Synod backs Larges ordination;
Complainants will appeal
By Edward Terry, The Layman, September 28, 2010
In a 5-4 vote, the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) has upheld the Presbytery of San Francisco’s decision to ordain Lisa Larges, a lesbian candidate for ministry in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who refuses to abide by the denomination’s sexual behavior standards.
The decision, which includes a dissenting opinion, affirmed the presbytery’s decision to ordain Larges, but a stay of enforcement will be in effect due to an anticipated appeal to the General Assembly PJC. The Rev. Mary Naegeli, who along with Bruce McIntosh represented the complainants, said there will be an appeal.
The presbytery’s close vote to validate Larges’ call as coordinator of That All May Freely Serve (TAMFS) on Nov. 10, 2009 was challenged to the synod. In addition to members of San Francisco Presbytery, the action was backed by San Joaquin and Santa Barbara presbyteries. According to the decision, the synod PJC denied the request of additional parties to be added to the complaint based on the Book of Order having no provision for “joinders.”
The one-day trial concluded on Sept. 23 and the decision was handed down on Sept. 27.
The prevailing opinion based its decision on the Knox Authoritative Interpretation, which allows candidates to declare departures from ordination standards. The PJC declared that the presbytery had not erred in its decision to ordain Larges.
“In the absence of a preponderance of evidence showing that presbytery erred in its
decision to accept the candidate’s departure, this SPJC accepts the presbytery’s decision that the candidate’s departure did not constitute a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity,” the decision states. “Therefore, the presbytery’s decision to accept the candidate’s departure does not obstruct the constitutional governance of the church.”
However, the synod PJC’s opinion was as sharply divided as the presbytery vote, including a declaration that Larges’ declared departure from G-6.0106b (fidelity/chastity standard) is a serious departure from both Reformed faith and polity.
The four dissenters in the Parnell vs. San Francisco ruling sustained four of the five complaints against the presbytery’s action. The standard Larges had rejected, according to the group’s rationale, is a historical standard and is a requirement even under the Knox AI.
“All of the witnesses at the trial (Dr. John Thompson, Dr. Robert Gagnon, Dr. Dale Brunner, Dr. Jack Rogers and Dr. Mark Achtemeier) concurred that Scripture is the highest authority in the church in the plain meaning of its language,” according to the dissenters’ rationale. “They differed in what that meaning is and how it is to be applied. From the testimony heard we conclude that the preponderance and emphasis of Scripture supports the conclusion that the unanimous witness of both Old and New Testament is that fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness are Reformed mandates to be applied to those called to leadership in the Church.”
The minority opinion was encouraging to Naegeli, who described it as well-reasoned and a stark contrast to the majority opinion.
“They appealed to the plain definition of words, to the Reformed understanding of Scripture and its authority in the Church, the nature of the ordination standard of fidelity and chastity, and the nature of constitutions,” Naegeli said. “We are pleased that such a well-reasoned dissent was included in the document. This, too, goes forward to be considered in the appeal.”
Naegeli isn’t the only one looking forward to the appeal. The synod PJC, in its decision, expressed a hope for clarification of the contentious issue from the PCUSA’s highest court.
“This commission joins with the parties of Bierschwale II in imploring the GAPJC to rule on the continued authority of Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburg (Minutes 218-10, p.319) in light of the 2008 Authoritative Interpretation on G-6.0108b,” the decision states. “This commission would also suggest that the season is ripe with opportunity for discussion and action to clarify the manner in which the constitution is changed and interpreted.”