|
Redwoods
Presbytery contradicts
decision by PCUSA's highest court
By John H.
Adams
The Layman
Online
Monday, March 6, 2006
By sanctioning Janie Spahr's conducting
"marriage" services for same-gender couples, the Permanent Judicial
Commission of the Presbyterian of Redwoods violated a principle set
forth by the highest court in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
In 2000, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, ruling in
a case titled Benton v. the Presbytery of Hudson River, said
Presbyterian ministers were prohibited from marrying homosexual
couples.
The General Assembly court did conclude that nothing in the Book of
Order barred ministers, with the approval of their sessions, from
conducting services blessing same-gender couples. But the court
specifically said that those services could not resemble a wedding and
that they must not sanction homosexual behavior.
The 2000 ruling came in the repeal of a remedial action against the
Presbytery of Hudson River. The presbytery had decided that the pastor
of South Presbyterian Church in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., was within his
rights to conduct a "holy union" service for a homosexual couple. In
several news accounts, including The New York Times, Joe
Gilmore, the Dobbs Ferry pastor, was quoted as describing the services
as "weddings."
"If a same-sex ceremony were considered to be the equivalent of a
marriage ceremony between two persons of the same sex, it would not be
sanctioned under the Book of Order," the General Assembly PJC
said. The ruling cited section W-4.9001 of the Book of Order in
which "Christian marriage is specifically defined as: [A] covenant
through which a man and a woman are called to live out together
before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian
marriage, a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to
each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of
faith. (emphasis added in the decision)
The ruling called for a "liturgical distinction" in services blessing
a same-sex relationship." It said ministers and sessions "should take
special care to avoid any confusion of such services with services of
Christian marriage. Ministers should not appropriate specific
liturgical forms from services of Christian marriage or services
recognizing civil marriage in the conduct of such ceremonies. They
should also instruct same-sex couples that the service to be conducted
does not constitute a marriage ceremony and should not be held out as
such."
Furthermore, the General Assembly PJC said that "… a same-sex ceremony
does not bless any specific act, and this decision should not be
construed as an endorsement of homosexual conjugal practice proscribed
by the General Assembly."
The following is the text of Benton v. Presbytery of Hudson River:
Benton v. Presbyterian Church (USA)
Remedial Case 212-11
May 22, 2000
Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly.
Marc G. Benton,
Ronald G. Roughton,
Leo Jaloszynski,
Thomas N. Willcox,
Deborah M. Kemp,
Allen V. Kemp
Thomas Unkenholz
Alvin Gunther,
The Session of Bethlehem Presbyterian Church,
The Session of Circleville Presbyterian Church,
The Session of Suffren Presbyterian Church,
The Session of Ridgebury Presbyterian Church,
The Session of Denton Presbyterian Church,
The Session of Harrison Presbyterian Church,
The Session of Westtown Presbyterian Church,
The Session of Bethany Presbyterian Church
Complainants/Appellants
Presbytery of Hudson River,
Respondent/Appellee
12.170
This remedial case comes before the Commission on appeal by Marc G.
Benton and others (Appellants) from a decision by the Permanent
Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast (SPJC) dismissing
Appellants' allegations that the Presbytery of Hudson River
(Presbytery) committed an irregularity in adopting the following
motion:
. . . that the Presbytery affirm the freedom of any session to allow
its ministers to perform ceremonies of holy union (within or outside
the confines of the church sanctuary) between persons of the same
gender, reflecting our understanding at this time that these
ceremonies do not constitute marriage as defined in the Book of Order.
12.171
The Permanent Judicial Commission finds that it has jurisdiction, that
Appellants have standing to appeal, that the appeal was properly and
timely filed, and that the appeal states one or more grounds for
appeal under D-8.0105.
a. History
12.172
Following the August 1998 publication of an article concerning a
same-sex holy union service at South Presbyterian Church in Dobbs
Ferry, New York (South Church), the Session of the Bethlehem
Presbyterian Church (Bethlehem Church), where Appellant Marc G. Benton
serves as pastor, wrote the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery requesting
that the Presbytery investigate, counsel, and as necessary discipline
the pastors and Session of South Church and take steps to preclude any
further such ceremonies there. At its October 1998 meeting, the
Presbytery Council appointed a Special Administrative Review Committee
to gather information concerning the matters raised in the Bethlehem
Church's letter. Following meetings with both South Church and
Bethlehem Church, the committee presented its report to the Council on
January 5, 1999. The Council received the report, and recommended that
dialogue between the two churches continue. "In addition, in order to
provide clarity and leadership at this critical point in the ongoing
dialogue," the Council also passed the above-quoted motion which is at
issue in this case.
12.173
At the stated meeting of the Presbytery on January 30, 1999, the
Moderator of the Council presented the report of the Special
Administrative Review Committee, including the motion at issue. The
Presbytery approved the motion, and a written protest was received.
12.174
Appellants initiated this remedial case against the Presbytery by
complaint dated April 13, 1999. On August 23, 1999, Appellants'
counsel submitted a formal request, with supporting statements, for
pretrial citations to three witnesses (the clerk of session and two
pastors of South Church), along with a request for their production of
certain minutes, papers, and other effects from South Church. The
Executive Committee of the SPJC denied this request by letter dated
September 12, 1999, and the SPJC affirmed this ruling at its meeting
on October 7, 1999, with a written decision dated October 11, 1999.
12.175
A trial was held November 4, 1999. Appellants renewed their request
for trial citations, which the SPJC denied.
12.176
The SPJC concluded that Presbytery's motion of January 30, 1999, did
not constitute an irregularity, citing the testimony of those present
at the Presbytery meeting that the motion was not intended to
authorize same-sex marriages.
12.177
The SPJC further rejected Appellants' argument that existing
provisions of the Constitution prohibit same-sex ceremonies. The SPJC
concluded that the Constitution "does not address" these
ceremonies, and declined what it viewed as the invitation of the
Appellants to legislate by judicial fiat.
12.178
The SPJC also rejected Appellants' argument to extend existing
provisions of the Constitution to prohibit same-sex ceremonies,
again based upon its view that "the plain language of the motion . . .
states that it is not authorizing marriage ceremonies between persons
of the same sex."
12.179
The SPJC further concluded that the Presbytery motion did not violate
the constitutional injunction in W-4.9001 (sic – W-4.9004) that the
Christian understanding of marriage is not to be diminished. According
to the SPJC, W-4.9004 "addresses additions to the marriage ceremony
and does not apply to ceremonies of same-sex union." In addition, the
SPJC rejected Appellants' argument that the Presbytery's motion
improperly authorizes sessions to approve acts of worship that
impermissibly simulate Christian marriage or that are otherwise
contrary to the Constitution. According to the SPJC, Appellants
did not carry their burden of proving "that the Presbytery would not
or could not express its disapproval of such hypothetical session
actions."
12.180
Finally, the SPJC rejected Appellants' argument that Presbytery had
improperly approved use of church property contrary to the
Constitution, based on its prior conclusion that the Constitution
"does not prohibit same-sex unions that are not the same as marriage."
b. Specifications of Error
12.181
The Appellants cited five specifications of error:
12.182 I.
The SPJC erred in failing to rule that existing provisions of the
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the effect
thereof do not allow a presbytery to permit ministers to solemnize (on
or off) church property same-sex unions.
12.183
This specification is not sustained.
12.184
None of the provisions of the Directory for Worship upon which
Appellants rely prohibit the conduct of same-sex ceremonies that are
not the same as marriage ceremonies. Appellants cite W-1.4001, which
provides that "[t]hose responsible for worship are to be guided by the
Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, the historic experience of the
Church universal, the Reformed tradition, The Book of Confessions,
the needs and particular circumstances of the worshiping community, as
well as the provisions of the Form of Government and this directory."
"Guided" is a key word in this provision; it emphasizes the balance
that this very provision commends to the church between order and
liberty, including pastoral attention and sensitivity to the needs and
circumstances of the faith community being served. Moreover, a
positive warrant for the application of worship in pastoral care is
given in W-6.0000 and W-7.0000.
12.185
This Commission concludes that ceremonies of "union" between persons
of the same sex are governed by the General Assembly's Authoritative
Interpretation of 1991. The Appellants argue that since G-6.0106b is a
foundational standard derived from the Confessions, it should be
applied to standards for worship as well. This is unpersuasive. The
plain language of G-6.0106b speaks only to ordination. The adoption of
G-6.0106b did nothing to change the constitutional interpretation
concerning worship practices set out in the 1991 Authoritative
Interpretation which reads:
There is no mention in the Book of Order of same sex unions
(ceremonies). If a same sex ceremony were considered to be the
equivalent of a marriage ceremony between two persons of the same sex,
it would not be sanctioned under the Book of Order. In section
W-4.9001, Christian marriage is specifically defined as:
[A] covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live
out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of
Christian marriage[,] a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and
a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the
community of faith. (emphasis added)
Inasmuch as the session is responsible and accountable for
determination of the appropriate use of the church building and
facilities (G-10.0102n), it should not allow the use of the church
facilities for a same sex union ceremony that the session determines
to be the same as a marriage ceremony.
Likewise, since a Christian marriage performed in accordance with the
Directory for Worship can only involve a covenant between a woman and
a man, it would not be proper for a minister of the Word and Sacrament
to perform a same sex union ceremony that the minister determines to
be the same as a marriage ceremony. (Minutes, 1991, Part I, pp. 55,
57, 395)
12.186
II. The SPJC erred in its conclusion that because same-sex union
ceremonies are not specifically named in the Constitution as
disallowed, the SPJC could not rule that they are constitutionally
impermissible.
12.187
This specification is not sustained.
12.188
As phrased, this specification of error misconstrues the decision of
the SPJC. The SPJC did not reject the general principle that it has
jurisdiction to address the constitutionality of actions that are not
specifically named in the Constitution. In the instant case,
the SPJC simply chose not to extend the provisions of the
Constitution, and specifically G-6.0106b, beyond the stated scope
of applicability. For the reasons discussed under Specification I
above, that decision was not an irregularity.
12.189
III. The SPJC erred in its conclusion that the Christian understanding
of marriage is not impaired by ceremonies of same-sex union.
12.190
This specification is sustained in part and not sustained in part.
12.191
Both parties erred in applying the Authoritative Interpretation
categorically and without distinction. Said Authoritative
Interpretation clearly assumes that some same-sex ceremonies could be
the equivalent of a marriage ceremony, and therefore, would contravene
the Book of Order, and some might not. A determinative
distinction between a permissible same-sex ceremony and a marriage
ceremony is that the latter confers a new status whereas the former
blesses an existing relationship. The Book of Order makes this
theological distinction concerning marriage in W-4.9004: "In the name
of the triune God the minister shall declare publicly that the woman
and the man are now joined in marriage." This and similar
pronouncements declaring a new status are to be reserved for services
of marriage.
12.192
Because of this theological distinction, there should also be a
liturgical distinction in services blessing a same-sex relationship.
The 1991 General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation leaves to the
judgment of individual ministers and sessions (if church property is
to be utilized) whether to conduct same-sex ceremonies. In exercising
this judgment, however, ministers and sessions should take special
care to avoid any confusion of such services with services of
Christian marriage. Ministers should not appropriate specific
liturgical forms from services of Christian marriage or services
recognizing civil marriage in the conduct of such ceremonies. They
should also instruct same-sex couples that the service to be conducted
does not constitute a marriage ceremony and should not be held out as
such.
12.193
Notwithstanding the above admonitions, the Directory for Worship
affirms the value of worship services in the practice of pastoral care
and gives great latitude to ministers and sessions in addressing the
pastoral care of members. A same-sex ceremony celebrates a loving,
caring, and committed relationship. Therefore, it would be appropriate
for this worship occasion to be in the form and spirit of W-6.3010 and
W-6.3011. Such a same-sex ceremony does not bless any specific act,
and this decision should not be construed as an endorsement of
homosexual conjugal practice proscribed by the General Assembly.
12.194
Therefore it is our determination that the motion adopted by the
Presbytery is in error because it failed to distinguish between
permissible and impermissible same-sex ceremonies.
12.195
IV. The SPJC erred in refusing to permit Complainants/Appellants to
obtain and present evidence and testimony going to an issue at the
heart of the case, namely whether the format, framework and venue of a
marriage or wedding in a worship service for a man and a woman may
properly be put to the purpose of solemnizing a same sex union.
12.196
This specification is not sustained.
12.197
The focus of the Appellants' complaint was the action of the
Presbytery. It was not a remedial case against the Session of South
Church or a disciplinary case against its pastors. The SPJC therefore
properly concluded that the requested evidence was not relevant.
12.198
V. The SPJC erred in failing to rule that the performance on church
property of same sex union ceremonies contravenes the constitutional
proscription against the use of property of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) contrary to the Constitution.
12.199
This specification is not sustained for the reasons discussed under
Specification 1.
c. Order
12.200
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, insofar as the Presbytery's motion
failed to make the necessary distinction outlined in this decision,
the decision of the SPJC is reversed.
12.201
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Presbytery send a copy of this decision
to all minister members and all sessions within the Presbytery.
12.202
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stated Clerk of the Synod of the
Northeast report this decision to the Synod at its first meeting after
receipt, that the Synod enter the full decision upon its minutes, and
that an excerpt from those minutes showing entry of the decision be
sent to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly.
12.203
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of
Hudson River report this decision to the Presbytery at its first
meeting after receipt, that the Presbytery enter the full decision
upon its minutes, and that an excerpt from those minutes showing entry
of the decision be sent to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly.
12.204
Dated this 22nd day of May 2000. |
| |
|
