Redwoods PJC Decision “Rebuking” Janie Spahr for Performing Legal Same-gender Marriages (but read it all!)
The Covenant Network board remains disappointed that the recent G.A. – although taking many other important and useful actions – chose not even to discuss the pastoral crisis faced by clergy in states where same-gender marriage is legal. Their dilemma is certainly highlighted in the case of the Presbytery of the Redwoods vs. the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr.The PPJC’s decision, just released, and reprinted below, brings this dilemma into clear focus. Even while “rebuking” Janie for disregarding an earlier PJC ruling by performing legal marriages of same-gender couples, it commends her prophetic ministry and witness, and urges higher governing bodies of the church to address the impossible pastoral situation of clergy asked to officiate at legal marriages of their own same-gender parishioners.While side-stepping these specific issues, the 219th G.A. did invite the whole church into a conversation about the meaning, importance, and religious value of marriage, by commending for study reports issued by the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage. The Covenant Network looks forward to engaging in such discussions. As we do, this PPJC decision will be an essential resource. We commend it for your reading now.PRESBYTERY OF THE REDWOODSPERMANENT JUDICIAL COMMISSIONOF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.)Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Case 2010Trial Date: August 24, 2010Through the Presbytery of the Redwoods, ComplainantVs.The Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr, AccusedDECISIONThe Permanent Judicial Commission of the Redwoods Presbytery, having conducted a trial in the above proceeding, and having deliberated and voted in accord with Section D11.0403 of the Book of Order, reports its decision as follows:Charges against Jane Adams Spahr, a minister of Word and Sacrament:1. On or about June 20, 2008, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, did commit the offense of representing that a same sex ceremony was a marriage by performing a ceremony in which two women, namely Sara Marjorie Taylor and Sherrie Ann Holmes, were married under the laws of the State of California in effect at that time, and thereafter signing their Certificate of Marriage as the person solemnizing the marriage. This action is in direct violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order. As authoritatively interpreted by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (GAPJC) in its Decision and Order in Disciplinary Case 21812, Jane Adams Spahr v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), “…officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.”This charge is sustained by a 4 - 2 vote.2. You, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience concerning the aforementioned authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order, in that during the period between June 17, 2008 and November 3, 2008, when same sex marriages were valid and lawful under the laws of the State of California, you represented that no fewer than fifteen such additional ceremonies you performed were marriages of persons of the same sex.This charge is sustained by a 4 - 2 vote.3. By intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the above-referenced authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order as set forth in Disciplinary Case 21812, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, failed to be governed by the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in violation of your ordination vows. (W4.4003e)This charge is sustained by a 4 - 2 vote.4. By publicly, intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the Book of Order, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, have failed to further the peace, unity and purity of the church. (W4.4003g).6 - 0 to NOT sustain this charge.The Permanent Judicial Commission, in sustaining the first three charges, recognizes that while the Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr has indeed performed these marriages, which were and continue to be legal marriages, she did so acting with faithful compassion in accord with W7.3004. These marriages were legal in the State of California, being civil contracts (W4.9001), and are different from same sex ceremonies. The testimonies of those at court clearly demonstrated this difference.We commend Dr. Spahr and give thanks for her prophetic ministry that for 35 years has extended support to “people who seek the dignity, freedom and respect that they have been denied” (W7.4002c), and has sought to redress “wrongs against individuals, groups, and peoples in the church, in this nation, and in the world” (W7.4002h).In addition, we call upon the church to reexamine our own fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.(G3.0401c) We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the Gospel. In this particular case, in W4.9001 we have inclusive and broad descriptive language about marriage, “Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the wellbeing of the entire human family.” This sentence is followed immediately by “Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man.”The language of the second statement draws on our cultural understanding today of marriage that is rooted in equality. But it is not faithful to the Biblical witness in which marriage was a case of property transfer because women were property. Nor does it specifically address same gender marriage.Similarly, in the reality in which we live today, marriage can be between same gender as well as opposite gender persons, and we, as a church, need to be able to respond to this reality as Dr. Jane Spahr has done with faithfulness and compassion.In regard to charge #3 that Dr. Spahr has “intentionally and repeatedly acted in violation of the Book Of Order in violation of her ordination vows, (W4.4003e), we again recognize thatwhile Dr. Spahr has done so, she has also followed the Book of Order by remembering that our confessions and church is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as the Scriptures bear witness to him. (G2.0200.)Notwithstanding the foregoing, we are constrained to accept that the following language in GAPJC Disciplinary Case 21812 is authoritative and should be followed until and unless modified: “We further hold that the officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.”In regard to charge #4, that Dr. Jane Adams Spahr has failed to further the peace, unity and purity of the church (W4.4003g), we commend Dr. Spahr for helping us realize that peace without justice is no peace.As a commission, we give thanks for the courageous and heartrending testimonies of the married couples who shared with us their great hurt through the policies of our church. We also thank them for the joy in marriage they shared with us that that has brought healing in their lives and in their families through the ministry of Dr. Spahr. On behalf of the church, we ask for their forgiveness for the harm that has been, and continues to be, done to them in the name of Jesus Christ.We implore the Synod and General Assembly levels of our church to listen to these testimonies, which are now part of this record, to take them to heart, and to do what needs to be done to move us as a church forward on this journey of reconciliation.REBUKE:Wherefore: It is the express decision of this commission that you, Jane Adams Spahr, are guilty of the offenses as charged herein and recited above in this decision as charges 1, 2, and 3. We determine that you are hereby censured by rebuke as provided in D12.0102, and we declare as follows:Whereas you, Jane Adams Spahr, having been found guilty as stated, and by such offenses have acted contrary to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); now therefore, the Presbytery of the Redwoods, in the name and authority of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) rebukes you. You are enjoined to avoid such offenses in the future.It is the further decision of this Commission that in the event of an appeal from this decision by either party, that this rebuke and injunction shall not be imposed until final determination of any such appeal.Respectfullly submitted,Redwood Presbytery Judicial Commission August 27, 2010Rev. Beverly White, ClerkElder James V. Jones, ModeratorRev. Daniel ChristianElder Donald A. BrandElder Elizabeth GroelleRev. Dr. Ted Crouch
