Wacky: The GAPJC advocates chaos.
How to sum up the c-r-a-z-y ruling of the GAPJC? Humor!
I actually laughed when I understood their ruling. I mean, the PNS story reads about as seriously as The Onion!
Here's my thought--"This is what our finest legal minds can come up with?"
So, in the interest of furthering our laughter at the inane, here is the visual summary of my reaction to the ruling:
BTW--Does this mean that I can baptize my dog now? I mean, why not, it's not like the baptism of a dog is a real baptism anyway!
Posts
31 remonstrances:
If you baptize your dog, aren't you obligated to bring him/her to Sunday School?
Truly a triumph of sophistry, wasn't it?
~shaking head in disbelief~
You want to throw some water on your dog and say the Trinitarian formula over it, knock yourself out.
Just remember that all your doing is getting the dog wet.
I agree with the verdict, how can you punish someone for doing something that you believe isn't possible?
QG,
They are trying so hard not to offend anyone that they forgot their main job--to tell the church how to go about living by our constitution in their rulings. This kind of cop out is about all we can expect in the post PUP world that is the PCUSA.
Your poster is good. I like my tee shirt that reads, "Everyday I can't believe people can get any dumber. And everyday I'm proven wrong."
What a horrible mess we're in.
Alan
Ahhh, kinda reminds me of the time when our own US President debated what the definition of "is" is.... er, was... sheesh!
--------------------------------
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
--1 Timothy 6:3-5
Tim Olds
I can see the trickle down now
.....I didn't steal his identity, your honor. How can I steal what is not mine?
Presbyterian Gal, the difference is that we agree that identities exist.
The Book of Order defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and doesn't admit the possibility of same-sex marriage. I imagine that most of the commenters here would agree with that definition and would say that it is impossible for marriage to be anything else.
So, given that, how was it possible for Rev. Spahr to perform a marriage that involved two women? From that set of givens the only possibilities are that she did not, in fact, perform a same sex marriage or that same sex marriages are not impossible. No matter how hard you wish it, you can't have it both ways.
We define Baptism as being something that occurs between God and humans, therefore, no matter how much water Toby puts on his dog, and no matter how loudly he claims that he is baptizing the dog, it's not a Baptism.
In my history of Baptism class in seminary, as part of reenacting historical baptismal rituals, we baptized a rutabaga. Should everyone involved have been brought up on disciplinary charges, or can we agree that no baptism actually happened?
>From that set of givens the only possibilities are that she did not, in fact, perform a same sex marriage or that same sex marriages are not impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, but what about the dishonesty factor? She called these unions "Marriages". "..she also signed a “Certificate of Marriage” for each of the ceremonies which is the subject of this case."
Is it therefore OK to lie in public and in print about what you're doing?
I wonder how different this case might have been if a minister had preformed a "plural marriage". Technically, all the same elements would apply. So would we say that's OK too?
That was me. Lord I am tired today,
Anyway, I wanted to respond to Meghan:
The logic of the pastor who married the same sex couple is akin to the logic of someone who steals an identity to obtain a credit card.
The identity thief does not agree in the existence of identities in the same way you and I and the law see it. They believe that all these things that "establish" ones identity are fair game. If they did not believe so, they would not do what they do.
I would have far preferred the GAPJC to set aside the rite, discipline the pastor AND put the issue of same sex marriage back on the discussion table to be heard and discussed fairly by ALL sides.
I disagree with what happened because it is based in fraud. It was dishonest and disrespects EVERYONE involved. Gay, straight, married, not married, and the church.
What Presbyterian Gal said.
Since our Book of Order does not recognize same-sex "marriages" and presuming Ms. Spahr was aware it does not, what was she offering the "couples" whose ceremonies she officiated? What did they think they were getting? If they thought they were getting a marriage ceremony and she knew good and well she couldn't give them one, she's guilty of fraud, not to mention a lack of charity, and had jolly well give back the fee. And be disciplined by the PCPJC for her deceit and ethical failure.
But of course simple fraud was not her purpose, was it? The idea is to keep on performing same-sex "marriages" until their sheer proliferation will wear, wear, wear down all opposition and so "create" the reality desired. This is a specious way of imitating the divine process of creatio ex nihilo, a presumptuous exercise not in the least flattering to our Maker and Lord.
"If they thought they were getting a marriage ceremony and she knew good and well she couldn't give them one, she's guilty of fraud, not to mention a lack of charity. . ."
Or, maybe, she was doing something we like to call "pastoral care" by providing them what they needed, without worrying if her answer would pass an ord.
And before you get started, please don't try to convince me that the more pastoral response would be to tell them how sinful they are and try to get them to stop being lesbians.
Meghan,
Why you insist on avoiding the words of Jesus astound me. For someone who reads the Bible it could not be clearer. Hear the Word of the Lord:
"He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6
Case closed. Spahr committed fraud and sin and called it good.
I trust Jesus more than any PJC. Do you?
Meghan,
The more pastoral reply to them, not just according to scripture and the Church throughout time, would be to explain to them acting out sexaully on same sex attraction is a sin and for their own well-being they need to refrain from acting on sin and repent of any sin in that area. Encouraging, affirming, helping anyone to continue to sin is not pastoral.
And Meghan, that you cannot admit the tragic logic used by the GAPJC (even while continuing to support the progressive position if you like) reveals a blind loyalty to a position that I think is unhealthy. When you read what the GAPJC said you cannot do, and then read Jane Spahr's upfront and honest comments that she has done those very things and (since the ruling) has said she will continue to do the rulings, how can any clear thinking person not say, "That is a terrible ruling." I will not be surprised to read a future release from Jane stating as much----not that she supports the ruling but that it doesn't make sense. She isn't trying to hide what she is doing behind deceitful words or foggy thinking and I applaude her for it.
Now Toby do you not know that the verses you have quoted are a textual variant not found in the best manuscripts and just reflects the community that wrote "Matthew" and their tradition and not the actual words of Jesus who would have never had accepted putting God in a box?
One important note: I don't believe that Janie Spahr committed fraud.
Her defense leaned heavily on disobedience from a prophetic point of view.
It was the PJCs (presbytery and GA) that came up with this "if a tree falls in a forest" defense.
Benjamin,
That's an interesting point you made.
Although I'm pretty sure you were just being sarcastic. I'm still interested in what these "best manuscripts" are you are referring to.
Are you saying there is variation in the known manuscripts?
My opinion:
First, realize that I am an unabashed supporter of gay marriage and gay ordination. We have debated that issue here repeatedly and I don't see any point to doing it again. I'll confine the rest of my remarks to this decision.
The GA PJC did us an injustice with this decision. This was a "make the problem go away" decision issued right before a General Assembly that is likely to be controversial for many other reasons. It is very clear that the GA PJC (based on it's February decision) would prefer that the church solve the problem of disagreement on gay issues without constantly using the disciplinary systems of the denomination. (Case in point - Toby's "flyover" accusation of Janet Edwards)
This decision uses poor logic to avoid making a real determination, and then compounds that error by creating a new rule. The denomination would have been better served by the GA PJC admitting that there were no rules against an ordained PCUSA minister from performing a gay marriage and therefore Spahr was not guilty, but NOW there is a rule against it. Even that is legislating from the bench and should have been left for the General Assembly and the presbyteries to handle.
So - this ruling was not a plus for either side on this debate, nor for the middle. It is a minus for all sides. This is a lose-lose decision.
Long time reader, first time poster! :) I have to agree with Mark. Jane Spahr was performing marriages to 'prophetically' speak out at what she sees as an injustice in our denomination. Regardless of anyone's opinion on gay marriage, Jane was 100% crystal clear that she was marrying people in violation of an unjust constitution (her reasoning, not mine). Why the GAPJC chose to ignore that is beyong me.
I am one of those moderates who is straddling the fence on this issue. However, I am extremely insulted by this decision. It is embarassing. What do they say about ties in baseball? Its like kissing your sister. Blech. But that is how this makes me feel.
I've met Jane Spahr, talked with her, called her wrong to her face.
She would not support this ruling. She was as others assert trying to be prophetic. She (I believe) wants to be a martyr for this cause.
She is, however, dead wrong.
The rationale Toby is trying to explain is this. If something is not mentioned in the BOO then it is an unchargeable offense.
Then baptize dogs (its not mentioned) and nobody can stop you. In fact let your mind wander to all the incredibly stupid things that the BOO does not bother to prohibit and imagine ordained clergy doing them. The precedent (GAPJC decisions do set precedent) is set - you have no power over me.
It is a pandora's box.
I once served on a presbytery PJC. A well-known member of presbytery decided to make a test case on "fidelity/chastity" as it was then new to the Book of Order, and so chose to self-accuse a personal violation. The PJC knew this was intended to become a test case. The PJC knew it was nonsense. The PJC chose to rule that there was no evidence of any real violation, and thus threw the case out. The Spahr case has some similarities, but the big difference is that there is quite a bit of evidence that Janie Spahr's INTENT was to perform same marriages, and her ACTIONS were consistent with this intent.
This GAPJC either lacks the moral clarity to take a stand, or the common sense to discern reality.
As much as I love dogs, baptizing a dog would, of course, be a scandal because it would misrepresent the sacrament and improperly witness to the nature of the sacramental life of the church, which is actually the work of Christ.
Similarly, a pastor or any other ordained officer of the church who deliberately misrepresents the covenantal nature of Christian marriage between one man and one woman creates scandal by improperly witnessing to an essential human relationship given to us as a gift by God, blessed by the church's head, Jesus Christ, and sustained by the Holy Spirit.
Both acts create unnecessary confusion and mislead both believers and non-believers alike about matters of biblically based faith and practice. This regrettable decision by the GA-PJC only adds to the confusion. Scandalous behavior should be of extreme concern to those who have pledged to work for the peace, unity, and purity of the church. That such scandal is of no concern at all in some corners of the church comes as no surprise, particularly as we live in an age where, as Richard Foster accurately notes, "we lack a proper ontology of the human person."
As we approach Pentecost, I am reminded of the example set by the apostles and earliest disciples, our forbearers in faith, as they awaited the promised arrival of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:14:
“All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.” (Acts 1:14 NRSV)
May it be so for us who are striving to remember whose we are.
>Now Toby do you not know that the verses you have quoted are a textual variant not found in the best manuscripts and just reflects the community that wrote "Matthew" and their tradition and not the actual words of Jesus who would have never had accepted putting God in a box?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry Benjamin, I don't know where you get your information on this, but I'd sure like to see it because it doesn't match anything I have ever read.
First, Matthew 19:4-6 is a direct quote from Mark 10:7-9. Since everyone agrees that Mark pre-dates Matthew, how could it be possible that a “community” edited and changed a word for word quote that existed before the document they supposedly “edited”? That simply makes no sense.
Are you saying that Matthew pre-dates Mark and that Mark relied on a Matthean text? That would be news to the scholarly world.
Second, the early idea that Matthew was written in Hebrew before it was translated into Greek and pretty much been dismissed.
Third, any discussion on the source of verses 9:10-12, verses that Toby did not quote, are based mostly on content and the reliance of Markan sources, not textual variations.
Yet, I may be wrong. What is your source for this assertion?
Al Sandalow
Ellenaburg, WA
Pastor Al,
Benjamin was being facetious. He holds to Scriptural interpretation by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as far as I understand.
Incidentally, so do I.
Also, there are many scholars who do hold to the Matthew before Mark way of thinking.
But either way, I think that Mark and Matthew are both based on eye witness accounts in the first or second generation of believers and are historically accurate in their accounts.
This may be a rabbit trail from our discussion, but its an important one.
But wait -- didn't Christ come to redeem ALL creation?? I would think that would include dogs... :) Except our basset hound -- she is an atheist and proud of it!
Well, once again, the internet sarcasm filter seems to be working. Sorry I missed the intent.
Toby writes, “Here's my thought--"This is what our finest legal minds can come up with?"
As you well know, PJCs are made up of elders and ministers elected by presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly, not church’s finest legal minds. Jesus reserved his strongest invectives for such as these, the scribes. If I remember correctly you praised this very commission for a decision that went the way you wanted it to be.
My solution would be to remove the clergy as agents of the state in the performance of marriage ceremonies. Marriage is a civil affair, not a sacrament. If couples want to have the marriage blessed in the church, go there after you register with the state. Same sex unions are coming whether the churches like it or not. Look to what is happening in Catholic Spain, Italy and even in South America. We are close to same sex marriage in New York and California.
John, I actually agree with you on "My solution would be to remove the clergy as agents of the state in the performance of marriage ceremonies" except in reverse.
I would have the state with the authority to do civil unions---why should they get to call them marriages? Anyone the state deemed able could go and have a civil union done by the State.
But if two Christians would like to have a marriage, a covenant between a man and a woman as established by God, then they would need to go to a church. A hetrosexual couple could do both of the above (have a civil union and marraige / covenant ceremony). A same sex couple could have a civil union done and, sad to say, I would imagine they wouldn't have to search too hard to find a UCC church or the like where they could have a marriage / covenant ceremony where some clergy would bless their sin and communicate to them a lie / twisted view of God's Word.
Sorry for misleading you Rev. Al. We do need to have some type of sarcasm button, my eternal downfall will be my sarcastic/smartalic nature. :)
Incidentally the notations in the Nestle-Aland Greek NT have very little textual variants for this passage.
Benjamin,
Ah yes... Nestle-Aland. The use of corrupt manuscripts and all that. Is that more sarcasm? On second thought, I guess not since that passage shows little variation. I'm still wondering what manuscripts you consider "best".
Post a Comment