Appeal filed in Stamford case
By Paula R. Kincaid, The Layman Online, March 22, 1999
HAMDEN, Conn. – The decision by the Permanent Judicial Commission of Southern New England Presbytery which would allow First Presbyterian Church of Stamford to install a gay man on its session has been appealed to the Synod of the Northeast.
The complainants say they have three grounds for their appeal, but they have not publicly spelled out those grounds.
The notice of appeal was sent by certified mail to Rev. Johanna Johns Jung, stated clerk of the Synod of the Northeast and to the stated clerk and the committee of counsel of Stamford’s First Presbyterian Church (FPC).
The complainants, Mairi Hair and James McCallum, are also asking for a continuance of the stay of enforcement until the appeal is heard.
The case involves Wayne Osborne, 38, who was elected to the session of Stamford First in defiance of G-6.0106b of the PCUSA’s Book of Order, which declares that church officers are to live in fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness and that those who refuse “to repent of any self- acknowledged practice” that violates these standards “shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”
Osborne, already an ordained elder, was elected to the session on May 17, 1998, despite having openly admitted during the nominating process that he was “in a relationship with another man.” When asked during the examination process by the session if this was a sexually active partnership, Osborne declined to answer the question.
The PJC decision
The PJC ruled 4-1 that the “process of discernment followed by FPC up to and including Osborne’s examination and election by Session was conducted ‘reasonably, responsibly, and deliberately within the Constitution of the Church.'” Irregularities cited by the complainants were “not sustained.”
In its decision, the PJC declared that “Osborne has not ‘self-affirmed’ or ‘self-acknowledged’ any practice which the confessions call sin,” that “Osborne has not refused to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin,” and “at the time of the events underlying the complaint, Osborne was in a same-sex relationship.”
The PJC decision states, “… first Osborne was asked to describe his gay relationship and then was specifically asked whether he was engaged in a sexually active partnership. In response to this inquiry, Osborne implicitly, then explicitly, declined to self-acknowledge an existing sexual practice. At this point the Session had discharged its duty to inquire.”
The dissenting opinion
William P. Showalter cast the dissenting vote in the case.
Showalter felt that count one – that the session’s examination of Wayne Osborne was irregular – should have been sustained since “the session was not adequately prepared for the examination. It was apparent from the testimony of several elders who were part of the examination process that they possessed insufficient knowledge of the meaning and interpretation of pertinent parts of the Book of Order, namely G-6.0106b and G-6.0108b.”
Showalter cited several documents which were entered into evidence that referred to the nomination of a man who is in a same-sex partnership, contrary to Amendment B.
Showalter concluded, “If there was any prior knowledge or assumption of knowledge of Mr. Osborne’s sexual activity as a single person, the Session was remiss in not pursuing further its examination of him. His response to the question ‘Is this a sexually active partnership’ – to which he responded ‘I decline to answer this question’ – should not have been allowed to stand. Further questioning was required because of prior or assumed knowledge. At no time through the entire nominating, electing, and examination process did Mr. Osborne attempt to correct the assumptions raised by the above documents.”