A presbytery’s Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) has ruled that a church’s session cannot adopt a policy requiring all weddings performed on church property be only between one man and one woman.
In the case of Thomas E. Morgan, complainant vs. Session, First Presbyterian Church, Asheboro, N.C., respondent, the PJC of Salem Presbytery ruled that “A categorical decision by the session not to permit any marriage by a couple of the same-sex on church property without consideration of their commitment to each other, their understanding of the nature of the marriage covenant and their commitment to living their lives together according to its values is inconsistent with the process required by W-4.9001-9006.”
Furthermore, according to the commission’s ruling, since marriage is no longer limited in the PCUSA to between a man and a woman – instead the definition is between “two people,” – pastors in the denomination are required to “give instruction to any couple requesting a Christian marriage. This includes same-sex couples. … W-4.9003 affirmatively requires the teaching elder to instruct and evaluate each couple who seeks a Christian marriage. This is not optional.”
Contrary to the ruling, W-4.9006 simply and explicitly reiterates that no teaching elder is required to perform any marriage service, and no session is required to permit a marriage to be performed on church property if the marriage service is, “contrary to the teaching eider’s or the session’s discernment of the Holy Spirit and their understanding of the Word of God.”
President of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, Carmen Fowler LaBerge, commented that “remember when the liberals assured the conservatives that this was not an attempt to bind their conscience? Remember the assurances about protection of the conscience of pastors and the liberty of sessions to govern the use of local church property? This PJC is saying that those were all lies and that the Office of the General Assembly is the chief offender.”
The commission’s decision states that the session’s authority to prohibit a marriage on church property or a pastor’s right to refuse to perform a marriage is “granted in the context of a process that requires the teaching elder to counsel with every couple seeking Christian marriage whether they are of the same sex or not.”
“By adopting and publishing a policy that categorically excludes any same sex couple from being married on church property, the session has contradicted the policy requiring inquiry and counseling for any couple seeking a Christian marriage, including same sex couples. The logical effect of this policy will be to discourage any same sex couple desiring Christian marriage to seek counsel from the teaching elder called by the congregation or to seek permission to be married on church property regardless of any other circumstances. A categorical prohibition of same sex marriage on the property constitutes a categorical discrimination against same sex couples who present themselves for consideration for marriage in the congregation,” the ruling said.
Policy discriminates
On Dec. 3, 2015, Morgan filed the case arguing that the session’s policy adopted on Sept. 16, 2016 discriminated against a class of people based on their sexual orientation. The policy stated:
Policy Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Services at FPC
We, the Session of First Presbyterian Church, Asheboro, NC, led by the Holy Spirit and called to an identity of compassionate faithfulness, are bound by the authority of scripture and the historical confessions of the PC(USA). The Session will exercise due discretion in affirming marriage service requests, but affirms that all marriage services conducted at First Presbyterian Church shall reflect the understanding that Christian marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. All marriage services conducted on the property of First Presbyterian Church, Asheboro, NC must be approved in advance by the Session.
Members of the Session sought guidance from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures through an extended period of prayer and study making this decision. However, members of the Session acknowledge with humility and respect that others in our congregation and the larger church read the same passages and find a different understanding of what Scripture calls us to do. Indeed, not all members of the Session are in full accord on these issues, but have worked faithfully to discern the best way forward for us together. The Session’s decision was made in regard to Christian marriage and is unrelated to membership or other participation within First Presbyterian Church, Asheboro, NC.
At least one party to the couple to be married must be a church member, or the child or grandchild of a church member.
Advisory Opinion has no authority
The session based its decision to approve a marriage policy partly on an advisory opinion published in March 2015 by the Office of the General Assembly which answered the question “Can the session make a categorical prohibition of same-gender weddings in its building?,” by saying “Yes. Nothing has changed about the authority of the session with regard to the use of the church building.”
The commission’s ruling said that the document doesn’t constitute an Authoritative Interpretation of the Constitution, therefore “these pronouncements have no authority.”
The General Assembly has not considered the issue of whether a church session can make such a policy, the ruling said, adding that the commission was “disturbed that this information has been offered for the guidance of congregations in the PC(USA) apparently both at the time when the presbyteries were voting on whether or not to ratify the amendment to W-4.9000 and after it was ratified up until today.
LaBerge commented that “this presbytery PJC is accusing the Office of the General Assembly of lying to the church during the last General Assembly, throughout the 14F amendment process and that the OGA persists in the lie today. That’s a serious charge. This PJC decision, if it is upheld, makes it all the more difficult for individuals, pastors and congregations who hold that marriage is rightly between one man and one woman to remain in the PCUSA.”
The church has not yet decided whether or not it will appeal the decision to the Synod PJC.
Related article: PJC Ruling: Why the Court of Public Opinion Is the Only One that Matters, by Carmen Fowler LaBerge
34 Comments. Leave new
I cannot improve on what Carmen has to say. It is remarkable, however, how quickly what was promised to be optional has become mandatory. Can there be any doubt that leftist ideology has become the new Gospel within PCUSA?
Well who’s surprised here, we all knew this was coming despite the being told to the contrary, then again this was the same PJC that changed the trust clause, just shows what a bunch of liars the louisville sluggers really are.
So much for the “local option” we heard so much about before the vote.
No further evidence is needed that the God of the Bible has written “Mene, mene tekel upharsin” upon the wall of the PCUSA, a judicial decree from the Founder of the Church universal.
God’s final judgment has been writ large. He only awaits His people to close the door behind them and walk out, toward a body of believers who are still His.
The Presbytery of Salem may be pointing out an imperfection in the Church Constitution, which will likely be overturned on appeal. The intent to maintain local discernment by the teaching elder and the Session is clear. I hope First Presbyterian of Asheboro will appeal.
I hope you’re right, the louisville sluggers just keep knocking them out of the park, revision on the trust clause, the illegal AI vote at the last GA, trying to change the criteria for communion, which will probably pass, a atheist pastor, a tri-sexual pastor at 4th Pres, Chicago, and these jokers wonder why people are leaving the pcusa in droves. You can’t make this stuff up.
As in all issues of this nature, the door was opened for the local option to “creep” to no local option. The only surprise is for some of us is that it happened so quickly. That goes to the original intent, which which was steeped in dishonesty.
If my research is correct, one of the Commissioners who signed the opinion, Wade Harrison, is a Burlington NC lawyer who represents gay and lesbian couples. His website advertises that he helps them with adoption issues. If true, it would seem clear that he had an ethical conflict in sitting on this case. I’d suggest that he should have recused himself from passing judgment.
Suddenly all the commenters here are interested in local option? Where were you for the past 30 years?
Oh, right…. You were fighting against local option.
Tom, you’re right about the local option back in the day, but that’s when the pcusa had rejected gay marriage, and had some semblance of a Christian denomination, but most of all when louisville had some brains!!!
As a Commissioner to the 2014 GA who served on the Marriage Committee, the final intent of the committee was spelled out in the recommended amendment language as sent to the General Assembly to vote on.
To wit: That the conscience of the Teaching Elder and of the members of Session was paramount. No TE could force a Session into allowing a SSM ceremony to be held in the church, and no Session could force a Teaching Elder to hold such a ceremony.
This was an amendment to the original overture that I nicknamed the “get out of jail free” amendment. By that I meant that the GA vote would not make it possible to Kenyonize SSM by forcing Sessions or TEs to do SSM ceremonies.
During the entire committee process, those leading the committee members in favor of SSM, kept saying they did NOT want to Kenyonize any requirement for SSM by orthodox Presbyterian congregations.
The Presbytery PJC is completely out of order by ruling on a requirement by the Book of Order. There is no constitutional stand that they could use to rule against the complainant, so they did what the Supreme Court did in its SSM ruling, make up something out of whole cloth.
I am not sure why he should have recused himself. Everyone has opinions. I favor SSM, but I think this ruling ignores local option. Appeal and appeal. Local option is valid.
Actually, there were a few ‘local option’ overtures sent to the GA for consideration over the years. Mainly those that would allow conservative churches to affiliate with nearby conservative presbyteries.
.
All of which were shot down.
.
So yeah, ‘local option’ has been on the table for a few years or so.
“Come out of her, my people, so you will not take part in her sins and so you will not receive her plagues…”
Revelation 18:4
So glad our church is out of the PCUSA. This is exactly what we were told would happen if we stayed. You would like to hope the lightbulb will go on for many more churches, but sadly it is probably too late for them.
I had always perceived the concept of “mutual forbearance” to be a fraud and a sham in the post-Christian PCUSA entity. In that it was in direct conflict with the centralized,Statist, authoritarian orthodoxy of the LGBT denomination. In that any polity construct that fostered or allowed for freedom of thought, conscious, freedom of associations, belief could and would not be tolerated by the new authoritarians. Now their lie and lying has been unmasked. And they have shown themselves for who and what they are, intolerant of dissent, hostile to religious freedom, toxic to personal freedoms.
The entity PCUSA is best thought of now as a legal enforcement and regulatory agency hoes sole purpose is enforcement of its own directives. Is it any wonder people and money will continue to flee form the PCUSA plantation?
It’s amazing to watch the outright deception used by those advancing their agenda at the GA. Keep your eye this year on the Clergy Letter overture. It contains the embarrassingly simplistic statement that the “theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth” which disregards the fact that there are various schools of evolutionary thought within the scientific community and they don’t all agree. It will be touted as an effort to show religious thought is not an obstacle to science. Rather than seeking to harmonize the two as many Christians have, it contains the statement “Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth”. Can you say “myth” John Shuck can and does. If passed the GA will provide support.
Thank you for your comment James. Let me put this before you for your consideration.
Assume you are a defendant charged with murder. Your attorney is questioning prospective jurors. This colloquy takes place:
Attorney: Juror 1, what is your line of work?
J1: I am an attorney.
Attorney: What firm?
J1: I work in the DA’s office. I am a prosecutor. Have been for 17 years.
Attorney: What sort of cases do you prosecute?
J1: I prosecute murders.
Attorney: How many have you prosecuted to jury verdict?
J1: About 148.
Attorney: How many were acquitted?
J1: Only 5.
Attorney: Do you believe those five were guilty?
J1: Yes.
Attorney: Can you render a fair and impartial verdict to my client?
J1: Certainly.
Your attorney turns to you and says, “Should we keep him on this jury?”
What is your reply?
What a lot of people don’t know is that fighting an appeal up the PJC ladder is expensive. I know a congregation that did this a few years ago and the cost was over $100,000. No doubt it would be more now.
My understanding is that a PBY PJC decision is not binding on the whole denomination unless affirmed by the GA PJC, but this is certainly a shot across the bow of mutual forbearance.
Okay, here’s a scenario: A couple (any couple, gay or straight) shows up to my office door to see if they could get married at our church. I inform them that the church is booked the day they wanted. Since at this point, they are merely shopping around for a venue, they say thank you, and prepare to leave. According to this ruling, as a TE I would still have to provide them “instruction” since they approached me/the church about having a wedding ceremony. This is a bad interpretation that I believe will be overturned!
“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship.” —Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XX, para. 2 (PC(USA) Book of Confessions §6.109
Officers of the Presbyterian Church (USA) repeat this mantra over and over, emphasizing it, and stressing it as one of the denomination’s highest values, if not the highest value. Indeed, they have even lifted this statement from the Westminster Confession and copied into its Book of Order (§G-1.0301a before the denomination completely revised it).
The problem is, it seems that most teaching and ruling elders in the PC(USA) do not believe it even in this abbreviated context, much less in its full context in the 20th chapter in Westminster. And acts such as the decision of the Salem Presbytery PJC and the recent overtures to the General Assembly to apologize for having believed and taught the Scripture’s witness on the sinfulness of homosexuality prove that they do not.
For the record, the full text of the Westminster Confession, Chapter XX, para. 2-3 is as follows:
“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
“They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.”
Scripture unequivocally declares that homosexuality is a sin (Gen. 19.4-9, Lev. 18.22, 20.13, Dt. 23.17-18, Judg. 19.22-25, I Kg. 14.24, 15.12, 22.46, II Kg. 23.7, Rom. 1.24-27, I Cor. 6.9-11, I Tim. 1.9-10, Jude 7). It is the world that says that “sexual orientation” justifies homosexual behavior; therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ ought to ordain practicing homosexuals to the offices of teaching and ruling elder and deacon, and also to celebrate the “marriage” of two people of the same gender.
Yet, the world in its wisdom does not know God (I Cor. 1.21), and “friendship with the world is enmity with God; therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (Jas. 4.4). Thus did John write, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possession—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.” (I Jn. 2.15-17) And thus did Paul write, “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom. 12.1-2)
Yet by the apology overtures and by this grievous ruling by the Salem Presbytery PJC, these officers in the PC(USA) would bind the consciences of Evangelical Presbyterians in the same denomination to the world’s way of thinking, opposed as it is to the clear testimony of the Word of God, that practicing homosexuals should be a protected class of people, whose “sexual orientation” justifies their homosexual behavior and therefore justifies their ordination to office in the Church of Jesus Christ and justifies same-gender “marriage”. Thus would they “destroy liberty of conscience, reason, … (and) the end of Christian liberty”, delivering us into the hands of the enemies of our souls.
And the Presbyterian Church (USA) is now securely under their Babylonian authority.
As Paul wrote,
“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexual immoral people—not at all meaning the sexual immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother (i.e., Christian) if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” (I Cor. 5.9-11)
And again,
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God.” (II Cor. 6.14-16)
I do not enjoin faithful Christians who are members of Bible-believing and preaching churches that are still affiliated with the PC(USA) to depart them, for they need your support and your prayers. But I would enjoin faithful Christians who are members of compromised churches to leave for Biblically faithful congregations, and I would enjoin faithful congregations to seek dismissal from the PC(USA), or if that is not an option to seek disaffiliation. Many in the PC(USA) hold to the error of Balaam, and there are those who are “teaching and seducing (the Lord’s) servants to practice sexual immorality” (Rev. 2.14-16,20-23) Surely, the Lord’s judgment on them for their sin cannot be afar off.
First Pres, Houston settled: http://fpchouston.org/am-site/media/settlement-update-letter-to-congregation.pdf
FPC Houston has agreed to pay $700,000 to the Presbytery in four equal semi-annual installments of $175,000.
The initial payment was made at the time the settlement documents were executed. In addition, FPC Houston has
agreed to make quarterly payments of $15,000 for five years to one or more PC(USA) mission partners chosen by
FPC Houston, after considering recommendations from the Presbytery.
The settlement documents also contain protection for FPC Houston’s pastors and Session from disciplinary action
by the Presbytery, the Synod or the PC(USA) for five years.
Now that the blackmail money has been paid, FPC and MDPC can have simple vote and bolt the pcusa!
So it looks like the Presbytery barely recovered the $930,000 that they have spent in legal fees fighting this. Way to go, New Covenant Presbytery!
What I hear you saying James H, is: “Well, local option is OK now because *I* want it. When LGBT people suggested local option over ordination it was wrong because *they* wanted it.”
That’s an interesting way to defend hypocrisy.
There were also several local option overtures on ordination over the years. Those were also shot down, by conservatives.
Looks to me like some chickens are coming home to roost. It’s hard to feel too bad about that.
Shorter John E: Anyone who disagrees with me should recuse themselves.
Gee,, didn’t see this coming?
“Now that the blackmail money has been paid, FPC and MDPC can have simple vote and bolt the pcusa!”
FPC has claimed multiple times they don’t plan to leave. If you want them to leave, you want them to be lying.
It looks like FPC has spent over a million for the right to give the presbytery $700K so they can freely condemn gays. Jesus would be so proud.
The presbytery’s greedy not brilliant.
Once again Scott shows up to condemn FPC Houston. Seriously you need to get a life – your constant posting about a church you do not attend on this site and on the Save FPC Facebook account is incredible.
Why not just wake up every day and celebrate the fact your an Agnostic and not be bothered with church issues?
Mark, you may be new to reading these comments, but a huge number of the commenters here aren’t even members of the PCUSA any longer.
So suggesting to one commenter that they “get a life” because they don’t go to FPC … well, I assume you mean that for all the rest, too?
Frankly, Thomas, I would have recused myself. I could not render a fair and impartial verdict. I stand by my statements.