So the Redwoods Presbytery has decided that Rev. [I use the title loosely] Spahr acted in accord with her conscience when she participated in two marriages involving gay couples. That's fantastic!*
Let me get this straight…if a pastor feels that in hers/his conscience it's okay to do something that is contrary to the Book of Order and the Confession? Gee whiz, that's great news. Not only can liberals ordain gays and boycott McDonald's, but the evangelical's can refuse to ordain women or baptize infants.
Isn't it wonderful how our denomination has become more and more like those we regard as less enlightened than us, like the Southern Baptist? (Just kidding Mike, and Cork).
I think it's fair to say that this decision, if it stands and it probably will, has paved the way for pastoral choices that go far beyond anything ever thought of. I hope you read the comment by Redwoods Presbytery's attorney, "You have a situation where any minister anywhere can claim, 'My conscience tells me I can sleep with a 16-year old girl outside my marriage vows,' and who's to question his conscience?" Of course, the correct response to this would be "child abuse". I can hear a pastor arguing that it's not even "sexual harassment" after all the Book of Order doesn't say I can't sleep with adults other than my spouse does it?
But, the church has dwelt too long on sex as the deciding issue. Perhaps a session merely needs to decide that G-8.02091 *violates their conscience and that the building into which their families had poured their life was not owned by the Presbytery.
Perhaps I've even found my way out of the financial quagmire that the medical aspect of the Board of Pensions has forced our church. I can simply, and with all honesty declare that G-14.0506b* violates my conscience because of its unfair and unequal application to all ordained clergy of the PC (USA). Hope they're ready for this