Guilty on 3 of 4 counts
PJC rebukes Spahr,
then the PCUSA
By Edward Terry, The Layman, August 28, 2010
The Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of the Presbytery of Redwoods on Friday found the Rev. Jane Spahr guilty in three of the four charges related to same-sex marriages she performed in 2008. But the PJC’s written decision dedicated more ink to rebuking the Presbyterian Church (USA) than Spahr.
The Rev. Jane Spahr
According to the Presbytery of Redwoods Web site, the PJC sustained three of the four charges in 4-2 votes, and was unanimous in finding her not guilty of the fourth charge. The charges were brought in 2009 and dealt with 16 marriages Spahr performed in 2008 before voters repealed same-sex marriage rights in California.
The sustained charges were that the self-acknowledged lesbian minister:
- Violated the PCUSA constitution and a previous General Assembly PJC ruling by marrying a same-sex couple. According to W-9001, a same-sex ceremony “is not and cannot be a marriage.”
- Persisted in a pattern of disobedience by stating that the ceremonies she performed were marriages of the same sex.
- Intentionally and repeatedly acted in violation of the authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order (as stated above) established in a previous case involving Spahr, thereby violating her ordination vows (W-4.4003e).
Spahr was cleared on the fourth charge that by “publicly, intentionally and repeatedly” acting in violation of the Book of Order, she failed to further the peace, unity and purity of the church (W-4.4003g).
In its ruling, the PJC was apologetic for the PCUSA’s position on same-sex marriage and called on the church to re-examine its own “fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness” of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
“We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the Gospel. In this particular case, in W4.9001 we have inclusive and broad descriptive language about marriage, ‘Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the wellbeing of the entire human family.’ This sentence is followed immediately by ‘Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man.’ The language of the second statement draws on our cultural understanding today of marriage that is rooted in equality. But it is not faithful to the Biblical witness in which marriage was a case of property transfer because women were property. Nor does it specifically address same gender marriage. Similarly, in the reality in which we live today, marriage can be between same gender as well as opposite gender persons, and we, as a church, need to be able to respond to this reality as Dr. Jane Spahr has done with faithfulness and compassion.”
The six PJC members – the Revs. Beverly White, Daniel Christian and Ted Crouch, and Elders Elizabeth Groelle, James Jones and Donald Brand – apologized in their ruling to the same-sex couples who were hurt by the policies of the church.
“We implore the synod and General Assembly levels of our church to listen to these testimonies, which are now part of this record, to take them to heart, and to do what needs to be done to move us as a church forward on this journey of reconciliation,” the ruling states.
The trial began Tuesday morning and concluded Thursday afternoon. The ruling was originally scheduled for early Friday morning, but was delayed until after 11:30 a.m. (PST).
In the days prior, Spahr’s attorney argued that Spahr was adhering to constitutional mandates of inclusion and openness, the Napa Valley Register reported. The attorney also argued that punishing Spahr would be a rejection of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
According to the Napa Valley Register, prosecutors for the case originally sought a suspension of Spahr’s ministerial duties and later asked for the lowest level of punishment – a public rebuke.
The rebuke of Spahr, as stated in the PJC decision posted online by the Presbytery of Redwoods soon after the ruling, orders that she avoid such offenses in the future.
In the case of an appeal, the rebuke and injunction will not be imposed until final determination of any such appeal, the ruling states. There’s been no official announcement, but an appeal, which would go before the Synod of the Pacific, is likely.