“In the reality in which we live today, marriage can be between same gender as well as opposite gender persons, and we, as a church, need to be able to respond to this reality as Dr. Jane Spahr has done with faithfulness and compassion,” the court said.

Barf! John Knox might have a few words to say about that court’s opinion. Calvin might take it to the next level.

RE: “A Presbyterian court on Friday (Aug. 27) found a retired California pastor guilty of violating church rules and her ordination vows by performing same-sex marriages while it was briefly legal in the state in 2008.”

This is very good news.

Huzzah!  A new “martyr” for the left!  Oh, the joy in some quarters.

Sigh.

No reason for celebration, Sarah. The denomination’s Permanent Judicial Commission is virtually certain to overrule it, if the synod court (intermediate between presbytery and denomination) doesn’t, in which case the presbytery will wash its hands and refuse to appeal. In any event, Spahr has been getting away with this conduct for so long that no one believes she will ever be disciplined in a serious way, or be deterred from doing it again and again.

In this case, at least, 4 of the 6 judges were able to distinguish between their own preferences and the mutually agreed-upon denominational law.  The rule of law has held for now.

But, of course, they didn’t judge her actions to have disturbed the “peace, unity and purity of the church.”  I suppose “progress” never does.  And while I might agree with the local presbytery’s court that the PCUSA has “conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations,” I doubt we’d agree on which ones actually “are against the Gospel.”

Actually, Don, while it is true that four of them voted for conviction, they made clear in the opinion that they only did so because they thought the law of the church gave them no choice. They practically drooled over Spahr, heaping praise on her ministry and scolding the denomination for not doing the right thing. They all but begged Spahr to keep doing it, even as they offered a perfunctory, “oh, and try not to do this again” at the end. Then they handed down a “penalty” that is essentially meaningless. All in all, it was more of a thumb in the eye of the law than a serious upholding of it.

The other problem is that they gave Spahr the lowest level of punishment, essentially a tongue in cheek “naughty, naughty,” rather than defrocking her.

David, you’re right of course.  I suppose even a pollyanna view of the “bright side” still looks pretty dark.  I am just surprised that the majority didn’t simply declare themselves prophetic (as they did Spahr) and reject the law out of hand (as 2 of them seem to have done).  No doubt that part comes later.

That it will, Don. I give it a year, tops.