Ordination of homosexual elder could revolve around legal nuance
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, December 3, 2001
ATLANTA – The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly has been asked to authorize the installation of a self-affirming homosexual as a church elder because the man declines to say whether his “committed, loving relationship” with another man includes sex.
The case, instigated in 1999 at First Presbyterian Church in Stamford, Conn., puts to a test G-6.0106b of the Book of Order, the so-called “fidelity/chastity” standard required of church officers.
But, according to testimony before the highest ecclesiastical court in the Presbyterian Church (USA), the case could turn on a legal nuance that would render the constitutional ordination standard meaningless.
Ordination requirement
The Book of Order forbids ordination and/or installation of any officer who refuses to “repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin …”
Here’s the rub:
Wayne Osborne had previously served as an elder when he was asked to consider being a candidate in a new election. Before the election, in what was described as a tearful meeting, Osborne told the elders that he was gay and that he was in a “committed, loving relationship” with another man. He did not say point-blank that they were sexually active.
Osborne was elected to another term. Two members of the congregation filed a complaint asking that his installation be prohibited until it could be determined whether he met the requirement of G-6.0106b.
Further questioning required
The Presbytery of Southern New England gave the Stamford church the go-ahead to install Osborne, but the Synod of the Northeast said both the presbytery and the Stamford session had failed to fully question Osborne about his live-in relationship.
After the synod decision, the Stamford session met again with Osborne and asked him about his relationship with his mate: “Is this a sexually active partnership?”
According to the case record, Osborne replied, “I decline to answer this question.”
By not answering the question, Osborne did not “self-acknowledge” any sinful activity that is forbidden by the constitution, argued John L. Harter, counsel for First Presbyterian Church, a congregation that has lost nearly one-third of its members in the past 10 years.
Harter contended that the grounds for forbidding Osborne’s installation would be his own self-acknowledgement of a sexual relationship with his partner. Refusing to answer a question falls short of that requirement, he said.
Newspaper article not considered
There has been some evidence that Osborne might have incriminated himself, including remarks in a story published in The Advocate of Stamford in April 2001. But the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission – the highest court in the denomination – would not allow that story to be submitted into the record as evidence.
The Advocate interviewed Osborne and quoted him as saying:
- “I knew I couldn’t be ordained and I wasn’t the type to hide it by pretending to be a straight man.”
- “I used to think being gay conflicted with my faith. Now I can celebrate being a gay man as a gift from God.”
- “It’s OK to be gay, but you just can’t practice. The only people who are excluded from ordination are gays and lesbians.”
Presbyterian law does not exclude people who say they have homosexual orientation from membership or offices in the church. Neither does it exclude sexually active homosexuals from membership. But G-6.0106b does require chastity in singleness – just as it requires fidelity in marriage.
Direct question not asked
Walter Baker, counsel for the complainants, said the session’s examination failed to provide “pertinent information which would have settled the matter of eligibility.”
Baker suggested that a simple, direct question should have been posed: “Is this a sexually active partnership?” He quoted from a previous interpretation – called the “precedent of LeTourneau” – which says “Sexual orientation and pratice are relevant to … qualifications for ordination … [and] must be investigated … when [a] candidate [takes] the initiative in declaring sexual orientation.”
Baker also asked why the Stamford session declined to explain why it did not demand an answer.
“The record in this case contains no evidence of sexual practices,” Harter said. “There is no evidence of self-acknowledgement. Saying one is in a homosexual relationship is not acknowledgement of homosexual activity.”
Session’s decision defended
Deborah Hurrell, also a member of the committee of counsel for the Stamford church, added, “The appellate has brought forth absolutely no evidence that supports their position. The session, the only body that is qualified to make this decision, has decided that Wayne is fit for service.”
Osborne was scheduled for installation in June of 2001. Members of the Permanent Judicial Commission asked whether his “seat” has been held open pending the outcome of the case. Harter said it was held open for some time but that he did not know whether that was the case today.
Two members of the Stamford congregation – Mairi Hair and James McCallum – filed the complaint after Osborne’s election. They have continued to attend services at Stamford, although both said they were often shunned by other members.
Blair Moffett, one of the co-pastors of the congregation, is a member of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, the group committed to eliminating G-6.0106b from the Book of Order.