On March 2, 2006, the Rev. Jane Spahr was acquitted of charges that she violated the constitution of the PC(USA) by performing same-sex marriages, a practice that is prohibited by the church’s Constitution and is contrary to the teaching of Scripture, and a practice she openly admits to having performed.
In the wake of the PJC’s inexplicable decision, there has been some confusion as to whether or not this decision may be appealed. Prior to July 2005, the answer would have been “no,” because prior to that time there was no constitutional provision for an appeal of an acquittal in a disciplinary case.
However, in July 2005 section D-13.0106b was added to the Book of Order. This addition to the Book of Order provides a process for the prosecuting committee of a disciplinary case to file an appeal. Thus, the prosecuting committee involved in the disciplinary case of the Rev. Jane Spahr could in fact decide to initiate an appeal of the decision, provided that the appeal be initiated within 45 days of the PJC’s decision.
The text of D-13.0106b is as follows:
“b. The grounds for appeal by the prosecuting committee are:
(1) irregularity in the proceedings;
(2) refusing a party reasonable opportunity to be heard or to obtain or present evidence;
(3) receiving improper, or declining to receive proper evidence or testimony.
(4) hastening a decision before the evidence or testimony is fully received;
(5) manifestation of prejudice in the conduct of the case; and
(6) error in constitutional interpretation.”
The sixth ground for appeal should be highlighted in this case, given that the Redwoods’ PJC’s error in constitutional interpretation was plain, palpable, and obvious.
(The Constitution of the PC(USA) states the following: “Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of
the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman
and a man. For Christians marriage is 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.)
3 Comments Received
March 11th, 2006 @3:17 pm
Dear Rev. Welker–
The problem is that the passage you cited in the Constitution is descriptive rather than prescriptive. If what Spahr has done is improper based on this text, so also would be any minister who performed a marriage for one or more persons who had been previously married. You have fixated on the “man and woman” language, but that is not all the Constitution says. If marriage is, in fact, a “lifelong commitment” then any minister performing another such ceremony is in violation of the Constitution as much as Spahr, i.e. neither has performed a Constitutionally valid marriage.
But I sincerely doubt that conservatives want to say that, given that some of the most prominent conservatives leading the charge against gays and lesbians are themselves divorced and remarried (e.g. the editor of the Layman), to say nothing of the remarriages which are regularly performed by PCUSA ministers in contravention of this Constitutional statement.
What’s sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander. If one is going to read this as prescriptive law that tells us what we can and cannot do in our marriage ceremonies, then one can’t single out the parts one wants to apply and ignore the rest.
So personally, if this is really the position that your organization wants to take, I will be waiting to see the flood of charges filed by your leadership against MWS who are violating this aspect of church law all across America every Saturday at 3 pm.
March 11th, 2006 @4:30 pm
Thanks for your comments. Let’s pray the investigative committee has the guts to go against the “powers-that-be” in Redwoods Presbytery.
Alan
March 15th, 2006 @6:23 pm
My understanding of the grammar in W-4.9001 differs from Mr. Simpson [Public Theologian]. It seems straight forward to me that any sentence stating, “Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man,” is describing/defining marriage whereas “…a lifelong commitment is made…” is describing the service of Christian marriage. This is hardly the source of a “Pandora’s box of ecclesiastical charges” which Mr. Simpson anticipates at http://www.publictheologian.com/blog/_archives/2006/3/11/1815988.html.
The analogy of re-marriage after divorce just doesn’t do the work I think Mr. Simpson would like it to.
Leave A Reply