A church court of Pittsburgh Presbytery ruled 9-0 that the Rev. Janet Edwards did not violate scripture or the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) when she conducted what she has always said was the marriage of two women in 2005.
Since church and state define marriage as between a man and a woman, she cannot have done what she was accused of, the court ruled yesterday.
“It can’t be an offense to the constitution to attempt to do the impossible,” said the decision, read by the Rev. Stewart Pollock, chairman of the Permanent Judicial Commission of Pittsburgh Presbytery.
One more absurd side step. Why did she call it what she did if it isn’t possible? No discipline will yield no sense – nonsense – in the end. Let’s wait to hear of another impossibility happening in a church near you! Which, of course, is impossible! Really!
Your Honor, my client could not have possibly stolen that horse since horse-stealing is illegal.
So, she stands up in front of a lot of folks, presumably in vestments, presumably with a Bible (or maybe whatever book of contemporary cultural inanities she believes in for the moment), presumably says all the usual words one would hear a marriage service, with presumably the expected responses and affirmations…but, it’s NOT a marriage, y’see, cuz the law says (for now) that “MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!”
Uh huh…yeah, right.
I also really like all the references to “dialogue,” “reconciliation,” etc. Our Presbyterian brothers and sisters have imbibed deeply from the fount of Episco-Speak (and “reason”), I see.
That loud hum you hear is the sound of Calvin and Knox spinning in their graves.
Honestly, it sounds like the plot twist in a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta.
So you will continue to do the impossible, never having to worry about being held accountable. How Episcopalian!
So help me to understand. So if a law says it’s illegal that wipes out actions? Is this third-grade mentality?
But, I’ve always heard that [url=http://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/falsity.shtml#notto]one is morally obligated not to do anything impossible[/url]!
As I understand it the church has a rule that says that ministers should not perform a marriage service for same-sex couples. Edwards knowingly performed a marriage service for a same-sex couple. Therefore, Edwards violated the rule. Following Pollock’s logic, there can’t be a rule against performing a marriage service for same-sex couples because same-sex marriages are impossible.
Just further evidence that sin makes you stupid.
I at first thought the reasoning was simply hilarious. Now I am afraid that the PC(USA) intends to react to any heresy by sticking their corporate fingers in their ears and yelling, “NA NA NA I can’t HEAR you!” Only the orthodox are to be chastised.
One reads this…. this… this… childish equivocation and one wants to do … I don’t know… something desperate. Talk about impotent anger! How can a rational being write such silly hair-splitting? Larry
Sophistry. Pure, unadulterated sophistry.
This would have given inspiration to Lewis Carroll.
ultra vires, people. Ultra vires. Living it.
And to continue on with Jeffersonian’s reaction, all I have to say is,
“Whoa.”
The consequence of the ruling, however, is that the Presbyterian pastor nor the couple as Presbyterians (?) CANNOT refer to what happened as a wedding, nor to the couple as being married. How will the Presbyterian church then deal with the pastor’s and the couple’s insistence that they are “married”? The pastor should have been disciplined for INTENDING and then ACTING to CREATE something within Presbyterian (and biblical) parameters that “cannot be.”
Otherwise, it will continue on, and she will consider herself (and others will consider her) as a social prophet — self-proclaimed — applying biblical proof-texting.
We need the ability to post sound clips here…this is a perfect time for the Twilight Zone theme.
So if a Presbyterian pastor declared that the Buddha is god, he should not be disciplined because their constitution clearly says that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is the one true god, and therefore he declared the impossible?
The cowards. How despicable.
This is highly legalistic, but not totally absurd. According to the rules of the Presbyterian Church, she cannot 1) marry a same-sex couple, 2) should not offer a same-sex blessing. Her defense was 1) I didn’t actually marry them (I don’t have the legal power to do that) which is true — nothing she did caused them to be legally married 2) “should not” give a blessing leaves lattitude for discretion. Obviously the “church court” is agreeing here that “should not” is effectively only a suggestion, not a rule.
There’s the Episcopal Organization’s out. “Stop ordaining homosexual bishops? We don’t ordain homosexual bishops and we never have. Not only would that violate 2,000 years of Christian teaching, it would fly in the face of every Anglican resolution on the topic. Have any of you guys actually read Resolution 1.10?”
To me the interesting thing is the unanimous vote, 9-0. And although I’m not a Presbyterian anymore (I was raised however in the PCUSA), my recollection is that the Presbytery of Pittsburgh is relatively moderate. Pittsburgh Theological Seminary is certainly more moderate than say Princeton or Golden Gate Seminary. And so that makes this rather perplexing and absurd ruling all the more telling as a barometer of trends in the Presbyterian Church.
Well, at least the orthodox Presbyterians in the USA have the PCA or the EPC to turn to. Near where I live, there’s a huge charismatic EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) parish that’s flourishing. Kempsville Presbyterian in Chesapeake, VA has an ASA of almost 1500, and it’s growing. I expect that they will continue to grow at the expense of the local liberal PCUSA congregations.
David Handy+
Yes, they are turning to the EP in droves — and taking their people, energy and cash with them. Sometimes they are also taking their buildings; several in California are waiting for the Court’s decision in the TEC cases before charting their way.
PCUSA’s local presbyterys and General Assembly are largely packed with ultra-liberals — just like the Gen Conv of TEC. They do NOT reflect the will of the folks in the pews, and that is why membership and attendance in that denom has been dropping like a stone for years. Hec, they’re fading faster than TEC!
As this ex-Episcopalian, now Presby posted on a Presbyterian website when the news came out:
[blockquote] I can’t wait until we have the first “purported†sacrifice to Molech. Since the PCUSA officially doesn’t worship Molech, it couldn’t have happened. And so on . . . .[/blockquote]
The breakpoint for many in PCUSA will be if a majority of presbyteries ratify the recently-passed General Assembly resolution to abolish the “fidelity and chastity” requirement for ministers, elders and deacons. At that point the wheels will come off the wagon. I find it amazing that in their zeal to validate homosexual behavior, they are now also willing to say that engaging in heterosexual fornication or adultery is also not a disqualification for serving in the PCUSA.
This society will go in the tank simply because most are too wimpy to appear “mean” by actually upholding Christian standards.
Why don’t they just get it over with and start blessing the polyamory, man-boy, woman-girl, or bestiality now? They’d save themselves a lot of time and angst.
As noted above, this is nothing more than the legal codification of the logic in Gilbert & Sullivan’s “Mikado,” to wit:
“It’s like this: When your Majesty says, ‘Let a thing be
done,’ it’s as good as done–practically, it is done–because
your Majesty’s will is law. Your Majesty says, ‘Kill a
gentleman,’ and a gentleman is told off to be killed.
Consequently, that gentleman is as good as dead–practically, he
is dead–and if he is dead, why not say so?” (Act II, The Mikado)
The case at hand is sort of a mirror-image of the above “logic.” It’s great fun in the theatre, but a sorry business in the Church. Score another for the Pharisees!
Thank God this blog has returned to the subject of gays and lesbians. That along with the prospect of a woman in leadership roles seems to be the only thing that attracts comments. I had been worried of late that economic news was taking things off track.
As I detailed [url=http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=764]here[/url] and [url=http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=766]here[/url], this kind of logic isn’t just the invention of some local yokels–the rot goes all the way to the head, to the denomination’s top judicial body, which actually invented this award-worthy sophistry. So there’s no chance that this will be appealed, because the precedent has been set in stone.
Just to follow up on my comment in #21, this got posted on the Presbyterian site “The Layman”:
[blockquote] General Assembly Council briefs
Presbytery exec says ‘great number’
of Calif. Churches in line to leave
By Paula Kincaid
The Layman
Friday, October 3, 2008
SNOWBIRD, Utah — Following a presentation on actions of the 2008 General Assembly in San Jose, Calif., General Assembly Council member Clark D. Cowden of San Diego said that four churches in California have announced they are pulling out of the denomination, “and a great number are getting in line to do the same.”
He said that if presbyteries vote to remove the fidelity-chastity ordination standard from the PCUSA’s Book of Order, there may be “a great exodus.” He also said that churches may not leave physically, but they are already leaving spiritually, mentally and financially.
“I would hate for us to do nothing and see great harm be done to our church,” he said. “If there is any way we can be proactive … to find way for us to live together in spite of our differences, it would be a wise thing to do.”
http://layman.org/
[/blockquote]
Fools at Play
Fools at Play
Fools at Play
Don’t let Reality
Get in the Way
— Burma Shave
RE: “That along with the prospect of a woman in leadership roles seems to be the only thing that attracts comments.”
Heh — Deacon Mark has not been reading any of the financial threads with the comments, it seems.
It isn’t the sex, deaconmark, that’s providing the entertainment here: it’s the “law”. Truly the latter is more entertaining than the former– at least as performed in public. 🙂