FYI: Contending for the faith and the Edwards accusation
March 2, 2007
New complaint filed in Pittsburgh same-sex marriage case
14 accusers say Janet Edwards willfully defied ordination vows, church law
by Evan Silverstein
The Rev. Janet Edwards
LOUISVILLE - A new complaint has been filed against the Rev. Janet Edwards, the Presbyterian minister in Pittsburgh who last year was taken to church court for marrying a lesbian couple, only to have the charges dropped because the court found they were filed four days late.
The Rev. James C. Yearsley, a Presbyterian minister who is currently serving in Florida, filed a complaint against Edwards shortly after she performed the marriage in June 2005, only to see the charges against her dismissed on a technicality in November. Pittsburgh Presbytery's Permanent Judicial Commission ruled that a special investigating committee filed charges against Edwards after its deadline for doing so.
The Rev. James C. Yearsley
But now a new case may be brought against Edwards, who has been an activist for the full participation of gay and lesbian people in the church.
Yearsley announced last month that he has submitted a new grievance against Edwards that alleges she acted in "willful and deliberate defiance" of her ordination vows and of the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Seven other PC(USA) ministers and six elders from Texas, North Carolina, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington state have signed on to the new complaint, joining Yearsley as "co-accusers."
Yearsley, who filed the original 2005 complaint alone, said in a press release that he decided to re-file the accusation with Pittsburgh Presbytery in conjunction with others this time "because the church and Ms. Edwards never had their day in court."
The PC(USA)'s Book of Order defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and
church courts have ruled that Presbyterian ministers may not utilize the denomination's marriage liturgy in same-sex ceremonies.
Edwards was ordained by Pittsburgh Presbytery in 1977 and served as its moderator in 1987. She currently is assigned as an "at large" minister working primarily as a parish associate through the Community of Reconciliation, an interracial and multi-denominational congregation that is open to persons of all sexual orientations.
"I am sincerely and deeply disturbed by the renewal of accusations against me for presiding at the wedding," Edwards said. "Embracing the loving Holy Spirit, which so filled the wedding of Nancy (McConn) and Brenda (Cole), is what we desperately need now, not contending against it."
A Pittsburgh native, Yearsley, 55, has been pastor of Village Presbyterian Church in Tampa, FL, since February 2006. When he filed his original complaint against Edwards he was serving as pastor at Mt. Hope Community Church, a Presbyterian congregation in suburban Pittsburgh.
Yearsley and the 13 other ministers and elders are being represented by Paul Rolf Jensen, a southern California attorney who has filed dozens of similar complaints against Presbyterian ministers and governing bodies throughout the United States.
"What our denomination desperately needs right now are people contending for the faith," Jensen said. "To ignore Rev. Edwards' gross misconduct and heretical behavior would be to turn a blind eye to the cancer that inflicts our denomination."
In their complaint, a copy of which Jensen provided to the Presbyterian News Service, the church leaders accused Edwards of acting in "willful and deliberate violation of her ordination vows" as stated in the Book of Order by performing the same-sex wedding ceremony of Cole and McConn.
Edwards, 56, said she does not believe she violated her ordination vows by marrying the lesbian partners, who live near Wheeling, WV.
McConn is a lifelong Presbyterian and longtime member of Dallas Presbyterian Church in Dallas, WV. Cole was raised Methodist but now is a practicing Buddhist.
The 14 co-accusers also contend that Edwards performed a marriage ceremony that was "heretical and apostate" in that it was "contrary to the Word of God and the Book of Confessions by expressing Buddhist doctrine anathema to the Christian faith."
They also claim that Edwards "assaulted the peace, unity and purity of the church" by repeatedly proclaiming in the secular media "defiance, apostasy and intent to continue such behavior."
Edwards, who is a direct descendant of legendary Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards, could face a number of punishments, including removal from ordained ministry, if the case goes to trial and she's convicted.
"As this renewed disciplinary process unfolds my focus will be upon reconciling prayer, trusting completely that God's love can bring healing and reconciliation to us all in the PC(USA) and that what will happen will help to spread the gospel," Edwards said.
Jensen responded that "the gospel of Jesus Christ is being distorted and perverted by Rev. Edwards and her supporters."
The Rev. James E. Mead, Pittsburgh Presbytery's executive, declined to comment on the case.
The seven ministers joining Yearsley in signing the complaint are: the Rev. L. Russ Howard of Washington Presbytery; the Rev. David Perry of Coastal Carolina Presbytery; the Rev. James Coone of Grace Presbytery; the Rev. Robert Kopp of Blackhawk Presbytery; the Rev. Jim Tilly of Blackhawk Presbytery; the Rev. Toby Brown of Mission Presbytery; and the Rev. Mark Hughey of Blackhawk Presbytery.
The six elders signing the complaint are: Sarah Beard of Mountain View Presbyterian Church in Marysville, WA; Everett Worrell of First Presbyterian Church in Belvidere, IL; Mark Rouleau of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Rockford, IL; Robert Gagnon of Eastminster Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh, PA; Pamela Easton of Bethany Presbyterian Church in Loves Park, IL; and Virginia Worrell of First Presbyterian Church in Belvidere, IL.
Posts
38 remonstrances:
The following is an Jack Haberer's reply to a recent letter to the Outlook:
" James Crawford asks, "Could someone just show me where a woman is serving in the EPC as an ordained pastor. I've been through their directory and can't seem to find one but perhaps it's just me." According to the EPC's Associate Stated Clerk, Ed McCallum, they have two ordained women ministers. One served as a hospital chaplain until her recent retirement. The other presently serves as an associate pastor in a large church."
I hope that these churches in Pittsburgh are aware of this reality before they head over to the good ship EPC. My fear is that they know it all too well and, perhaps secretly at this point, none too upset.
I don't know how any self-respecting female minister of Word and Sacrament could go into such a situation. It seems rather clear that all the old battles will have to be fought again, and this time it is far from likely that the women will win. It is a siren song that lures you to some very dangerous waters.
The NWAC may be taking "their women" with them, but five years from now, when the grace period is up, what then? I can venture a guess....NWAC women will be left in the cold.
Bill
Ah yes, and does the Boogey Man still live in our closets?
Come on! What a crock!
These tired old scare tactics don't do any of us any good. Being scared of the NWAC is one thing, but just raising these silly accusations and 'smear and fear' tactics just make those raising them look really...tired and out of date.
BTW--
I don't know any 'self respecting' female ministers who would sell out to the progressive agenda just to save their pensions.
The evangelical women pastors that I know and love are fierce defenders of the truth, loyal servants of Christ and they are far too smart and courageous to buy this pack of falsehoods about the NWAC.
For the record "Bill" and "James Crawford" are no relation.
Even though my dad is a James Crawford and my real name is Bill.
It's all about me after all ;)
I've seen about five permutations of this same argument online. Looks like the talking points have been put together.
I would say that churches that don't include women in all aspects of the life of the church are "heretical and apostate" and contrary to the teachings of Jesus..
John,
Ok, I'll bite:
And what do you think of those denominations that will not ordain persons in homosexual relationships?
I'm legitimately curious if you apply the same standard on both of those issues.
Is the PCUSA apostate in your eyes, because of our 'fidelity and chastity' provision and the 1978 AI?
Lovely Toby, you managed to rail against my post, calling it, and I quote, "a crock, scare tactics, silly, and smear and fear, out of date, and falsehoods" without, not one time, addressing the actual issue. This is bad even for your rather low standards. It is usually the case the the stronger the vitriol, the greater the truth the vitriol is trying to mask. Women, beware.
What aspect of the quote from evangelical Jack Haberer is untrue?
Bill
And people say the PCUSA "never" does anything to enforce it's constitution and confessions.
Toby - Bill is right. You made derisive noises at him without addressing his comment.
Bill - why does your comment appear on a post discussing Janet Edwards?
Toby - I consider women's ordination and gay ordination to be similar. The PC(USA) and EPC have not reached apostate status on either for me, because I don't feel strongly enough to consider them an essential for everybody. I will say that the lack of women's ordination would make me very uncomfortable in a denomination, and the lack of gay ordination is making me uncomfortable in the PC(USA).
Bill,
I don't know where your words and Jack's begin and end in the way that you wrote your comment.
I respect and like Jack Haberer, but strongly disagree with not only his analysis of our present situation but also with his prescriptions for our work.
Tell me what in your comment words were of your own design and what words were from Jack and I'll respond.
Also, I think that you need to do some more homework. I'll tell it to you again:
THE NWAC IS FORMING A TRANSITIONAL PRESBYTERY OF THEIR OWN WITHIN THE EPC!
The churches that are in the NWAC are fully affirming of the gifts of ordained women at all levels of their churches.
That is the whole point of this NWAC presbytery, so that there can be a time to work with our EPC brothers and sisters and try it out for a few years.
It has always been admitted that this may or may not work out.
So, are you mad at the NWAC or the EPC?
If the accusations in your comment are your own, then they are silly and wrong.
That's what I'm saying.
Mark,
Thanks for the rational response.
I will give Bill a response when he shows us whose words are whose.
I can't figure out if he is quoting someone else or saying it himself.
Cameron,
Maybe you should wait and see where the case goes before pronouncing that justice is being done.
An accusation is one thing, a conviction or retraction is another.
Nothing is vindicated yet.
Time for some questions pertinent to the original topic.
Toby,
A few questions.
1. Have you ever met Janet Edwards?
2. Are you aware of this wedding from a source other than the media or the original complaint?
3. Is your involvement in the complaint necessary to the prosecution of the complaint? In other words, would it have gone forward without you?
Mark,
Thanks for bringing us back to the topic.
1. I have never met her.
2. I learned of this 'wedding' from Jim Yearsley, a brother in Christ and fellow Westmister Fellowship member. I trust him implicitly.
3. The addition of my name to the complaint is not necessary for it to go forward, polity wise. It would have gone forward without me.
I'll let you have the next response.
The next question is:
What reason other than political grandstanding is there for someone in Texas, who has never met the defendant, and who has no personal knowledge of the offense, to get involved in a disciplinary case? Provided of course that an accuser who fits the above is available?
The first paragraph is from Jack Haberer. The rest is mine. That's usually what quote marks mean. And, for the record, it is silly and wrong to lure these women into the so-caled transitional presbytery without giving them all the facts. The facts are overwhelming: the EPC is not about to recognize the ordination of women in the same way it is recognized in the PCUSA. I hope the NWAC women have a plan B.
And, finally, there no need to YELL!
Bill
Mark,
The reason is for the sake of my ordination vows.
I'll give you my personal explanation. I can't speak for the others, of course.
I made a vow when ordained, taken before God and this church, to stand by the constitution and uphold he biblical standards.
When I see a fellow minister take that oath and trash it, then I have the obligation (in my understanding of my vows) to take a stand for what's right.
James Yearsley, who brought the charge and invited me to join in the complaint with him, is a brother in Christ and a trusted fellow member of the Westminster Fellowship, of which I am a part.
So, in my own small way, adding my name to the list of complainants is my way of fulfulling my vows to the church and to my Savior.
I also have in mind these words of Paul to Timothy:
"But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony beforePontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time.."
1 Timothy 6:11-16
Those are some 'life verses' for me in ministry.
Here I stand.
Good questions, Toby!
I used the words, "heretical and apostate", to mock the language of the complaint against Janet Edwards. Words like heretical, apostate, and I would add homophobia are thrown around much too easily in these conflicts.
I would say that denominations that do not include glbt persons in the life of the church are wrong, contrary to the life demonstrated by Jesus. Yes, there are six passages that speak against homosexual behavior (even more if you include Gagnon’s obsessive analysis of the Bible. I asked him several years ago on Presbweb whether hs attitude about homosexuality developed before or after his exhaustive study of the Bible. He just got mad). But we all cherry pick. If God meant what is written in Leviticus then you have no alternative but putting us to death. I guess we should be grateful for that, considering what is happening in the Muslim world.
I would apply the same standards of Biblical interpretation to sex and race.
Regarding our ‘fidelity and chastity' provision and the 1978 AI, they are a part of the Book of Order and should be enforced (as should the property clause). I have a problem with churches and presbyteries that ignore these provisions. It just defers the issues. Only when real persons begin to be charged and removed will change come.
Regarding the Edwards case, I’m not sure you will prevail. There is no out right ban on such ceremonies. A recent overture to do just that was defeated.
Toby,
What does your involvement add to the process? Once the investigating committee files charges, even Jim Yearsley is no longer involved (except perhaps as a witness).
I submit that your involvement does nothing to further the case, generates heat but no more light, and is being done for political purposes.
From an ecclesiastical standpoint, your involvement is unnecessary. You may agree, but there is no reason for you to participate unless it's to satisfy yourself.
Bill,
I 'yelled' in your general direction because I get tired of repeating the same points of public knowledge again and again.
In regards to your comment, I guess I should have known that Jack Haberer would not have written the words that were under the first paragraph!
You may not know it but you are simply giving out the same tired 'talking points' of the various parties that are opposed to the NWAC effort.
If you can't or won't take the NWAC leadership's words and the NWAC constitution at face value, then that's your choice.
You are free to go on trusting in the tender mercies of Louisville and our Stated Clerk instead. After all, the've led us so well in the past!
I'll stand with the New Wineskins any day. I know them and I know their hearts. They are not lying.
Can you say the same about the leaders of the PCUSA?
Mark,
You raise a valid concern, one that I did take into account before siging on.
But, in the end, each one of us must search out his or her motives and seek the aid and counsel of the Spirit speaking in Scripture.
That's what I did and that's why I agreed to sign the complaint.
I can't change the reaction of others, just as I can't judge them. But I can stand up for what I am convinced is right.
Time will tell if my decision was beneficial to the body or harmful. I pray that it will be the former.
Hi Toby,
Thanks for your comments on my blog.
Okay, as I've posted so recently... I am a self-admitted "dumb blonde". What do you mean when you say the leaders of the PCUSA are lying? When my husband and I were members of the same Presbytery as our Stated Clerk, he seemed to be a genuine, committed Presbyter. My observations only -- he *seemed* like a faithful man. You obviously don't agree. I'm still trying to figure all of this stuff out...
Peace,
Alex
Toby,
Indeed I can say the same thing about the leadership of the PCUSA. Though I do not know them personally, I feel they genuinely are trying to uphold the constitution and abiding by the various rulings of the GA. The NWAC people on the other hand strike me as duplicitous in their attempt to enter the EPC fold. Where are they going to go if the thing with EPC does not work out? I submit....nowhere. It'll be every women for herself at that point. I know it is merely speculation on my part, but it is informed speculation based on the duplicitousness they have shown in openly and without compunction violating the constitution and encouraging others to do the same. They are the ones who should be brought up on charges, but you are strangely silent on that point. I guess if you are not glbt or sympathetic, you get a free pass on the constitution.
NWAC was conceived in a dishonest abdication of the covenant that holds us together as Presbyterians. What makes anyone think they will not do it again as soon as it suits them?
Bill
My apologies. I should have said in my last post, "I submit...nothing."
Mark writes, "What reason other than political grandstanding is there for someone in Texas, who has never met the defendant, and who has no personal knowledge of the offense, to get involved in a disciplinary case? "
Great question, Mark. I wonder if charges should be filed against Toby for ignoring Matthew 18:15-17. But perhaps we don't have to follow the Bible when dealing with a brother or sister who we believe is not following the Bible? I also wonder what the point is for someone involved in NW to file such charges. Using a "connectional church" argument as a rationalization for being involved in this trial seems strange coming from someone who supports a secessionist movement like New Wineskins. And from a practical standpoint, this move also seems silly ... aren't you all leaving anyway?
Sorry for 2 posts in a row, but perhaps you can answer another question for me Toby... Why bring charges against Rev. Edwards and not the participants? At least one of the women Rev. Edwards allegedly married is a Presbyterian. In fact, as far as I'm aware, in every one of these Jenson cases, Pastors are brought up on charges, but never the actual participants. Is the reason for this, as I suspect, because charges against laypersons don't carry the real threat and satisfaction of forcing someone out of their job? Or is there a less cynical reason?
Alex,
To be perfectly clear, I do not think the leaders of PCUSA are lying. What I do think is that they have been less than truthful on many matters and that they avoid telling all of the facts when it suits their agenda.
What is that agenda? Preserving the PCUSA as it now is. That makes them the opponents of the progressives and the evangelicals who will not 'play ball'.
My evidence? The Louisville Papers and the tons of evidence that Will Spotts has compiled on his wonderful Truth in Love Network website.
THere you have it Alex...Toby doesn't think the leaders of the PCUSA are "lying", just that they "are less than truthful." hmmm. Guess you'll have to decide how truthful Toby is being.
Bill,
Now your real agenda becomes clear to all of us: tear down the NWAC and insult them at all costs.
Finally we have arrived at your real motives. I wonder why it took so long...
And BTW--I ALWAYS call it like I see it around here and I always sign my full name.
Alan,
I thought you knew better than to misrepresent the New Wineskins effort in the way that you did in your first comment.
I'm not leaving, nor are the majority of New Wineskins congregations. Therefore, I will continue to witness for what I believe is right.
I will not apologize for that.
Egads! I can't believe that you have smoked out my "real" agenda, to be critical of the NWAC and actually express that criticism. And, if first and last names are required here in order to escape your snarkiness, I am....
Bill Rutherford
Do you need my Social Security number as well?
Sorry, Toby.
It is clear from your words and actions that you are trying to force the PC(USA) to be what YOU want it to be.
I would like the PC(USA) to be what WE (all of us) and God want it to be.
Therein lies the difference between us.
Toby,
OK, so some of the NW folks aren't leaving. Call that a misrepresentation (wow...so touchy!) but that was what I thought was happening based on reading your blog. You don't deny that NW is certainly helping people leave, right? They're publishing all sorts of information about how to leave with church property, etc. So, obviously what you mean by staying "connectional" is quite different than what the rest of us mean, so the question still seems relevant to me.
But since you don't like that question, I'll repeat my others:
1) How do you deal with the contradictory position of ignoring the Biblical mandate of Matt 18:15-17 in order to file charges against someone you've never met for allegedly ignoring Biblical mandate?
2) Why don't you folks ever go after the lay participants of these weddings? Is it because you wouldn't get the satisfaction of getting someone fired?
Toby,
I didn't say justice was being done, my emphasis was on doing something to enforce the constitution, which you and the others have done; that some don't give credit to the PCUSA for even doing this much. I am giving you credit for what you've [all] properly done so far but I also see Mark point.
Bill said: "The NWAC people on the other hand strike me as duplicitous in their attempt to enter the EPC fold. Where are they going to go if the thing with EPC does not work out? I submit....nowhere. It'll be every women for herself at that point. I know it is merely speculation on my part,"
And you'd be right because at the convocation of which I am sure you were present the point was made by many more than one NWAC pastor and elder that "full inclusion" could very well be a deal breaker.
BTW where do they go? The NWAC become a reformed denomination on their own.
Alan asked in a later post:
"Why bring charges against Rev. Edwards and not the participants? At least one of the women Rev. Edwards allegedly married is a Presbyterian. In fact, as far as I'm aware, in every one of these Jenson cases, Pastors are brought up on charges, but never the actual participants."
The real reason is because the court of original jurisdiction for a "member" is the Session of the particular church to which they belong. And pastors, elders, and deacons are held to a higher standard, thus ordination vows.
Toby,
If you ever decide to answer Alan’s question regarding Matthew 18:15-17, it would be instructive to include a discussion on what Jesus meant by letting brothers who sin be to us as Gentiles and Tax collectors.
How do you figure Jesus regarded Gentiles and tax collectors?
Jodie
Red Cleric writes,
"The real reason is because the court of original jurisdiction for a "member" is the Session of the particular church to which they belong. And pastors, elders, and deacons are held to a higher standard, thus ordination vows."
And why have any deacons or elders that have participated not been brought up on charges? Why have the sessions which approved use of the sanctuary for these weddings not been charged?
Sorry...still seems like pretty thin reasoning to me.
Toby has written an extensive post now about why he believes he's doing the right thing. One wonders why then, he doesn't feel it important to bring everyone to justice, not just Pastors.
Post a Comment