A commentary on the ruling that a session policy governing marriage is discriminatory.
I can almost predict the headlines in the secular media: “Court rules Presbyterian church policy against same-sex weddings inherently discriminatory.” They won’t take the time to parse the difference between a presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission and civil court and they won’t care that a freedom of conscience was insured during the denomination’s constitutional amendment process. What the world will hear is “church discriminates against gays.”
The on-air interviews will include people saying that they’ve been harmed by the church, excluded by these policies and that marriage restricted to one man and one woman is unconstitutional. They’ll say that the Supreme Court said they have a right to be married.
Never mind that the free exercise of religion – including theological understandings of marriage – is guaranteed by the First Amendment and that no church can be compelled to perform a religious ceremony. Never mind that a local Presbyterian church session has the authority to determine what does and does not happen on the property. Pay no attention to the fact that Presbyterian ministers have the full freedom of conscience in terms of who they will and will not marry. And disregard the reality that the PCUSA is governed by theological confessional statements that clearly define marriage as between one man and one woman. What the world will see is a bunch of Christian bigots discriminating against gay people.
The truth won’t matter and neither will The Truth. The court of public opinion will drop the hammer of judgment. Case closed. Christians dismissed.
Once word gets out, it won’t matter that there’s an internal ecclesiastical court process working itself out. If appealed it is likely that the church courts would overturn the PJC decision until, at least, the Book of Order is amended or an Authoritative Interpretation of the Constitution is issued that reverses what the current Advisory Opinion says. Either would take months if not years to accomplish. The court of public opinion won’t wait that long. Culture is moving quickly toward an anti-Christian view which considers that kind of policy as discriminatory, even from a church. The fact that this case has risen in North Carolina in the context of the entire HB2 hysteria (the bathroom debate) just raises the public stakes.
Those of us who have been paying attention to the trajectory in the PCUSA are not surprised by the ruling but I will admit this is not the way I thought the change would come. I expected that the challenge would come in civil court first. If that had happened, it is possible that the following facts would have been on the side of the local church:
- An appeal to the church’s own theological position as expressed Part I of the Constitution, The Book of Confessions, which clearly and repeatedly defines marriage as including one man and one woman (Second Helvetic Confession, 5.246; Westminster Confession of Faith, 6.131 and 6.133; and Confession of 1967, 9.47).
- The subordination of Park II of the Constitution, the Book of Order, to Part I, The Book of Confessions. “In these statements the church declares to its members and to the world who and what it is, what it believes, and what it resolves to do.” (F-2.01).
- The fact that all officers of the Presbyterian Church (USA) are bound by their ordination vows, including: “Will you be instructed and led by these confessions as you lead the people of God?” and “Will you … be continually guided by our confessions?” (W-4.4003 c, d).
- The fact that W-4.9003 says, “In making this decision [to conduct the marriage], the teaching elder may seek the counsel of the session, which has authority to permit or deny the use of church property for a marriage service.” The case rests on the assumption that the Session’s “authority to deny” only exists if and when the teaching elder consults them. That’s not what the words say. W-4.9003 says the session has authority whether consulted or not. The session in question is exercising that authority and a civil court wouldn’t touch this case.
So, had this been a secular lawsuit brought by a gay couple who was denied a wedding, the civil court would recognize it had no jurisdiction over an internal ecclesiastical matter. In the game of chess that’s known as “Check.”
But, instead, we’re facing checkmate.
As one colleague put it in an email, “The checkmate move here is that this is a move precisely to challenge traditional marriage within the PCUSA by the PCUSA as a matter of conscience and religious freedom.”
Essentially the judicial branch (the PJC) is accusing the legislative branch (represented by the Office of the General Assembly) of lying about the status of the law and leading the people to believe their conscience was protected when, in fact, it was not. Either way, the local church loses in the court of public opinion where it will be hard-pressed to make a theological and ecclesiastical legal argument that is able to out-shout those calling them bigoted homophobes.
If the church appeals – and I think that’s a big if – the ruling may well be overturned. If it is not appealed and is allowed to stand as a piece of precedential law in the PCUSA, then it impacts thousands of congregations whose sessions have adopted similar policies.
And since we’re talking about “classes” of people, it will be interesting to see how the Korean Presbyterians respond to the PJC’s ruling and how the OGA responds to the very public accusation that it lied to the church in selling a narrative of conscience protection when in fact there was none.
Related article: PJC Ruling: One Man and One Woman Marriage Policies Are Discriminatory
11 Comments. Leave new
Thank you, Carmen, for your well-considered comments on this tragic opinion.
Though the ruling is based upon technicalities of language used in a policy it appears that the very thing that the more conservative brethren within the PCUSA stated would happen yet so forcefully denied by the progressives is actually happening. Let the “witch hunts” begin. Not sure how anyone holding to the traditional understanding of marriage being between one man and one woman might feel safe in the ‘no safe zone’ of the PCUSA. A Pastor here in Montana was forced to step down by the presbytery for holding to his convictions and conscience yet pushed out on grounds of his disrupting the peace and unity of the church. Purity went out the window years ago. If any need help to get through dismissal process please feel free to message I will do all I can to aid your exit out the the denomination.
The ruling: my way or the highway. Louisville had better start looking for new, smaller digs. With PJC rulings and Authoritative Interpretations, we will have “top-down” governance instead of local congregations to Presbyteries to Synods to the GA. Bishop or Pope, anyone? Reformed? Maybe reformed according to the culture of the day.
How would one “message” you? I would like more information about the pastor in Montana.
Sam Knight is the pastor of Springhill Presbyterian Church in Belgrade, MT. He has been a teaching elder at First Pres. in Beaumont, TX, at First Pres. Orlando, at Grace Pres. Houston. He has helped the First Pres. Orlando and Grace Pres. Houston through the discernment process. Both congregations were dismissed from the PC(USA): First Pres. Orlando to EPC and Grace Pres. to ECO.
Sam is a servant of the Lord and preaches from the heart of the Gospel. He is fair and open, but most importantly, he believes in the Truth of the Scriptures and that Truth guides his and his family’s life.
Sam is a trusted and valued friend to my family at Grace. His knowledge of the PC(USA) schemes is invaluable for churches wanting to discern their future in PC(USA). If Sam says he will assist, the count on it. Sam will be there.
BTW: He thinks Wales is the best country in the world!
What is appalling is the willingness of progressives to put their brothers and sisters in harms way through an intentionally fraudulent process. As Carmen notes the landscape has changed in the civil arena. That will not be lost on those actively seeking to file civil suits and they are out there. My prayer is that churches that find themselves in court because the denomination lied when they assured freedom of conscience will rethink whether they can move forward with folks this deceitful. In the meantime everyone call their carrier.
Appalling as it may be, it is entirely of the same cloth as the current progressive bent of the leadership. PCUSA has adopted external coercion by civil government as the best means to establish just behavior, rather than internal governance through lives transformed by Christ. (Just read through the language of the overtures, for example.) It considers the conservative view a wrong basis for behavior, therefore any action that allows government coercion to come to bear on those that practice according to a conservative view is simply peachy-keen.
I’m glad I’m not on the session anymore, because if I still were and the presbytery said we had perform SSM on our property, I would tell them to their face to take a flying leap. This coming GA is going to be the a radical in your face meeting for any of us left in the pcusa who disagree with the direction the louisville sluggers are taking us in.
They are liars and deceivers, and the Bible says we will know them fruit, and their fruit is rotten to the core.
Mrs. Fowler LaBerge, our prayers will be with when you report from this GA, as you did so well at the last one. Frankly I couldn’t last 5 minutes having to listen to what they are proposing, because reading it on the pcusa website is bad enough.
Thanks, Mike.
Is the PCUSA a Cult?
As hard as that question may seem. Let’s consider the institutional behavioral markers we normally associate with religious cults.
-Ridged, top-down enforced orthodoxy, enforced through the tactics of fear and intimidation.
-Group speak, or institutionalized codes and behaviors which does not tolerate dissent.
-Denial of person freedoms of autonomy, thought, believe in favor of group or collective modes of thought and behavior.
-Cults of personality built around certain people from favored tribal or ideological groups which lead the entity
-Internal shunning and other standardized behaviors meant to isolate, humiliate and demean those those transgress the established orthodoxy.
I would say that in all conditions cited the PCUSA has taken on aspects of cult like behaviors from its adherents
and apologists, as applied to the new queer/LGBT orthodoxy.
Its has far more external markers of a Cult than that of a normative religious group or denomination. And as has been the case with most religious cults, the PCUSA is inherently highly unstable, given to internal power struggles, and eventually either suicidal or self-destructive in its behaviors, death is usually the final outcome.
They already rent out much of the facility at 100 Witherspoon Ave.
http://layman.wpengine.com/the-presbyterian-center-has-a-major-new-tenant-but-is-there-a-conflict-of-interest/