Spahr appeals presbytery PJC ruling
The Layman, October 28, 2010
The Rev. Jane Spahr, a well-known activist for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) cause in the Presbyterian Church (USA), has appealed the Presbytery of Redwoods’ censure for same-sex marriages she performed while it was legal in California to do so.
In August, the Redwoods PJC ruled that Spahr:
- 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).
She was cleared on a fourth charge of publicly, intentionally and repeatedly violating the PCUSA Book of Order. In its ruling, the PJC praised Spahr while Redwods PJC Ruling
criticizing the denomination’s alleged “conflicting” and “contradictory” rules with regard to marriage. The ruling ordered Spahr to avoid such offenses in the future.
Released on Oct. 25 on Spahr’s Web site, the appeal to the Synod of the Pacific alleges 13 errors by the presbytery. According to the appeal, the presbytery PJC erred in:
- Entering a verdict that contradicts its own findings that Spahr was faithful to both Scripture and the constitution in celebrating marriages of same-gender couples;
- Constitutional interpretation when it determined Spahr committed “the offense of representing that a same sex ceremony was a marriage”;
- Constitutional interpretation when it determined Spahr’s actions were in direct violation of the Constitution of the Book of Order as interpreted by the General Assembly PJC in its decision and order in Disciplinary Case No. 218-12, Spahr v. PCUSA;
- Constitutional interpretation when it determined Spahr persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience concerning the 2008 Spahr decision;
- Constitutional interpretation in holding that it was “constrained to accept” language in the 2008 Spahr decision that said “officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage”;
- Misapplication of the language in the 2008 Spahr decision (that) deprives lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the church rights and privileges which are to be accorded all active members of the church in violation of G-5.0502;
- In constitutional interpretation when it determined Spahr violated her ordination vow to be governed by the polity of the church (W-4.4003e) by intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the 2008 Spahr decision;
- Constitutional interpretation when it elevated a single sentence of the 2008 Spahr decision over the authority of the Gospel, the witness of Scripture and the plain language of the Constitution (G-1.0100, G.10307, W-4.4003);
- Contradicting the inclusive mandates of Scripture and G-3.0401 and G-4.0403 and requires ministers of word and sacrament to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, contrary to the Gospel and G-5.0202;
- Contradicting the requirements of W-7.3000 and W-7.4000 and to the admonitions of the 2008 Spahr decision concerning those constitutional provisions;
- Requiring ministers of word and sacrament to deny to LGBT couples and their families pastoral care in worship and in life required by Scripture and by G-6-0202(b), G-6.0203, W-6.3002, W-6.3010, W-6.4000;
- Constitutional interpretation by failing to determine whether Spahr’s ministry with these couples and their families was faithful to the Word of God and the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108; and
- Confessing its own error, the injustice of its decision, and the harm to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people “that has been, and continues to be, done to them in the name of Jesus Christ” by the church (D-13.0106(a)(6)).