No Discipline in the PCUSA

I represented the prosecuting committee in the case of PCUSA vs. Rev. Laurie McNeill which was decided by the GAPJC in an opinion issued October 30, 2012 and available on the PCUSA web site. 

In October, 2009 Rev. McNeill, who was then Pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church and a member of Newark Presbytery, traveled to Massachusetts to “marry” her same-sex partner in a religious ceremony held in an Episcopal church, using an Episcopal marriage rite, presided over by Episcopal and UCC clergy, and legal under Massachusetts civil law.  She returned to New Jersey to proudly announce to her congregation and presbytery that she was “happily married.”  She followed that up by giving numerous interviews with local media proclaiming her new status, deploring the fact that her denomination did not “recognize” her marriage, and indicating she expected that charges would be brought against her. 

Charges were indeed brought that Rev. McNeill had violated the Constitution of the PCUSA (Book of Order and Confessions) as a result of her having purported to “marry” her same-sex partner contrary to the definition of marriage in W-4.9001 and GAPJC precedent in the Benton and Spahr cases.  She was also charged with violating the Constitution by being neither single nor married to a man as required by now repealed G-6.0106b.  Rev. McNeill moved to dismiss the charges in the Presbytery PJC claiming, among other things, that the Directory of Worship only governed what happened in Presbyterian worship services.  In response, the prosecution argued that Presbyterian worship, service and witness are inextricably connected and that the Directory of Worship therefore governs the worship of Presbyterians in any context.  The prosecution also argued that W-4.9001 was merely declarative of Scripture and the Confessions citing Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 7, Matthew 5 and 9, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Westminster Confession and the Confession of 1967.  The prosecution’s response also specifically referred to a Teaching Elder’s ordination vows to fulfill her office in obedience to the Scriptures and to be instructed by our Confessions.  The Presbytery PJC decided to hear the motion with the trial of the case in early 2011 and, after all the evidence had been heard, acquitted Rev. McNeill of all charges and ruled the motion to dismiss moot. 

 

The not guilty verdict was appealed to the Synod PJC and affirmed in December 2011.  Before Notice of Appeal could be filed, and in violation of D-10.0105, Newark Presbytery, through its Committee on Ministry, transferred Rev. McNeill to Hudson River Presbytery over the objection of the prosecution and the GAPJC refused to stay the transfer claiming that it was without jurisdiction to protect its own jurisdiction.  After several delays in the GAPJC proceedings which pushed the decision past the recent General Assembly, appellate arguments were held on October 26, 2012 with the decision being issued October 30, 2012. 

The prosecution devoted the bulk of its appellate brief and oral argument to the Scriptures and Confessions upon which W-4.9001 was based and to which Rev. McNeill’s counsel did not respond except to disdainfully describe this analysis as a “rant” against homosexuals.  Even if W-4.9001 were not applicable outside a Presbyterian worship service, the Scriptures and Confessions, including those cited in the prosecution’s response to the motion to dismiss, clearly apply to all aspects of the life of those in ordained ministries.  Nevertheless, and even though they were part of the record on appeal, the GAPJC refused to consider these arguments because they had not been discussed at the trial itself, and perhaps, had not been specifically referred to in the charges brought against Rev. McNeill.  This is in clear distinction to the recent Davis case from 2009 in which a Presbyterian Teaching Elder was accused of viewing pornography on a church computer.  There the charges were as unspecific as to what had been violated as in this case, citing the ordination vows generally, there being nothing at all in Scripture or the Constitution which addresses pornography.  Nevertheless the GAPJC had no trouble sustaining the conviction on the general grounds that viewing porn disturbed the peace, unity and purity of the Church. 

The GAPJC in the McNeill case went on to narrowly limit the provisions of the Directory of Worship to Presbyterian worship services only thus eviscerating the Benton, Spahr and Southard cases.  All a Teaching Elder need do to avoid running afoul of W-4.9001 is to conduct the same-sex “wedding” in the context of a UCC or Episcopal worship service, so long as it is not a Presbyterian service.  Furthermore, a Presbyterian Teaching Elder can now bless such a wedding in the name of Allah rather than the Triune God and depart from the baptismal formula of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” all so long as it is not in a Presbyterian worship service.   

In addressing the second charge, under now repealed G-6.0106b, and despite stipulated evidence that Rev. McNeill had “married” her same sex partner and was living with her in New York, the GAPJC essentially determined that because there was no direct evidence of sexual activity (pictures or a witness), there could not be a conviction.  This also is at variance with prior cases involving sexual misconduct other than homosexual activity and, if followed in the future could lead to a complete abandonment of any ability of the Church to discipline consensual sexual conduct such as adultery, pornography and consensual sex with a minor.  For example, in the Davis case, the evidence that pornography had been used by Rev. Davis was circumstantial only.  That is, once he had left the church porn was found on a computer he had used.  Yet the GAPJC applied a much higher standard in this case of homosexual misconduct.  Does anyone doubt that it should be enough to prove adultery that a male Teaching Elder and a female parishioner had stayed in the same room at a mission conference and had written each other romantic, though not sexually explicit, e-mails?  And if that is not enough, have we not abandoned any attempt at discipline for consensual sexual misconduct? 

The GAPJC altogether failed to address the prosecution’s alternate argument that G-6.0106 permitted only two statuses for ordained persons, single or married to a person of the opposite sex.  Rev. McNeill was, by her own admission, neither, being, as she proudly announced, married to a person of the same sex.  And the witness of her actions was far more strident than if she had merely presided over the “marriage” of a same-sex couple.  By participating in a same-sex “wedding” that she could not provide for her parishioners, she was essentially telling them, do as I say, not as I do. 

The decision in this case is extremely disappointing.  Most disappointing was the failure of the GAPJC to apply or even discuss the Scriptural and Confessional passages that deal with homosexual conduct and so-called “gay marriage.”  The Scriptures, as interpreted by our Confessions, should be the basis of all the Church’s decisions.  Further, the decision, by limiting the Directory of Worship to Presbyterian worship services only, opens the floodgates to all sorts of irregular worship by ordained Presbyterians having nothing to do with the homosexual issue, so long as it is conducted outside a Presbyterian worship service.  Finally, requiring direct evidence of sexual misconduct renders proof of consensual sexual misconduct of all kinds virtually impossible.   

Orthodox Presbyterians should see this as a collapse of the disciplinary process within the PCUSA.  It is already nigh on impossible to successfully bring charges for heresy, that is, departure from Biblical and Confessional theological standards.  This case provides evidence that when the conduct at issue is subject to political disagreement, the GAPJC will find every technical loophole to avoid enforcing existing standards of conduct.  Thus, even though the General Assembly this summer refused to change the definition of marriage, the GAPJC refused to enforce the existing standard and instead urged the GA, “in light of the convoluted grounds on which such cases are . . . decided [by the GAPJC]” to “provide a definitive position” on same-sex ceremonies.  Apparently the definitive positions of Scripture and the Confessions, and the GAPJC’s own past decisions such as Benton, are not enough.  We must accept the fact that, until the GA changes the standard to allow “gay marriage”, the GAPJC will, as in this case, use whatever “convoluted grounds” it finds necessary to refuse to enforce the existing standard.  So even when the orthodox position prevails at the GA, as it did this summer, no discipline will be enforced.