February 2012

This is the fifth installment in a series of blogs responding to the concurrences and dissents attached to the recent GAPJC decision Spahr v. Redwoods Presbytery (Case 220-08). While the decision itself upheld the Presbytery’s rebuke of the Rev. Jane Spahr, HR, for conducting sixteen same-sex weddings, the comments attached to it mapped out arguments for changing the definition of marriage to allow the practice. Today’s topic is the following claim: 4. A definition of marriage as between a man and a woman does not, by its presence in our Directory for Worship, prohibit marriage of same-sex couples. It was […]

The third major area of concern for folks desiring to see the PCUSA allow its pastors to perform same-sex weddings is a mixed bag, but I will tackle it as I originally summarized it: 3.  The definition of marriage found at W-4.9001 denies homosexuals their rights as full members of the PCUSA. Judicial precedent barring gays from marriage injures individuals and interferes with the church’s dialogue about how to celebrate the lives of homosexual people. The first question that arises is this one: with “full membership” in the PCUSA, does one secure the right to be married by a Presbyterian

The Spahr Decision came out early Tuesday this week, and if one took only the Decision & Order itself, a conservative/evangelical like myself could be encouraged. The GAPJC upheld the Constitution and the decisions of the lower judicial commissions to declare that teaching elders may not officiate at same-sex weddings even when legal in a particular state. The basis for this ruling comes from the “definition of marriage,” found in our Directory for Worship: Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman