Case challenging ordination
attempt appealed to GAPJC
By John H. Adams, The Layman, May 6, 2009
The complainants in a remedial case involving the Presbytery of San Francisco and Lisa Larges, a lesbian activist who is seeking ordination in the presbytery, have asked the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission to overturn a synod ruling.
Larges, a staff member of That All May Freely Serve, had declared that the requirements of G-6.0106b – that ordained officers live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness – are a “mar upon the church.”
On March 22, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific ordered the presbytery to rescind its vote certifying that Larges was “ready for examination …, with departure.” But the synod court did not rule that G-6.0106b is an essential or that Larges was ineligible to become a candidate for ordination.
The complainants in Naegeli v. Presbytery of San Francisco are the Rev. Mary Holder Naegeli, the Rev. Margaret Gelini and the Rev. Mark Stryker, all members of the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for the Ministry.
The complainants said in a news release that they hope the GAPJC will not only rule definitively – as it has in the past – that presbyteries cannot waive the sexual standard for officers, but also review the CPM process spanning 10 years that led to the presbytery’s vote.
“The church constitution requires sexual fidelity and chastity of all its church officers,” Naegeli said. “The question is whether application of this requirement is optional or a churchwide mandatory standard. Clarity on this issue is necessary for the church to move forward as an effective witness of the Gospel in today’s world.”
The appeal asked the GAPJC, the denomination’s highest court, to find that the synod erred:
· “… when it failed to rule that G-6.0106b is a churchwide mandatory ordination standard that cannot be waived by any ordaining body.”
· “… when it mandated that ‘the examination for ordination is the proper time for presbytery to determine whether or not a candidate’s departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.’”
· “when it declined ‘to instruct the presbytery to find that the candidate’s departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination.’”
· “… when it determined it had no jurisdiction to review the actions of a presbytery taken by its Committee on Preparation for Ministry (CPM).”
· “… when it failed to instruct the presbytery to remove the candidate from the roll of candidates.”
· “… when it failed to admonish the San Francisco Presbytery’s CPM to ‘take care to provide only accurate, truthful material that focuses properly on the issues to be presented to the presbyters.’”
· “… when it refused to admit into the record the contents of Envelope B and other documents requested by appellants and refused to permit testimony regarding the relevance of the disputed documents or the alleged misconduct by the CPM.”
· “… when it refused to admit into the record the CPM minutes that reflect the CPM’s rationale and understanding regarding the departure motion presented to the presbytery.”
Before the synod trial, the complainants accused the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for the Ministry of providing “false and incomplete information. … Appellants requested certain records of the CPM, primarily the so-called ‘Book of Life’ related to the candidate, be added to the relevant documents pursuant to Book of Order § D-6.0307.”
By not releasing information, the appeal said, the CPM misled the presbyters at the challenged vote “with false and incomplete information.”
The appeal added, “The stated clerk objected and refused to augment the list of documents with those identified by appellants, based on her own determination they were not relevant. She provided copies of the disputed documents to the SPJC labeled as ‘Envelope B.’ Appellants were never permitted to view the contents of Envelope B.”