Oh How The Mighty Have Fallen!
April 29, 2008 by Michael
The PC(USA) continues to show itself as something quite other than a true church. This news report is just one more example of the PC(USA) being a completely non-Biblical body. I am becoming increasingly numb to what comes out of this organization. Is there any sin left that this group is willing to stand against any longer? Once the Holy Scriptures stop being the only and final rule for faith and life there is no depth to deep to which a person and/or organization can fall or sink.
Spahr found innocent in same-sex marriage case
GAPJC: by definition, same-sex ‘marriage’ cannot be
performed
by Evan Silverstein
and Jerry Van Marter
Presbyterian News Service
LOUISVILLE – In a reversal of a lower church court ruling,
the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr has been found not guilty of
violating the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s constitution
by performing same-sex ‘marriages’ for two lesbian couples.
The complicated verdict
[ www.pcusa.org/gapjc/decisions/pjc21812withconcurrences.pdf ]
of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General
Assembly (GAPJC) [ www.pcusa.org/gapjc ] — the church’s
highest court — was released on Monday (April 29).
It found that Spahr, who conducted two same-gender
marriages in 2004 and 2005, could not be “found guilty of
doing that which, by definition, cannot be done.”
The ruling reverses a decision by the PJC of the Synod of
the Pacific, which on appeal had ordered the PJC of
Redwoods Presbytery to “rebuke” Spahr for conducting the
ceremonies after the presbytery’s court had found her “not
guilty.”
“The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not
marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001” [of the
church’s constitution], the court held. That provision
defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
“One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages
for the purpose of disciplining a minister,” the GAPJC
ruled, “and at the same time declare that such ceremonies
are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.”
The GAPJC was careful to distinguish between the two types
of services. “We do hold that the liturgy should be kept
distinct,” it said. “We further hold that officers of the
PC(USA) authorized to perform marriages shall not state,
imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a
marriage.”
The court noted that Spahr “reported regularly to her
presbytery about the same sex unions and ‘weddings’ she
performed” but “these services were not described as
marriages in her reports as found in the record of the
case.”
But church courts have previously ruled that there is no
constitutional prohibition against performing same-sex
ceremonies, as long as they are not “represented” as a
marriage.
“The PJC’s decision reaffirms what our directory of worship
says, that marriage is between a man and woman and that no
officer should present a same-sex union as a marriage,”
said the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the
PC(USA)’s General Assembly. “At the same time the decision
recognizes the importance of pastoral care and the
appropriateness of same-sex blessing services as long as
they are not presented as marriage ceremonies.”
The GAPJC said that it had been acknowledged by those who
heard the case at every level that Spahr had acted in light
of her call and the church’s call to participate in a
caring and compassionate ministry to persons who have been
marginalized, who are faithful Christians and who wished to
be accepted in every way as full members of the body of
Christ.
As such the high church court said that Spahr may consider
herself to be acting in the role of a “prophet” to the
church, while others would reject such a characterization.
“Prophecy contains risk and uncertainty both for those who
would speak and for those who listen,” the ruling said.
“The role of a prophet carries consequences. It is the
burden of a church officer to accept the consequences of
his or her actions that are the ecclesiastical equivalent
of civil disobedience.”
The ruling noted that the PC(USA)’s General Assembly has
affirmed several times and in various ways its commitment
to stand for the “just and equal treatment of all persons
regardless of sexual orientation.”
“While drawing a distinction between sexual orientation and
sexual practice, and maintaining behavioral standards for
ordained office that further limit sexual practice, the
church has attempted to minister to GLBT persons through
the efforts of ministers like Spahr,” the GAPJC ruling
said. “The tension the church has created between sexual
orientation and sexual practice has led to turmoil and
dissension that will likely continue for some time. The
difficulties faced by this Commission in deciding this case
reflect that tension.”
The ruling said that while Spahr justified her actions in
marrying the two lesbian couples by claiming freedom of
conscience as delineated in the PC(USA)’s Book of Order,
and a foundational principle of the denomination, that
repeated reliance on freedom of conscience to justify her
actions “ignores the thrust of this principle: freedom of
conscience must be exercised within bounds.”
The court ruled that a church officer’s conscience is
“captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards
of the church” so long as he or she continues to seek or
hold office in that body.
As an Episcopalian of pretty orthodox reformation theology, you have my prayers and my sympathy. As a communion, we are in the midst of our death-throes over the same issues, and very little ahead of you on the time line.
As to the issues, I strongly wish that homosexuality had not been the issue that revealed the truth. My natural sympathies are towards the inclusive position, and it is always hazardous to take a strong position on the sinfulness of a behavior that does not tempt me.
But what has happened is that for us, and it seems for you, the issue revealed a fundamental fault line through the middle of our church. We used the same words, but did not believe anything near the same things.
I could accept, and have accepted others who believe the inclusive position is correct, and that Holy Scripture allows it. I believe that position wrong, and strongly so, but as long as the authority of the Bible is maintained, and the reality of the fall, our need for redemption, and salvation by grace through faith, by the person and work of our Lord Jesus; as long as the fundamentals of Christianity is affirmed, then the argument is between brothers. It is an important argument, but it is inside the family at that point.
As Episcopalians, we have far past that point.
I won’t in this response address the particular issues you have drawn forth, but affirm your decision to post it under “bad theology”: We very much tend to interpret our theology according to the spirit of the age, and use our thinking chiefly to justify our desires. It is a very sad time for our respective churches.
The only real hope I have comes from a priest and author, former dean of Trinity (episcopal) School for Ministry -they are dropping the “episcopal” - by the name of the Rev. Paul Zahl. He wrote comparing the church to a volcano, and the life of the Spirit in the true church to magma. As the lava flows over the cool earth, it hardens, sometimes even forming a plug as it cools. But the movement of the Spirit does not depend on the surface, it is inexorable. If the volcano truly is plugged, as it was in the European church in the early and middle years of the last millennium, the pressure of the living magma builds and builds to the point of a cataclysmic explosion. Wittenburg set it off then, this may set it off now. But the living rock will flow, it cannot be stopped. To God be the Glory!
Thanks for stopping by Eric. I wanted to give a quick response to your comments before I hit the sack tonight. It’s starting to get late here in Dallas, TX, but I do have just a very few quick responses.
I thank the Almighty that I am not and have never been a part of the PC(USA). I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), which is obviously a denomination that was born out of the PC(USA) in 1936 due to the defrocking of J. Gresham Machen for his part in fighting the liberal (non-Christian) faction within the PC(USA) and Princeton Seminary.
I heard Parker T. Williamson of the Presbyterian Lay Committee in the PC(USA) say recently that the PC(USA) is losing approximately 50,000 members per/year and numerous entire congregations are leaving each year as well. Parker estimates that at the current rate the PC(USA) will be completely dead by 2029. There are still men inside the organization that are trying their best, by God’s grace, to bring about reform. I’m not confident that it’s going to happen. I’m not certain that it’s worth saving quite honestly. There are other Reformed/Presbyterian denominations to which these ministers and their people can flee. After nearly 100 years of continued heresy and deviant doctrine I don’t see how this organization can, in any honest way, still be called a church. It no longer bears the marks of the church and the solid leaders still there would be more loving of their congregations to take them to a more safe haven.
Briefly, the prevalence and acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate and Biblically accepted lifestyle within the PC(USA) is certainly not their only error. It appears that it is one of their most public errors though. With the extremely rare exception, the PC(USA) has stopped preaching the Gospel and has instead settled for a socially relevant and acceptable “gospel”, which is no Gospel at all. They have forsaken the Bible as their supreme authority in all issues of faith and life and have instead chosen to submit to their Church Constitution (a hodgepodge of various creeds and confessions from a wide variety of religious organizations that have joined together to form what is now the PC(USA)). This is sad, but it is nevertheless true.
I am not sure how to understand your comment- “As to the issues, I strongly wish that homosexuality had not been the issue that revealed the truth. My natural sympathies are towards the inclusive position, and it is always hazardous to take a strong position on the sinfulness of a behavior that does not tempt me.” It is not my position or that of the OPC to exclude homosexuals from the church or the means of Grace administered therein. Having said that, sinful sexual behavior, which homosexuality is, would be no different than any other sin that must be dealt with. A homosexual would need to confess their sin and repent of it in the same way that an adulterer or fornicator would. They would also need to submit themselves, like any other member of the church, to the government (Elders) of the church for accountability and should they be found delinquent in doctrine or life, heed it’s discipline. Militant homosexuality will not and would not be tolerated within the church. Homosexuals that desire to flaunt their sin and want to continue unabated and without repentance need not apply. There is a certain “exclusivity” to the church of Jesus Christ. It is most certainly not a place where “perfect” people meet, but it is also not a place where a person comes to buy fire insurance and live like Hell with no consequences. The church is a voluntary organization and to join means that you will voluntarily submit to and subject yourself to its rules. The joining member will be made aware of such rules prior to joining and if he/she feels that they cannot abide by said rules then they, in good conscience, should not join the church and the church, in good conscience, should not accept them as members. But once you take your vows of membership it is your responsibility, under God, to submit to the Biblical rule of His church and the church’s responsibility, under God, to care for you.
I get very nervous when I hear terms like inclusion, acceptance and tolerance. These are the very words that the liberals, in the minority position, used to guilt the conservatives, in the majority position, into submission in the early 20th century. Once the liberals were able to maneuver their way into the positions of power within the church’s government there was no more inclusion, acceptance, and tolerance for the conservatives. At that point it was “get in line” with us (the liberals) or you will lose your ministries and churches and all that that entails (salaries, retirement, etc…). With this kind of history I’m sure you can understand that we get a little testy when these words are used.
I’m not certain that there is more that I need to say. I’ll sleep on it tonight and if more needs to be said then I’ll try to do that soon.
Thanks again for stopping by Eric.
Eric,
A couple of other quick responses:
Thank you very much for your kind prayers. Even though I’m not a part of the PC(USA), we have our own challenges within the OPC (Federal Vision and all that entails, NPP, etc…). You prayers are coveted and appreciated.
I have seen from a distance some of the troubles that the Episcopalian Church has/is encountering. By God’s grace alone do any of us stand and it is my prayer that He would make straight (no pun intended) in all of us our crooked and sinful ways. My sincere prayers are with you.
Just a quick bit to clarify: I do not think we have any difference concerning the sinful character of homosexual behavior.
My comment was intended to go to the issue of what is the fundamental, rather than superficial issue. I think that the homosexuality conflict is the result of the true war, which is the authority of Holy Scripture, and of Biblical doctrine. On an organizational level, those issues have been lost in the episcopal church.
I agree that h is sin, scripture soundly proclaims it so. My difficulty is that when I pronounce as sin something to which I am not tempted, it becomes very easy to come across (or actually become) self-righteous and judgmental. I am on much safer ground when pronouncing that God hates theft, adultery, divorce, murder, etc., all of which I have either done or contemplated, and according to Jesus’ exposition in the Sermon on the Mount, to have done it in my heart is the same. On these things I can proclaim how they remove one from God, and how repentance, and a way of restoration has been made. I can say these things from a position of humility, as someone grateful for receiving that very grace I so desperately needed.
Also, If it were left just to “the book of Eric” and no insight into God’s revelation, I would be pretty tolerant of homosexuality. I have known many gay men in my profession, and several are on my list of men whose professional life I would like to emulate. But that’s just the rub; we are not left to write our own book, God has revealed Himself to us, and on this issue he has been quite clear. He has called me to change my thoughts many times, to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed according to the renewal of [my] mind”
BTW, I can well appreciate how some words have become red flags, having been hijacked as coded language. I tend to resist this by outright rejection. The words have their original sound meanings, which I intend. I will also sometimes use the oppositions description of themselves, while utterly rejecting the accuracy of that description. That seems charitable. They seem predominately concerned with labels, and not at all with substance. I prefer the reality, and could not care less about the label.
I quite agree with your description of the change and how it came about.