Leslie Scanlon, Presbyterian Outlook Magazine National Reporter, reports that the Presbytery of the Redwoods has refused to follow through on the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission's finding that the Rev. Janie Spahr be rebuked after the Commission found that she had violated the denomination’s constitution by performing 16 same-gender weddings in 2008.
During that time, same gender marriages were legal in California, but were and are still not within the wedding policy of the denomination. The full article to is found at this link.
As Denver's own Mike Rosen would ask, I will tell you where I sit before I tell you where I stand...
Let's begin with my rather murky take on "same-sex" unions. I believe that in America, as a civil right, people (two human adults) ought to have the opportunity to form a legal union. I believe the civil benefits of family should pertain to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples. This is where I leave my self open, not only to those who think the sexuality of the parties to be at issue, but to those who disagree with the individual nouns I used: two, human, adults.
Some would consider my "two" qualifier too restrictive and "adults" to be unnecessarily binding. As for human, some might say your dog or my cat should have legal standing similar to my wife. Not me. So guess what, this is my blog and "two human adults" is my opinion. If you don't like it get your own blog.
Now, here's where I muddle the waters. In my study, I have found the scriptural witness of marriage to be between man and woman. Granted, not always just one, but still... Granted, the definition of "adult" in the ancient of days does not reflect our view of the age of majority, but still... It's man and woman. I can't get past that.
Here's the other side of that coin: I believe God can bless a union between two same-sex people. I believe a sovereign God will do as a sovereign God will do. This being within the giving loving character of God. God's love which is without limit, overflowing, and self-emptying.
On a final note, while I am muddling through how I might deal with this if called upon (Not a wedding, but a sort of union? What does that mean anyway? Holy? Civil? Still not a wedding. You can see I don't have that answer...), the congregation I serve is not. The official policy of First Presbyterian-Marshall is in line with the PC(USA) Directory for Worship as it is currently written. No homosexual weddings. Period, end of sentence. So speaking for the Session, don't ask to use the building.
Having said that...
I believe the Presbytery of the Redwoods has erred in not exercising the legal authoritative judgement of the Permanent Judicial Council. You don't have to like the rule. Shoot, Redwoods has always supported Rev. Spahr. Yet as a member of the covenant, all Presbyteries are expected to carry out the judgement of the Permanent Judicial Council. Sorry.
On a side note, I could see Rev. Spahr accepting this "rebuke" as a badge of honor. In one way or another, she has told the world that stood up for the gospel, and she stood up for the couples. I believe if you are going to wade neck deep into the hardest churning waters of Presbyterian Polity you shouldn't cross the river if you can't swim the tide. I believe Rev. Spahr is capable in these waters.
Yet, there is one other response Scanlan noted in her article. To quote:
Mary Holder Naegeli, an evangelical minister from California and executive director of the Presbyterian Coalition, described the vote in a blog post as “a new low in Presbyterian life.” Naegeli wrote, “I cannot recall in nearly 25 years as an ordained minister ever witnessing open defiance” of a direct church court order. She added, “this is a presbytery gone rogue.”I agree with Rev. Naegeli that Redwoods Presbytery has acted in "open defiance of a direct church court order." But here's the rub. In our current national political climate, we need to beware of the phrase "going rogue." A phrase that is seen as a politically conservative badge of honor against the powers that be is in this case being used as a theologically liberal badge of shame against the powers that be.
It may be right to say in our current vernacular, "Going Rogue" is a good thing when it stands up for what we believe and a bad thing when it goes against whet we believe. Maybe the remaining similarity between being "good rogue" and "bad rogue" is that Governor Palin and the Presbytery of the Redwoods both see themselves as "good rogue." To both, being a rogue as a complement.
Go ahead, do the doink-doink thing again if you want...
