in the habit of attending weddings when I am not invited." Likewise, Poppinga questioned Glasse about whether her committee made any effort to determine what happened during a same-sex ceremony, and she said it had not. During his argument, Poppinga emphasized that none of the trial participants and none of the members of the permanent judicial commission had any descriptive information about the ceremonies. Davidson said that description was not necessary because Gilmore and DeGeorge were not on trial – rather, the issue was whether the presbytery made an appropriate decision. Poppinga said a detailed description – as could have been provided by Gilmore and DeGeorge if they had been required to testify – would have helped the commission determine whether the presbytery had authorized an unconstitutional ceremony. But he also argued, based on the testimony of Burgess and Noll, that a union by whatever name between two people of the same sex cannot be described as holy and cannot be justified by Scripture or the PCUSA Constitution. Need for trial a 'travesty' "In a sense," Poppinga said, "it is a travesty that we're here today" and that same-sex unions are "the most visible agenda item in the Presbyterian Church when we should be spending our time on the Gospel." He said the proponents of same-sex unions had "embraced a tangle of semantics … a shellgame … a departure from the worship standards" of the Presbyterian Church (USA), "improper use of Presbyterian polity" and "improper use of church property." The Hudson River Presbytery erred by ignoring Biblical and constitutional standards, Poppinga said – standards that "are not to go unheeded." Quoting from a 1983 General Assembly theological statement titled "Historic Principles, Conscience and Government," Poppinga said, "Schism is generally a result of improper understanding of Presbyterian polity." Poppinga asked the synod commission to rule the Presbytery's authorization for same-sex ceremonies "null and void and of no effect" and to order that the presbytery notify sessions and ministers that they must not "participate in or authorize any ceremony celebrating same-sex conjugal relationships." Case for the respondents In her arguments, Davidson said the only issue before the synod commission was the "ability of a Presbytery to provide guidance for its member congregations." The Biblical and constitutional merit of same-sex union was not an issue, she said, because the General Assembly on two occasions and presbyteries in one national referendum had declined to forbid the ceremonies. "We're not here to legislate," she told the commission. "The complainants are asking you to amend the Book of Order, not to interpret it."

Respond to this article

News From the PCUSA · Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links