‘Alternate reality’ or ‘inevitable full equality’? Internet reactions to Spahr decision vary widely
The Layman Online, May 1, 2008
Editor’s note: Third party sites linked to and from this Web site are not under the control of The Layman Online. The Layman Online has no responsibilities or liabilities whatsoever for the content or privacy practices of any such linked site. If you decide to access any of the third party sites linked to below, you do so at your own risk.
The following is some of the reaction to the decision posted Monday by the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission that the Rev. Jane Spahr did not violate Presbyterian Church (USA) law by conducting “marriage” ceremonies for two lesbian couples:
The Rev. Bill Crawford, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Thibodaux, La. (Bayou Christian blog):
“Well, now it is official. We live in an alternate reality. To welcome you to that reality, I’ve invited Bizarro Superman to greet you. Check out the news about Jane Spahr today at The Layman.
“I will try to interpret this into English for you. There cannot be a marriage between a woman and a woman; therefore, the ‘marriages’ Jane Spahr performed were not marriages, therefore she is innocent of performing gay marriages.
“Oh, I am growing weaker … oh, my head hurts, must get away from the presbynite …”
The Rev. Dave Sarafolean, pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Midland, Mich. (Joshua Judges Ruth blog):
“As anyone can see, this decision is based on technicalities of language and parsing things to the nth degree (i.e. President Bill Clinton, ‘It depends on your definition of the word “is.” ‘). Furthermore, it demonstrates the casuistry of those who will say and do anything to promote a progressive and tolerant agenda. Ironically, it also highlights their intolerance of anyone who holds a differing view.
“For conservatives in this church, the handwriting has been on the wall for quite some time. The Hebrew word, ‘Ichabod’ comes to mind. It means, ‘the glory of the LORD has departed from Israel’ (1st Samuel 4:21).”
Good As You (“Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor”) blog:
“And you who what? They’re never going to come to a place of reconciliation if they’re trying to appease both what is, at its core, right, and what is, at its core, discriminatory. As we all march down the road towards inevitable full equality, the feet-dragging is only going to become tougher and tougher to justify.
“For her part, Spahr says she’ll continue to Spahr spar with the church’s short-sighted marriage recognition views and continue her work with same-sex couples. Meanwhile, an increasingly perturbed Jesus is hoping that all of his various cliques will all get past these silly non-issues and start throwing a little attention his way. So self-centered, that son of God is!”
The Rev. Dave Weidlich, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Petaluma, Calif. (Rev. Dave’s Raves blog):
“With astounding intellectual sophistry, the ruling body managed to insult and incense people on all sides of the issue. Spahr says she is disappointed because gays and lesbians are still treated like second-class citizens by not being given the right to marriage. Those who wish for a church that holds a high moral bar for its leaders are disappointed, though not surprised. Here is another weak-kneed attempt to avoid speaking the truth in love.
“Intending to be more ‘inclusive,’ we are driving out more of the faithful. There are still more losers: Those who just wish for peace in the church are disappointed, as the door remains wide open for those who flagrantly disregard Biblical morality and dare anyone to stop them.
“The GAPJC, while failing to uphold the Synod of the Pacific’s earlier rebuke of Rev. Spahr, nevertheless instructed Rev. Spahr not to do it again. Not to worry. Spahr will not do ‘that which by definition cannot be done.’ ”
The Rev. John Shuck, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Elizabethton, Tenn. (Shuck and Jive blog):
“So Janie is innocent, though I wonder if she would have rather been found guilty?
“Who can help me with this one: what about where these marriages are legal, such as Massachusetts? Has a PCUSA minister done a wedding for a gay couple in Massachusetts and signed the license? This has had to have happened by now. Or would it still be a non-issue as far as the PCUSA is concerned since the PCUSA hasn’t figured out that same-sex couples can get married yet?
“In other words, if Janie had signed a marriage license, would the PJC have rendered the same decision?”
Reformation Quest (“A Humble Contribution for the Reformation of Mother Kirk”) blog by Michael Puyear of the Dallas-Fort Worth area:
“The PCUSA continues to show itself as something quite other than a true church. This news report is just one more example of the PCUSA being a completely non-Biblical body. I am becoming increasingly numb to what comes out of this organization. Is there any sin left that this group is willing to stand against any longer? Once the Holy Scriptures stop being the only and final rule for faith and life, there is no depth to deep to which a person and/or organization can fall or sink.”
The Rev. David S. Fischler, assistant pastor for church planting at Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Kingstowne, Va. (Reformed Pastor blog):
“Let me get this straight. Spahr said that she was doing marriage ceremonies. (She unequivocally makes that claim on her Web site. There, she has a press release she issued at the time of her conviction in which she says, ‘I am deeply saddened that our church has chosen not to recognize the loving relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of its own family. It continues to be my honor as a minister to perform marriages for loving, committed couples, no matter what their sexual orientation.’) She doesn’t say she was doing some kind of same-sex commitment ceremony, which apparently is permitted in the PCUSA. She says she was doing weddings.
“The PJC, however, says that she wasn’t doing weddings, and the reason she wasn’t doing weddings is because under the definition of marriage given in the constitution, what she was doing can’t be a wedding, because there is no marriage involved. So despite the statement of the 1991 authoritative interpretation ‘that it is not “proper” for ministers to conduct ceremonies represented as marriages,’ it is apparently not possible for a minister to do that. It isn’t possible for a minister to represent a commitment ceremony as a marriage ceremony because there can’t be a marriage involved. This, of course, raises the question, ‘then what was it that the AI supposedly prohibited?’ Apparently, it didn’t prohibit anything, because the thing it prohibited doesn’t exist.
“The PJC has essentially used a linguistic trick to deny that what Spahr, the couples involved, the prosecution and the defense all admitted happened, happened. With a wave of a magic wand, they have reached the results they wanted, and in the process made a mockery of the PCUSA constitution and common sense.”
The GA Junkie blog:
“Where does this leave us? In my quick reading, it appears that this decision has maintained the status quo: no weddings, but there may be blessings.
“Reaction: ….while there will be some approval on the progressive side that Rev. Spahr was acquitted, I also suspect that neither progressive nor conservative side will be satisfied because it appears that this decision dodges the issue of breaking ground and brings no additional clarity or precedent to what a ‘wedding’ is.
“My initial take: The GA PJC seems to be operating in the same mode it has in other decisions by crafting a central body that the whole commission can sign on to. This one appears a bit more frayed at the edges than the others because there are four minority reports, one of which dissents with regard to certain parts of the main decision.”
More Light Presbyterians, an activist group for “the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA),” issued a statement two days before the ruling was announced:
“As More Light Presbyterians, we stand with all Presbyterians who experience the gifts and joys of love, intimacy, relationships and family. We believe and we know that the most important thing is the quality of the relationship, not the gender of someone’s spouse, beloved or partner. Body and soul are one, they cannot be separated; and when the Church attempts to do so, or legislate that separation, great harm is done.
“God’s gifts of love are not limited by gender any more than they would be limited as we have thought in the past by race or ethnic background or other human conditions. It is time for the Church to do right by its LGBT daughters and sons, sisters and brothers and support love and marriage equality. It is time for the Church to do right by the God who creates all of God’s children, LGBT or straight, and Who gives these gifts of love and family.
“We stand today with our sister Rev. Janie Spahr and all persons, couples and families who are given God’s gifts of love. We give thanks for the More Light Churches, More Light Chapters and groups in Kentucky and Ohio who are providing hospitality, sanctuary, ministry and witness during this GAPJC trial and decision.
“We are praying for discernment, moral clarity and spiritual courage for the GAPJC to honor the creation and gifts of our God.”
Spahr’s Web site posted a press release that includes the following:
” ‘I am grateful that the commission let stand the presbytery’s original ruling which affirmed my ministry,’ said Rev. Spahr. ‘The Church is a place of welcome and hospitality in which I will continue to honor relationships of love and commitment, regardless of sexual orientation.’
“Surprisingly, by a bare majority, the decision – while clearing Spahr – attempted to set forth language that could be interpreted to preclude such marriages in the future.
“In a dissent signed by five commission members – a significant minority – the members stated, ‘It is not the place of this Commission to go any farther and step into the legislative realm. … In rendering its decision, the majority has taken the liberty of legislating in the guise of interpreting inconsistencies’ within the constitution and current case law.”
Spahr’s Web site also posted an e-mail from the Rev. Dr. Robert E. “Bob” Conover, acting executive presbyter and stated clerk of Redwoods Presbytery, to presbytery members. (A presbytery committee initiated the proceedings that led to Monday’s decision.) The e-mail includes the following:
“For Redwoods Presbytery, we pray for relational respect and unity even amidst profound differences of opinion. Gary Torrens [interim associate executive presbyter] and I are more than ready to speak with any in the presbytery either by phone or in person. We want to do all we can to interpret this decision as accurately as possible and support the ongoing conversation on how to be in faithful relationship with our God and one another, and despite genuine differences of opinion, display for the church and the world what it means to live together in Christ.”
The Presbyterian News Service’s story about the decision includes the following reaction from the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the PCUSA’s General Assembly:
“The PJC’s decision reaffirms what our directory of worship says, that marriage is between a man and woman and that no officer should present a same-sex union as a marriage. At the same time, the decision recognizes the importance of pastoral care and the appropriateness of same-sex blessing services as long as they are not presented as marriage ceremonies.”
The Rev. Bob Davis, pastor of Chula Vista Presbyterian Church in Chula Vista, Calif. (Presbyblog):
“In sum: Can I do a same-gender wedding? No.
“What happens if I do? You can’t, you shouldn’t; but if you do – well, that’s a good question.
“(P.S. If this decision is so convoluted about the meaning and significance of the definition of marriage, imagine what things will be like if the nFoG’s [new Form of Government’s] commitment to flexibility and ambiguity are enacted.)
“(P.P.S. This is the first time I have seen the GA PJC or any other governing body recognize ‘ecclesiastical disobedience’ as an appropriate expression within the life of the denomination. The primary decision includes this: ‘The role of a prophet carries consequences. It is the burden of a church officer to accept the consequences of his or her actions that are the ecclesiastical equivalent of civil disobedience.’
“Contrast this with the footnote to G-6.0108b. No provision for ‘ecclesiastical disobedience’ is contemplated,
- ‘Very early in the history of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, even before the General Assembly was established, the plan of reunion of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia contained the following sentences: “That when any matter is determined by a major vote, every member shall either actively concur with or passively submit to such determination; or if his conscience permit him to do neither, he shall, after sufficient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw from our communion without attempting to make any schism. Provided always that this shall be understood to extend only to such determination as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian government.” (Hist. Dig. (P) p. 1310.) (Plan of Union of 1758, par. II.)
“It is difficult to reconcile the GA PJC’s affirmation of ecclesiastical disobedience – even with the notion of accepting consequences – with behavior that is forcing a ‘yes/no’ schism. The original authoritative interpretation of the Constitution regarding same-gender weddings was approved in 1991. I would submit that 17 years is ‘sufficient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate.’)”