Q. When are Presbyterian (USA) Pastors not Pastors? A.When they are California State officials performing civil marriages for same sex couples?
Although proposition 8 passed, the recent months of legal marriages of lesbian and gay couples in California has spawned deeper problems for the Presbyterian Church (USA). And evidently the Pastors and Session of Davis Community Church and the lawyers for the Covenant Network have added to the moral debacle.
The Davis Community Church, a member of Sacramento Presbytery, recently published their November newsletter The Courier.1 In it, under the title, “A Letter from Session to Members and Friends of Davis Community Church Regarding the Blessing of Same-Gender Marriages,” they insist that Covenant Network lawyers gave advice to their Church concerning the ecclesiastical legality of their pastors performing civil marriage ceremonies for gay and Lesbian couples.
Session members are seeing double! They insist that a pastor is both a pastor and “a duly authorized official of the state of California.” The Session members of Davis Community Church are, or were, preparing to allow their pastors to put on a different hat and marry gay and lesbian couples in a civil ceremony and then bring them into the Church for a blessing.
They write, “A DCC pastor, therefore, acting in his or her capacity as a duly authorized official of the State of California, may officiate at a civil same-gender marriage, with no reference during this legal event to the Presbyterian Church or any official action on behalf of that Church or DCC.” Seemingly they have forgotten that they are official because they are a pastor.
The Newsletter signed by members of DCC Session quote the Covenant lawyers. The members writing “that they [the lawyers] said in part:”
“There is nothing anyone can do to protect absolutely against another Presbyterian filing allegations complaining against one’s actions. However, allegations only become formal ‘charges’ if an Investigating Committee decides they have merit and should be pursued. We believe that ministers are well within Presbyterian polity to conduct a service creating a civil marriage and then invoking God’s and the community’s blessing on that new relationship.” (Bold Mine)Session members write that it is not their “intent to antagonize nor alienate brothers and sisters in Christ whose Biblical interpretations lead them to a stance of prohibition against ordination and marriage of partnered GLBT individuals.” They are also concerned that their “desire to express Jesus’ love for all by conducting a same-gender marriage" will "become overshadowed by a ‘media circus,’ transforming our wish for a loving act of inclusiveness into a highly charged political event.”
But the members conclude that they must allow this because of Jesus’ command to love one another and because “God calls us to demonstrate God’s love for all of us and celebrate our diversity across race, economic status, age, gender, disability, marital status, and sexual orientation.”
But the duplicity of the Sessions actions, and the underhandedness of the lawyers, if the Sessions report about their advice is correct, hardly models the connectedness of the Church or the love of Christ.
1 The News letter has been sent out to those who request it but is not yet published on the web.
20 comments:
“God calls us to demonstrate God’s love for all of us and celebrate our diversity across race, economic status, age, gender, disability, marital status, and sexual orientation.”
I sure would like to know what specific scripture calls for us to celebrate the diversity of sexual orientation. What proof could anyone actually have that God would call us to accept sin into the body of Christ? We are called to "Love the sinner, yet hate the sin."
My apologies for a second post so soon - I forgot to add my scriptural foundation for what I said.
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.
(Romans 12:8-10)
Where is the love? I am not finding it here @ this blogspot...
Thanks Andrea that is all very helpful. I think there is amisunderstanding among some as to what it means to love.
The tricky methods that these Covenant Network lawyers come up with reminds me of how the Pharisees found ways to get around their laws and do what they wanted to do anyway.
Oh, I just remembered; I've seen at least some evidence that progressives like the Pharisees. Maybe it's not such a coincidence after all.
I have two questions here:
1. How can a pastor act as an agent of the government when the government of CA does not currently allow for marriage between two people of the same gender? I know there has been talk of trying to overturn the vote by the people of CA to amend the constitution but how does one go about overturning an amendment to the constitution? The only way I could see would be to have another ballot initiative and have the people vote to remove the amendment passed. Seems to me that the folks at Davis are a bit behind the times.
2. Assuming for the moment that CA still allowed marriages between people of the same gender wouldn't the GAPJC have to acknowledge that this was in fact a marriage? I know the current stance is that the BoO says there is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same gender so the pastor officiating could not have performed a wedding but what if the state says it is a wedding?
j-smeezy, that's cheesy,
The love is the love that comes from Jesus christ who died on a cross for our sins. Therefore, we are to love those living in unrepentent sin in the same way he loved us. Reaching out to them and as Jude says even "snatching them out of the fire."
Debbie
I think you are right, those kind of tricks do seem somewhat Pharisee like. And like the Pharisees they are undoubtedly trying to hold to some kind of ethics but it can't be the law or the Prophets. Perhaps it is some type of post-modern ethics. Or even the end justifies the means?
Pastor Bob,
I think the Davis church was probably preparing this before proposition 8 passed. So many people thought it would not pass. And that should give orthodox Christians a clue as to what will happen if it is over turned by the courts.
On your second question, "Assuming for the moment that CA still allowed marriages between people of the same gender wouldn't the GAPJC have to acknowledge that this was in fact a marriage?" I can only think yes. So finally they would have to be brave enough to give a real answer to the question of its legality in the church.
Viola
I've heard talk of overturning the amendment through judicial action. How DOES one overturn an amendment? Isn't an amendment that has passed part of the constitution? I can see how some articles in a constitution might be considered murky but the amendment passed is pretty clear. Can the court indeed say one part of the constitution (a less clear part) overturn another part?
Of course people could go by the direct route and put an initiative on the ballot to remove the amendment. That it seems to me is the legal, correct and, in the word of Gollum less "tricksy" way of doing it.
Bob.
I don't know the answer to that question. It would be interesting to get a lawyer's opinion.
It would be interesting.
For one, I think the only legal way to amend the constitution is by a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature.
For another, I think the constitution is not to be used to limit the rights of individuals. That gets done elsewhere.
It also isn't used to define things like personhood, life, or property.
So there are many legal questions Proposition 8 raises, and it is very likely the Supreme Court will rule the whole thing out of order.
The real problem is the one we already talked about. One branch of the Church is telling us that homosexuality is a moral choice and should somehow be forbidden by law.
Scientific research tells us that is a baseless assumption. In recent decades it has gone further even and is telling us that same gender sexual preference is something people are born with, like the color of their eyes or skin.
For those who accept nature for what it is, laws that discriminate against homosexuals are immoral.
The Church always looses in these kinds of disputes. First its credibility, then the actual dispute itself.
Carl
Carl,
You write,
"The real problem is the one we already talked about. One branch of the Church is telling us that homosexuality is a moral choice and should somehow be forbidden by law."
This blog posting is about a Church and some lawyers attempting to undermine the PCUSA's constitution.
And it is the Bible, not one branch of the church, which states that homosex is sin.
You write,
"Scientific research tells us that is a baseless assumption. In recent decades it has gone further even and is telling us that same gender sexual preference is something people are born with, like the color of their eyes or skin."
This simply is not true.
And even if it was it would not trump the authority of the Bible. Some men are born with a disposition to violence but we don’t condone their violence.
Viola,
I thought you and Bob were talking about Proposition 8.
To your other point, in a secular (and or pluralistic) society such as ours, the bible does not have any authority.
No piece of paper ever does, truth be told. Authority rests in the hands of those who enforce what is interpreted by the courts to be on paper. This principle was in the Church long before it was in our legal system. That is what I meant by saying "one branch of the Church"
Not all branches of the Church believe or enforce the same interpretation of the bible. A fact of life.
If you want to make a legal case from the bible you can, but you have to extract from the bible that which transcends our assumptions about its origins and Judeo-Christian moorings.
It's not easy.
Carl
Carl,
We were talking about proposition 8 but in the context of the Davis church's newsletter. I was trying to bring the conversation back to the posting.
But you have helped with that by your comments on authority and the Church. And this is the problem.
There is a part of the church that attempts to deny the authority of scripture, but the church universal through the ages has always held that the Bible is the word of God. And the word of God is ultimate. His word holds authority over all other authority whether they acknowledge that authority or not.
Viola,
How do you reconcile that last paragraph with your comments on Luther in a more recent post?
Nobody even raised an eyebrow that Luther would take it upon himself to claim that whole books in the bible did not belong.
Yet, I am sure that Evangelicals today would be very much up in arms with his subjectivism, would they not?
To this day the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox still do not hold your view of the bible. That's over 2/3 of all of Christianity, I think. Are they not part of the church universal?
Carl
Carl,
This is what I said in my last post.
"Despite Luther's feelings about the book of James and other books he never removed any from his translation and had this to say about the authority of Scripture, “… for Scripture alone is the true over-Lord and master of all writings and doctrines on earth."
I did not say he took them from the Bible and I did show that he had a very high regard for Scripture. I did not say that he said they did not belong.
Both Luther and Calvin held the view that the church was formed from Scripture, the Catholic and Greek churches saw differently that Scripture was formed from the Church. there for tradition was important along side Scripture. All of these Churches believe the Bible is the word of God.
"I did not say that he said they did not belong."
But he did say that nevertheless.
And the Roman Catholic Church puts the word of the Pope above the word of Scripture, and the traditions of the church on equal footing as the Scriptures.
And I admit I am not completely sure here, but I think the Greek Orthodox Church does not believe the Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit either. They consider them the word of God subject to the official interpretations of the Church. In other words, the Church is the keeper and sole interpreter of the true word of God.
They don't mean the same thing as you do when they speak of the Scripture being the Word of God. For them, its a mysterious sort of thing - like transubstantiation.
Maybe there are some Greek Orthodox out there who can give us a better explanation.
Carl
Carl,
We are way off subject, so this is my last comment.
The inspiration of Scripture is not the same thing as interpreting Scripture. The whole Church believes that the Bible is the Word of God. That has not changed except in liberal circles. The difference is the manner of interpreting. And yes in the Catholic Church the Pope and tradition are considered the proper way of seeing the right interpretation--but still all believe it is the word of God. And yes, so does the Greek Church.
My name is Amy, and i work with Acquire The Fire Christian Youth Events. i was looking at your page, and it looks like you have some amazing things going on at your church. i just wanted to let you know that we have an ATF event coming to the Sacramento area, and i would love for your youth to be involved in this amazing opportunity to encouter God. if you have any questions, or are at all interested in attending this event, feel free to message me back or give me a call at 903-324-7474, ext 7165.
keep up the great work for Christ! we really appreciate the time and effort that you have set aside for raising up a strong generation of believers in Jesus!
God bless!
Post a Comment