Presbytery of the Redwoods, dissents from rebuke of Janie Spahr, Reverend who performs same-sex marriages

Jane Spahr, public Lesbian Minister who is subject of the Rebuke and subsequent protest and dissent.

For the first time a Presbytery in the Presbyterian Church USA has failed to respect a judgment of its own court in its own Presbytery. As well, it has decided to protest through dissent and a vote of refusal to follow the decision in Judgment of the National Presbyterian Church. In the memory of those contacted, this is the only time known of for such an unusual, if not disobedient action of dissent.
Done ostensibly out of deep commitment to the homosexual movement in the Church, support for homosexual marriage, and in particular the ministry of one clergywoman in their own Presbytery called The Reverend Janie Spahr, the regional group formally continues to validate her years long ministry of marrying homosexuals in the Church. In fact, one reliable source said she was ordained for this very reason, because of her own personal sexual orientation as a Lesbian, but more so because of her commitment and even conscientious campaign to marry homosexuals in the Presbyterian Church. The local paper in one county editorialized in favor of homosexual marriage and the stance by Redwoods Presbytery in their action. In fact, for The Marin Independent Journal, an award winning California paper, the editorial lauded their action and position.

Surprisingly, though rebuked by the national church in a formal manner, the progressive Redwoods Presbytery, one that stretches from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border in the great Northwest of the United States, continues to seek their progressive program and remains pleased with themselves by their overwhelming actions. A press release written by Anitra Kitts and distributed by Presbyterian News Service reads as its headline:

Redwood Presbytery votes to oppose GAPJC decision rebuking Spahr for performing same-gender marriages
Copy Court’s ruling ‘inconsistent with faithful life of ministry lived out in this presbytery’

Filed by this reporter as “Rebuke,” the first three paragraphs of the press release tell the surprising news. Laid out plainly by Anitra Kitts who was on the scene where the matter was decided at First Presbyterian Church, San Anselmo, California (Marin County), the writer Kitts says:

First Presbyterian Church at a time different from the meeting of Redwoods Presbytery

San anselmo, Calif. — In a standing 74-18 vote at its May 15 meeting, the Presbytery of the Redwoods stated its opposition to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission’s decision to “rebuke” the Rev. Janie Adams Spahr, who had been convicted of performing same-gender weddings.
During a five-month period in 2008 when same-gender marriages were legally recognized by the State of California, Spahr celebrated 16 weddings for same-gendered couples.
In August of 2010, she was charged and convicted by the Redwoods Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission for violating the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s constitutional prohibition of such services.

Ruth and Naomi,
Biblical theme in stained glass
from Marin County
Presbyterian Church, located
Presbytery of the Redwoods.

In an effort to find someone in the National Presbyterian Church to comment on the protest action, this reporter attempted to contact higher ups and hoped for some quotes. An email from the Presbyterian News Service gave hope to this probability at one point during the research on this Redwoods Presbytery action held on a Tuesday, May 15, 2012. That email reads:
I think Andrew Black and Laurie Griffith in our Office of the General Assembly would be the best sources for you. If not, I’m sure they can direct you to the right people.

Andrew is director of OGA’s Department of Constitutional Services. Email: andrew.black@pcusa.org

Laurie is manager for judicial process and social witness.
Email: laurie.griffith@pcusa.org

Hope this helps!


Somewhere along the later line, another email was received, showing the National Presbyterian Church desired a different response:

1. The PCUSA General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission has the power to authoritatively interpret the PC(USA) Constitution as found in the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions. The PC(USA) disciplinary procedure is found in the Rules of Discipline in the Book of Order. Each council of membership has the jurisdiction to discipline their members through judicial process. An offense is any action contrary to the Scriptures and the PCUSA Constitution. When a person has been found guilty of an offense by the Permanent Judicial Commission with jurisdiction, that Permanent Judicial Commission issues a Censure. The Censures range from Public Rebuke, Public Rebuke with Supervised Rehabilitation, Temporary Removal from Office and Removal from Office or Membership.

The Presbytery of Redwoods Permanent Judicial Commission found Rev. Spahr guilty of three offenses and issued a Censure of Rebuke in August of 2010. The censure was not imposed until any appeals were complete. The decision and censure were appealed to the Synod PJC which upheld the Presbytery PJC in March 2011 and then to the GAPJC which upheld the Synod PJC in February 2012.

There was no “trial” before the GAPJC. There was a “trial” before the Presbytery PJC. The decision and censure of the Presbytery PJC were appealed and after a “hearing” on the questions of appeal, the GAPJC found that it was not a constitutional error for the Presbytery PJC to both find Rev. Spahr guilty of the three offenses and issue a censure of Rebuke.

2. The Redwoods Presbytery refused to accept its own Permanent Judicial Commission’s Censure. The Presbytery will have to report to the General Assembly in a Compliance Report its actions complying with the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission Decision. Any member of the Presbytery may be able to challenge the action of the Presbytery through a Remedial Complaint, however, ordinarily Remedial Complaints may not challenge the process of Disciplinary procedure.

3. We do not know of any presbytery that has refused to report the censure issued by its own Permanent Judicial Commission.

This statement from a Press Officer from the National office of the Presbyterian Church is very clear. Sent by Sharon Youngs by email, she, Sharon K. Youngs, Assistant Stated Clerk, Communications Coordinator, Office of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) provided a fair representation and statement, to say the least.. But let us look to find out some of the reasons and rational made by participants at that Redwoods Presbytery meeting in the town of San Anselmo, California in Northern California.

The gathering entered into the controversy and their protest in full knowledge of this definition of Presbyterian Church: The constitution’s ‘Directory for Worship’ defines marriage as between “a man and a woman,” and the GAPJC has ruled that Presbyterian ministers cannot conduct services that represent themselves to be marriage ceremonies or could be construed as such.” The progressives voted 74-18 in the May 2012 meeting, probably with hopes to begin a change in the Church.

If not a change, the “golden” opportunity to assert through their disobedience a protest and also a dissent from the policy by their represented 6,000 Church members in Redwoods Presbytery. One participant who was an ecclesial attorney for opposing the rebuke, The Reverend Beverly Brewster who is moved considerably so, in a way of conscience, Biblical belief, and theological position to greet and proselytize policy of allowing homosexual marriage in the Church. In an email, she states:

Three ministers known popularly
as Chaplain Scott, Reverend Bev,
and Janie Spahr.

There is great Biblical scholarship on all the scripture passages which are used to discriminate against gay people and it shows convincingly that the passages which appear to be condemning homosexuality, when put in context, are talking about exploitative relationships, not loving consensual relationships.

I have studied Mark 10 in its context and am convinced that Jesus is speaking to protect women, who were treated as disposable property instead of beloved children of God, in divorce in 1st century Palestine. I believe it is a misuse of the Gospel to use it to marginalize gay people.
I feel strongly that the definition of marriage in the PCUSA constitution is a descriptive statement, and not a proper basis for a disciplinary action against a minister.
I have studied scripture and the constitution faithfully and seriously.
Thank you very much,
Rev. Beverly Brewster
Temporary Pastor, Sleepy Hollow Presbyterian Church

She is not alone in her progressive Christian hope for the Presbyterian Church. Reverend Bev, as she is affectionately known, was previously employed by San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, where the student body and faculty passed a resolution of a similar kind more than sympathetic to the homosexual cause, but also proselytizing the popular and current theological concept of “inclusion.” The statement itself is here. It says in part:

SFTS seeks to do this by advocating the full inclusion and participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in the Church universal and the World community, by using education, compassion, and storytelling to transform homophobia and injustice in our Seminary, our Church, and our World, and by celebrating the faithful contributions of LGBT individuals to the Church and the World. SFTS strives for this by:

• Equipping our Students
Including LGBT writers, queer theologies, and alternative sexualities’ perspectives in our curriculum. SFTS prepares leaders for the whole Church.

• Supporting our Graduates
While SFTS celebrates the accomplishments of all of its graduates, it makes a
concerted effort to affirm the otherwise mitigated ministries of our LGBT alumni and alumnae.

• Transforming our World
By beginning within our Seminary community and going out into the world, SFTS aims to work against sexual and/or gender injustice and inequality. We welcome those who would join us in our celebration of God’s expansive light.

That resolution demonstrates the importance of the issue and its related subjects to the seminary students The Board made no comment… A press officer for the Seminary wrote in an email,
As our press release mentions, the Inclusive Community Statement was presented to the Board of Trustees for final review on May 3, 2011. There was no vote; there was no endorsement. The statement was presented, and that’s it. http://www.sfts.edu/news/view_event.asp?ID=183 .)
If this document and seminary statement helps to recognize the progressive nature of the area, and even as expressed in the more moderate way by the seminary, the following statement regarding the issues adds to the profile made here. In this instance, The Reverend Doctor Mary Holder Naegeli said by phone, “It is important for progressives to know that conservative/orthodox people like me are not hard-hearted. The people I work with are some of the most patient, gracious ministers around. They do not avoid ministering to gays by holding the theological positions they do. We are all sinners. Whatever our prevailing sins are, we are trying to live lives that make our repentance visible and the transformative gospel real.”

She wrote in a statement regarding the issue of homosexual marriage:

The Reverend Doctor Mary Holder Naegeli

There are three facets to the biblical claim that marriage is between a man and a woman and not between two people of the same sex:
1) Throughout Scripture, there is the clear prescription and the ongoing presumption of a male-female prerequisite for marriage. Marriage was designed and intended by God as a complementary covenant between a man and a woman. The biblical roots of this claim go right to the beginning, the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1:27-28, ³So God created humankind in his image; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ³Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion . . .² In Genesis 2:18-24, ³Then the LORD God said, ³It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner. . . . And [the Lord] brought [the woman] to the man, who said,
³This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.² Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.² Jesus (Matt. 19:5) and the Apostle Paul (Eph. 5:31) quoted these verses indicating their ongoing truth and authority to define God¹s design for humanity.
2) There is no direct biblical justification or approval of same-sex relations anywhere.
3) There is repeated and univocal witness throughout Scripture that homosexual relations are contrary to the will of God. This prohibition of same-sex practice is made in Old and New Testaments and is expressed in the strongest of terms. Levitical law (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), Paul¹s letters (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10), as well as the practice of the Early Church (Acts 15:29) codify the proscription.

When you put these clear prohibitions alongside the joyful celebration of heterosexual marriage, it is impossible to approve‹from a biblical standpoint‹ any sexual option other than faithful heterosexual marriage or sexual abstinence…
The Rev. Dr. Mary Holder Naegeli

The Reverend Doctor is Executive Director of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church and was part of the research for this article, just as The Reverend Kelsey Ingalls, a family minister who was present at the event, a voting member of the Redwoods Presbytery writes this statement about what happened:
At our quarterly Redwoods Presbytery meeting (gathering of teaching and ruling elders from the north coast area) we were to read a rebuke towards one of our ministers who had violated the PC(USA)’s Book of Order, the constitution and ruling documents of our denomination.

Before the rebuke was read there was a motion on the floor to descent as a Presbytery and not have the rebuke read. Many people got up to speak in favor of this motion. They felt very strongly that the rebuke was harmful to the LGBT community and to the church as a whole.

As this went on I realized that there was a minority voice in the church that was not being heard. I don’t know much about this issue, but I felt strongly that the silent voice of many people in the church needed to be represented.

So I spoke out against the motion, pointing out that to dissent against the rebuke was to go against our Book of Order, which we as Presbyterians see as a representation of Scripture. As a national church, over hundreds of years, we have shaped our constitution, the Book of Order, to follow scripture, Christ, and the movement of the Holy Spirit.

The Book of Order is to guide us as we minister and live in community as the body of Christ. It is not Scripture, but it represents the standards and beliefs we find in the scriptures to be true and important.
Many people in our congregations will see this descent as going against the Book of Order and going against what is found in the Bible. That voice was not being heard as the motion was being discussed, so I got up and said how hurtful and oppressive this motion would be to these people.

In the end the motion carried by an overwhelming majority and the rebuke wasn’t read. There may or may not be repercussions for our actions as a Presbytery by the national governing body of our church. Time will tell. This was not how I expected my day to go when I got up that morning to go to a routine Presbytery meeting, but this is part of what we do as a governing body.

I would like to say that in reality it is a very small part of what we do. We strive to follow the Lord and minister to all of God’s people through the guidance of Scripture, the grace and salvation of Christ, and the movement of the Holy Spirit. If you want a real story about what the churches in our denomination are up to come check out all the hard work that goes into our rummage sale, which supports our mission trips, or our Youth Sunday this week as children lead us in worshiping the Lord. That is the real focus of my week, and I am looking forward to getting back to it.

Reverend who wasn’t happy with the proceeding results, Reverend Ingalls, family minister

Reverend Ingalls was a voting individual who was present and certainly held a minority view, considering the overwhelming support for the protest of the rebuke judgment against The Reverend Jane Spahr. Reverend Ingalls was interviewed by phone, and responded by email. The Reverend Jane Spahr did not want to talk with this Religion Writer, so was learned through a spokesman. That press officer wrote in an email:

Hi Peter, Thanks for your work on this. I have no further comment. Cordially, Richard Lindsay
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Peter Menkin wrote:

Dear Richard:
I hope to finish this story’s research this week, latest. Please let me know if you want to talk by phone: also Reverend Janie.
Thank you,
Yours sincerely,
Peter Menkin

There is little doubt that the vote by Redwoods Presbytery was well thought out and planned. As Anitra Kitts writes in her Presbyterian News Service report:
Spahr was present, along with a large contingent of friends, family members, and several of the couples she married in 2010. After an extended and emotional discussion, the Rev. Scott Clark, Spahr’s co-counsel, introduced the prevailing motion to “oppose imposition of the rebuke as set forth in the original decision of the presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission, dated August 27, 2010, (which was stayed by its terms until the present day).”
Clark’s motion further stated that the 2010 decision was “…inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the faithful life of ministry lived out in this Presbytery.”

As this Religion Writer compiles some of the research from his reporting, it is important to note that the Chaplain at San Francisco Theological Seminary wrote the resolution that comprised the vote of protest. The Reverend Scott Clark, who is the second homosexual man to be ordained in The Presbyterian Church USA, was its author. He was ordained at the same Church where the meeting of Redwood Presbytery was held. News of his ordination can be found, among other places, here.
One report says, “Joining in the massive laying on of hands as Clark was ordained was Rev. Dr. James L. McDonald, the new president at SFTS.

‘This is the day that the Lord has made; Let us rejoice and be glad in it,’ said McDonald. ‘Scott’s ordination to ministry in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a confirmation of his call and his wonderful gifts for ministry.’ Chaplain Scott is partnered to another man in marriage, the Chaplain says.

In the report by Presbyterian News Service, it is important to note The Reverend Robert Conover’s remarks: “The presbytery basically said, ‘We oppose this decision,’” said the Rev. Robert Conover, Redwoods Presbytery stated clerk, after the meeting. “As individuals, each member could have filled out a statement of dissent but instead the presbytery as whole made this statement.”

“Perhaps the majority, perhaps all of them, thought they had removed the rebuke but I don’t see how it is in the power of the presbytery to do that,” Conover said, adding that he had about 30 minutes notice on the Clark motion before the beginning of the meeting.

The Seminary was keen on having this ordination at a Church nearby, and the Seminary President laid hands on the new Reverend. It is also emphasized by The Reverend Robert Conover, stated clerk, that, “the presbytery as a whole made this statement” regarding their opposition to the decision of Rebuke. One wonders if this is another sign of the times of people not getting along, being in conflict and not in agreement. Our U.S. Congress practices this kind of thing. Apparently, though the progressive Redwoods Presbytery is also keen on their stand for homosexual marriage, and of course ordaining homosexual men and women in the Presbyterian Church USA. The second form of ordination was not in question at the gathering of delegates.

Daniel Christian.
Pastor,
St. Luke Presbyterian Church.
Progressive Minister,
Preaches pro Gay Marriage
from the Pulpit.

In discussing the matter of homosexual marriage, another clergyman of the Presbyterian Church (The Reverend Daniel Christian, St. Luke Presbyterian Church) in this progressive area gave this sermon in his Church, found here. Many players in the Redwoods Presbytery scenario chose not to comment, sometimes just refusing and others not being available. The Reverend Joanne Whitt, the pastor of the Church in San Anselmo where the event occurred, did not want to comment. She suggested this Religion Writer read her sermon on the subject of homosexual marriage, a statement in favor of same. Note The Reverend Joanne Whitt is a member of the Board of San Francisco Theological Seminary. Her sermon is here. An audio of her sermon, Even on Them, Even on Us, is here.

San Francisco Theological Seminary,
part of Graduate Theological Union.
This Presbyterian Seminary
located San Anselmo, California.

There is little doubt after hearing the audio version of one sermon, and reading another sermon, that one by The Reverend Joanne Whitt, and after the resolution by the Redwoods Presbytery, that they want to change Presbyterian Church USA. They want homosexual marriage, and they want inclusion, as defined by them by the statement by San Francisco Theological Seminary. Maybe a statement more moderate than some, it still makes its point, if even not an instrument of the Redwoods Presbytery. More representative is the resolution signed by Reverend Donovan and written by Chaplain Scott Clark. It is found at the beginning of this report. It is also found on this page.


In discussing the matter of homosexual marriage, another clergyman (The Reverend Daniel Christian) of the Presbyterian Church in this progressive area gave this sermon in his Church, found here. Many players in the Redwoods Presbytery scenario chose not to comment, sometimes just refusing and others not Brewster, and Sara Taylor. You might start with Scott, as he introduced the motion which the Presbytery voted on to oppose the rebuke of Rev. Spahr. Yours, Richard Lindsay
Sarah Taylor was not available. First said she would talk, then she went out of town and was not around. Beverly Brewster asked not to be mentioned in this report after sending in a statement of her making and commenting at length in background. Her reason for wanting to pull out was the report would be anti-Gay and unfair. Scott Clark wrote the motion that was passed.

More importantly, in a Press Release, Richard Lindsay wrote this as the section of the motion most important to his clients, and provided these remarks:

“…WHEREAS the love of God in Jesus Christ is for all people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people;
“WHEREAS, The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the constitution require that full inclusion and pastoral care be extended to all members of the church…
“…WHEREAS, the 38-year ministry of the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr has been faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to her calling…
“…Be it RESOLVED that the Presbytery of the Redwoods opposes imposition of the rebuke set forth in the decision dated August 27, 2010, as inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the faithful life of ministry lived out in this Presbytery.”

“Several of those in attendance stood up and spoke in favor of the motion. Three spoke against. “Rev. Jim Rigby, a visiting Presbyterian minister from Austin, Texas called on the Redwoods Presbytery, to be a “lighthouse to the nation.” Rigby challenged the Presbytery to, “Cross the line and suffer for the values which you hold. To participate with this rebuke will be an act of violence not only against LGBT people but against your own conscience.”

“Speaking on her own behalf, and on behalf of the couples she had married, Spahr stated, “This rebuke is not about me. I’m not afraid to be rebuked, but stop rebuking the love of these couples. If we stop this rebuke, we can help stop the violence committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the church.”

This article appeared originally Church of England Newspaper, London. To write the author, Peter Menkin, email: pmenkin@att.net .

Play Review: Regional theatre in San Francisco Bay Area...'God of Carnage' at Marin Theatre Company, Mill Valley

 

In the vital and verve filled funny play that runs the range to amusing and hilarious, God of Carnage, by Yasmina Reza and translated from the French by Christopher Hampton is a well-worth seeing evening of Regional Theatre. This Religion Writer was in the audience for the comfortable Opening Night of the play’s run just north of San Francisco in the small, well-healed suburban town of Mill Valley at Marin Theatre Company.

Playwright Yasmina Reza. Photograph: Pascal Victor/ArtComArt

Two of us were entertained and given to thoughtful reflection during this pleasant evening in the lovely town called by Smithsonian Magazine, one of the nation’s best little towns to live in in the USA—top ten in fact. The audience in the theatre seating 312, so the fire martial’s sign says, appeared packed at the opening night, and so very warm as to be enthusiastic for this and other productions of this little theatre that hired for this production, four equity actors. All were just so good that I as an amateur theatre goer was impressed, entertained, and even a little surprised at performance quality so good, and timing for this night of play work just excellent. Even the slapstick moments came to life smoothly, eliciting a spontaneous and surprised laugh-out-loud by all of us in the audience.

This is a real theatre pleasure, and that is why many go to the theatre: To enjoy themselves, be entertained, and learn something from what a playwright like Yasmina Reza has to offer. And she does succeed in an offering of ideas, of morality, and comment—even a statement of God in our contemporary world this 21^st Century of parenting and child rearing.

To make the issue extreme, let’s not forget the subject of marriage and relationship. Shall this Religion Writer go for the whole enchilada and add, and the place of God, religion, and faith in contemporary marriage and even grown adult life. Whew! But she does this, too, when one thinks about things in the religious sense of God is Present whether we Know it or Not.

For some reason, having gone to some of the neighborhood theatres in San Francisco, the City, and with my assistant Linda Shirado, enjoyed even performances given in a walk-down-the-stairs to the basement theatre. This reviewer noticed that the lovely little theatre had rust colored, velveteen seats, and here where a home could be bought at an average price of about a million dollars, and low income is $60,000 a year and less, the convivial and happy crowd in their well-educated casual clothes were glad to be able to step from their house and go down the block, to good theatre. And they appreciated and supported this fact. They appreciate and want good theatre close to home.

The British translator of the play–and the play did win a Tony when first produced–said that Yasmina Reza always takes big themes in her work. She has

Noteworthy Christopher Hampton

something to say and this so in God of Carnage. It is not just a funny play and forget it. In fact, in an interview with France Magazine, Christopher Hampton says:

What is it about Yasmina Reza that resonates so powerfully throughout the world?
People recognize the truth of the situations that she puts her characters in. Everybody has experienced those stresses and strains. There’s the comedy of recognition, which audiences love. The plays are extremely elegant and economic; there’s not a word wasted. Everything is to the purpose.
Art actually effected a change in the way people go to the theater. Her model of a 90-minute performance and no intermission—everybody in and out in an hour and a half—audiences love that.

Sara Romano in that Fall, 2009 interview also writes of Mr. Hampton:

A celebrated writer, Hampton has collected a few trophies of his own, including an Academy Award in 1989 for scripting Dangerous Liaisons. He has since written screenplays for such popular movies as Atonement (2007) and, earlier this year, Cheri. He has also penned a dozen plays, lyrics for two Broadway musicals and two opera librettos, and is currently working on another play about British colonialism as well as a screenplay about his childhood. In spite of these many endeavors, translation remains dear to the heart of this Oxford-educated artist.

Bear with me reader, for we will get more meat in this review. But first some necessary details, for the Opening Night at that California Regional Theatre where this Religion Writer was in the audience for the successful play that has been in Europe and America for a few years with similar successes. The show began at 8 p.m. (no theatre curtain, just the set designer’s work of a couch and two white chairs and some red flowers were significantly available to the audience while waiting for the show to begin). The usual uniform for ushers was the black dress, and wine was available in the lobby as well as some other items for those who had not yet taken their seats.

My assistant and I, Linda Shirado, had good seats for a press ticket, but two-thirds back, and a good view of the stage. We were able to hear well in this acoustically designed theatre. If you recall, we’re the people who also go to basement theatre sometimes.

The playwright says of the show during an interview with Script magazine’s Roy Martin, November 29, 2011 when talking about the movie made of the play:

Script: Where did you get the idea for the original play?

Reza: I based it on a real event. I heard the story of the ‘broken tooth’ from one of my son’s friend’s mothers.  She told me the whole story and finished by saying: “And can you believe it, the parents [haven't] even called us!” I immediately thought that I could find material in this story.

This is not a play for children. There is cursing in it that punctuates laugh lines in a manner that appears that the swear-words get a laugh in themselves, without seeming to take away from the line. In fact, the audience in their educated manner, didn’t pause or even notice the dirty words. But this is being written by a Religion Writer who cancelled his subscription to the new Newsweek magazine because of dirty words. Suffice it to say, the dirty words did not really move the dialogue forward or the laughs, even the buffoonery of a few well timed other moves like the slapstick, move this play of rhythmic staging by scenes forward best.

Director Ryan Rilette, who did such a very good, and even excellent job with this play and its performance obviously didn’t agree with this Religion Writer. Maybe this is

Regional theatre director

the modern thing to do, 21^st Century. In any event, they weren’t really necessary to the integral meaning in the script—so is my opinion.

Again, taking the perspective of God in our lives, even religion and faith, the author says through characters played as couples in a living room of one couple, that this is a savage world. (single-set theatre throughout the play, no intermission.) One parent event in their conflict over one child beating up another using a stick, 11 year old boys in action, claims the aggressor son is a savage.

Not the same thing as a savage world, no. See Google “News” to find the savagery… But the kind of despair and the secular statement of civilization made by actress Stacy Ross are in clear contrast to the author’s theme made by the other three performers. There isn’t much point in our lives, these three offer

.

Here is what The British newspaper, The Guardian writes:

… Reza’s play charts the course of this superficially civilized get-together, which soon degenerates into an evening of mutual dislike and name-calling. By the end of the encounter, their acid dialogue has burned through the veneer of smug, bourgeois respectability, with alternately comic and uncomfortable consequences…

…the woman who once reportedly said: “Theatre is a mirror, a sharp reflection of society. The greatest playwrights are moralists.” And it is true that in her plays, pretension, hypocrisy and emotional carelessness are skewered with devastating accuracy. In God of Carnage, the character who provides much of the comic fodder is Alain, the cynical lawyer who spends much of his time on the phone defending the disastrous side-effects of a drug marketed by a dodgy pharmaceutical company…

It isn’t that the interview with Yasmina Reza with writer Elizabeth Day published January 21, 2012 isn’t worthwhile. She has an opinion. The fact is that all in the audience members bring with them what makes them see the play in the way they do, and see and hear what they think the play says.

I do the same. It is what we like about theatre, the collaboration between actors and actresses and audience. Does not a director like Ryan Rilette of Marin Theatre Company think this and work towards it.

This writer still hopes to interview the director after this review is posted, so to add it as Addendum later. Ryan Rilette has experience with Marin Theatre Company (MTC) work, and as the Company reports: “Ryan Rilette (Producing Director) is in his fifth seasons as producing director at MTC, where he has directed the world premieres of Bellwether and Magic Forest Farm, as well as Fuddy Meers, in the Red & Brown Water and boom.”

From 2002 to 2008, Rilette served as producing artistic director of Southern Rep in New Orleans, where he directed the world premieres of Blunder and regional premiers of the Breech, Rising Water, The Sunken Living Room, The Vulgar Soul and The house of Plunder and regional premier of Kimberly Akimbo, The Goat, or Who is Sylvia? And Walks Ed.

His work with actors and overall meritorious staging, shows experience and even a kind of élan that allows what was for me a kind of play of manners to do well in the regional theatre whose home is California USA. This Religion Writer did not find the work so much a “peeling of veneer,” as a development of a series of mini-scenes.

Veronica has been noted as a key character in other articles and reviews, so this writer found on the internet. But the play does not rely on her alone—but of course she has a significant role. But really, the play is about the need to find not propriety, but a sense of hope in life and the world, a kind of entry into civilization as some short speeches well done by Staci Ross as Veronica demonstrated. The speech does so in secular terms without God, religion, Bible, or any kind of reference than self-reference with desire for community and even empowerment. This is a contemporary need of our time.

This drive by her for a commonality with her neighbors and friends just didn’t happen as she desired it to happen. In fact, the husband was without her kind of worldview, let alone a sense of the religious or faithful in life; and the lawyer seemed to be involved with the needs of money, and arguing for a kind of right that will self-fulfilled and help an agenda of his and those he worked with to succeed. This at the cost of even limb let alone the lives of others.

Big issues for a little play.

Oh, the parents stand up for their children, even in the way that the drinking turns to some drunkenness for the sake of character development and relational needs evidences a kind of anesthetization that is in itself a funny statement—laugh aloud funny and so easy to say: Yes, this is how it is and we are used to this drinking to excess business. That is not to say the fact of the alcohol is bad, for in this play it fits well. So it does move the relationships and character development forward. That may be one of the ways that the play shows transformation in character. There we may find a kind of “propriety” lost and morality of the loss of civilized veneer disappear.

More could be said on this, and the changes wrought by the drinking are not alone in statement of transition. It is really their mutual hostility where they sought friendship, which seems to find its camaraderie in a kind of mutual failure. This is not a failure of love of their children; it is a failure of hope. This is a play where God is Present whether the characters know it or Not.

The way to Christian hope has not really begun, but because of a call for civilization and the conflict between the two husbands, especially, played so well and vividly by Warren David Keith as Alan, and Remi Sandri as Michael, Civilization and God is with us in the theatre. For our civilization is still influenced if not formed by Christianity and Judaism, even if in this Marin County where this theatre lives, the residents themselves are secular people. Less than 4% go to Church in this area on a Sunday.

The performance by the two men is a tandem of skill and interplay that shows they not only worked and work well together, but they have a level of professionalism that demonstrates their equity actor status. This is a performance of a kind that helps make a reputation for a regional theatre’s acting qualities.

Transitions continue to occur in a rising and falling action manner, almost a harmony of choreography in its best moments. How wonderful the breakdown to shouting at one another becomes. The audience is delighted in the play on hostilities between the couples. The physical action was this night so well timed, and I especially enjoyed it when the character Annette, played by the more than competent and very attractively played Rachel Harker grabs the red flowers and throws them in their red glory to the floor of the living room. Amazing grace! Even a shocking, What? Bad behavior by adults may be similar to bad behavior to their children in this theatrical work. But let’s not go there. This review is long enough.

God of Carnage: Comedy. By Yasmina Reza. Directed by Ryan Rilette. Through June 17. Marin Theatre Company, 397 Miller Ave., Mill Valley. 75 minutes. $34-$55.             (415) 388-5208      . www.marintheatre.org.

This article appeared originally Church of England Newspaper, London. To contact the writer: pmenkin@att.net .

Interview: Crusading attorney and legislative advocate re Child Molesting Shari Karney

Shari Karney, Esq. legislative crusader and defender of molested children

by Peter Menkin

This interview with Shari Karney, attorney and commentator contains adult content of an explicit sexual kind. Know it holds some graphic statements about child molesting. That kind of material in an interview of a kind dealing with issues in the news today, like the Sandusky trial, have brought to national attention the often secret subject of child molesting and about the child molester. Attorney Shari Karney of Santa Monica, California has been working on this kind of case with others in the United States and especially California, almost in the manner of a Crusade. Perhaps as a Crusade, for the interview has some tones of the Crusade against this evil of the sexual predator.
She writes in her biography written for this introduction to the interview:
Shari Karney, Esq. is an attorney and member of the State Bar of California for 22 years, a survivor of incest, and an advocate for children’s rights. She keynotes at events around the world, speaks on college and university campuses and law schools. Shari is the author of the soon to be released book, Prey No Longer–A Step-by-Step Action Guide for Survivors of Sexual Abuse.
The interview was held recently with discussion of doing same starting the week of June 11, 2012 by this writer and lasted an hour-and-ten-minutes by phone from Mill Valley, California to her office in Santa Monica, California. It consisted of one single conversation block.

INTERVIEW WITH ATTORNEY SHARI KARNEY

1. Peter Menkin: In this decade of concern for children and for parenting roles, the Sandusky trial starts as a major shock to the public. The former coach at Pennsylvania State is charged with molesting boys over a long period of time—no one said No to him regarding his behavior. Not through the years. Your expertise and experience with the legal and moral subject of child abuse, especially its legislative side and that in the courtroom, makes you an excellent attorney to ask about these issues. The obvious question regarding the Sandusky scandal, is Why? Why did no one really know what was happening to these boys, some younger than 13, many molested from this 13 year old age through 18, according to the charges? Is this the usual kind of event situation for the alleged and convicted child abuser in general?

Attorney Shari Karney: I believe that a lot of people know [about abuse, and specifically in the Sandusky case] [Editor’s note…quote from Washington Post…Sandusky, 68, is a former Penn State football coach facing 52 counts of sexual molestation of 10 boys over a 15-year period.].. For example, victim number four testified yesterday that Sandusky’s wife walked in and saw it ]an act of sexual child molesting occurring]. It isn’t that people didn’t know. The truth is that people don’t know.
What I’m going to write about today [are] the Silent Partners. [Assistant Penn State football coach]Mike McQueary walked into the showers to see a child being sexually assaulted. One mother asked [her child when he returned home why he had]… walked in with wet hair. She was told by him that he had been taking a shower with Sandusky. She went to the police and she also contacted Penn State.
She may have done this in 1998.
Again, I think that we as a society say that we love and cherish our children above all, even [more than] our own life. I have not seen evidence of that when it comes to child molesting and child abuse.
What leads me to this is the Sandusky case. There were many who knew about him. It goes even into the home: The incident of child abuse is 1 in 3 or 4 girls; 1 in 5 to 6 boys. The statistics are that 25% of the young adult population [for] a child under 18 years of age–I mean a child, not a 17 or 18 year old kid.
Even if you take this to a global … UN Report of Sexual Violence in 2002, they report that 150 million girls, 73 million boys under the age of 18 experience forced sexual abuse. ] [This means they experience] intercourse, and other forms of sexual violence. The majority of children abused are from about 3 to 13.

[Regarding the Sandusky case at Penn State], morally and as a culture why did they not know. [T]hey did know, but they didn’t know enough. We do know, but we don’t do enough or don’t do anything.
The reason for why is we value football, and we value celebrity, and we value keeping the men around, and we value grandpa. We value everyone but the child who is being sexually abused. That child finds him or herself alienated and finds him or herself on trial, not the perpetrator.
We as a society don’t take enough to take action. [People say] the authorities will step in, the police will step in. It is our secret hidden shame.
It goes on all the time, and perpetrators do get away with it. Certainly, we really need a children’s bill of rights. Just like we have a bill of rights for all humanity. … There needs to be a fundamental right for children.
At Penn State, that woman [the boy’s mother] tried to do something for her child. [She was sent home]… Why didn’t anyone from Penn State step up for it. There’s [that rejection]… tendency when mothers do try to protect their children. It’s a subject that nobody wants to talk about. What we call secret is what poisons us as a culture. If you can’t talk about it, you shouldn’t be doing it.

2. Peter Menkin: There is a mystery regarding child abuse, especially the acts that are so usually shrouded in secrecy. If memory serves correct, you yourself have spoken of this matter. Importantly for the readers of www.thechildcustodyguide.com , what is a parent or other responsible party’s responsibility toward a child–in both the legal sense, and as a good parent? Will you tell us what a parent or guardian can do about child abuse, especially when they learn of it?

Attorney Shari Karney: [On the question of the mystery, and what to do as a parent to protect children as good custodians:] First of all, we have to go one step before that, to be a good parent and a good custodian of children. You have to be aware, not [about] the man down the street in a raincoat…
[Editor’s note: The present tense in the commentary by Shari Karney here, the alleged molester is a present case, active actor in the sexual predator drama.]Most child molesters groom their victim. Sandusky allegedly groomed his victim. He grooms them with … one of the victims said in the trial–he treated him like a girlfriend. He sent him [the alleged victim] gifts, he sent him love letters. They groom children by treating them like love objects.
Its part of the grooming act [of the] sexual predator…
As a parent or custodian of a child, you need to really keep your eyes open with any adult who wants to spend a lot of time with a child–who treats a child as overly special. That could be an uncle, a grandparent, a close friend, a local priest, a football coach, or a teacher. [There is the behavior in action] sign of always there. There are always signs; there is always behavior. And those signs are people who want to spend an unusual amount of free time around children.
Those signs are a child being taken away for events and engagements and sleepovers. Is there an older kid in the family? People and parents seem to be a little too trusting of the people around them that they know. They’re distrusting of strangers…but they’ll let uncle Charlie takes their child over for a sleepover or on a camping trip and not have another adult supervisor…
If a parent starts to have to believe…you have to listen to the child, and listen to children—to those under your adult custody. Children deserve the right to at least have the respect of being listened to.
Children are second class citizens. I’m not saying that they’re not spoiled. It’s not about monetary care. It’s not that they aren’t given food and shelter. It is that they are not being listened to.
Tip number one is listening to a child in your care [and] custody. Check it out. It’s like … if they have to report it, it should be reported to police, social services. There are two sides. There is the pay attention side, and the other side is the action.
Parents need to report suspect child sexual abuse. There has to be some basis for your decision. You don’t have to be the police, the judge, and the jury. But you do if you suspect it: Take action. You need to be taking action until something is done.

3. Peter Menkin: Of the cases you have worked with, tell us about one or two that stand-out in your mind, and give readers some detail on them. Significantly, tell us some of the thought and planning that went into your legal work in these cases, or your own scenario, if not one of the cases you were involved with directly. By this I mean tell us how you would have considered the matter should have been handled?

Attorney Shari Karney: [As an attorney,] I represent adult survivors of sexual abuse until they have memory of being sexually abused until adults. I am one of those victims. I did not have memory of my own [of my own] child sexual abuse until I was 29.
I would have told you I came from a very middle class, good Jewish family. My father is a writer, my mother is a therapist. Many survivors don’t get their memories until they’re adults. [That is] because they repress memory because it is too horrible. You want to believe that you come from a normal family, and that your parents love you. And would never do something like this.
You don’t have the psychological strength to cope with this. It’s hard enough coping with this as an adult.
I had a case of a 24 year old that was sexually assaulted by her father on camping trips when she was 3 year old. Her father would take her to the outhouse, and she would yell and scream to have her mother take her. Her mother said she said she was being a baby.
She repressed all memory but to keep the memory down she took drugs and drank. She got a DUI [Driving Under the Influence] and as part of her court order, she had to go to an alcohol and drug 12 step program.
When she stopped taking drugs and drinking her memory started to surface. She is one of the cases I took to overturn the Statute of limitations in California. Her case went to the California Supreme Court. The California Court of Appeals applied the doctrine of delayed discovery to adult survivors of child abuse. It is by definition [in this case now favorable to] adults who were sexually molested as children.
What he [the 3 year old girl’s father] did [on the camping trips]…is he would use her to masturbate with…It was oral and he would put his member in her mouth–he would climax. He had intercourse with her at six, and he sodomized her at six. The Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, and sent the case back to the trial court. The father appealed to the Supreme Court of California. In the meantime, I lobbied in California with…. people to get the law changed in California. We prevailed: SB108. What it did was it changed the California statutes of limitation in the civil code. It was a civil case. This was to sue him for what he did [when she was] a kid. He settled the case and she got money damages. It was an extremely modest amount of money.

4. Peter Menkin: In your own career, talk a little about the legislation you’ve worked on of your making, and that of others? The success of same is part of the news value in this question, but if the legislation did not pass, let us hear about it from your vantage as a knowledgeable person who is a commentator on these matters? Where may a reader go to learn more of these cases? Links to more about these matters is helpful, for tell us the place on the internet readers may go on these legislative matters. These places may be California links, or for similar matters in the public sphere in other places.

Attorney Shari Karney: We started the passage of legislation. They are still working on this legislation. The California Supreme Court just came down on the amendment. My opinion is there should be no statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. It should be treated like kidnapping or murder. People shouldn’t feel so sorry for the abusers, [like] it’s a mental illness, or something. People [practice] sexually abuse because it feels good to them.
I think there is no cure; I don’t believe there is a cure. I don’t think aversion therapy works; I don’t believe castration works. I think what would work is somebody who fully admits it and looks and looks and finds the right person who can really help them through this. All the prison system stuff, the electrocuting them when showing them pictures of children… In my humble opinion, I don’t think there is a cure. I don’t think it’s a disease. If you don’t have a disease, it’s hard to find a cure.
When you have sexual pleasure for a certain activity, I think when you have sexual activity, your brain gets hard wired. Of family predators, they are opportunistic predators. It is criminal activity. It is a crime.
It is a crime. We don’t treat it like it is. Our law system says it is a crime.
I do think that legislation and legislative change is needed and helps. It brings awareness and it brings accountability. Law is the last bastion of morality, because law cannot make you a moral person. Our laws don’t make you a good or bad person. It just catches those as the last gatekeeper trying to keep society moral.
There’s one link that I want people to look at: It’s the The National Conference of State



Legislators: www.ncsl.org …[S]earch: “State civil statutes of limitations and child sexual abuse cases.” There is a statute of limitations [section] in my book, “Prey No Longer.” Subtitle, A Step by Step Guide for Survivors of Sexual Abuse”. Readers can get this at Amazon.com, and they can download the book on Kindle for 99 cents.
I want every survivor to be able to download it. I don’t want some kid 17 years old who doesn’t have $22 to not buy a book. www.sharikarney.com I’m also on Facebook, I talk about all this stuff on Facebook and Twitter.

5. Peter Menkin: Thank you so much, Shari, for taking the time to talk to this reporter. Now as we come to the end of our conversation of this day, please speak about something that you want to say that wasn’t covered? Where will you be speaking or appearing next for public hearing on these matters of child abuse, and their related custody issues?

Attorney Shari Karney: I am going to be speaking at a national conference of therapists who treat survivors of sexual abuse in Canada (go to my website to find it). I’m going to be teaching the first child sexual abuse seminar at Loyola Law School this summer. The reason I’m doing this is Sandusky. It made me realize every attorney along the line dropped the ball. They dropped the ball; I think in part, if we don’t educated lawyers on this issue, we’re not going to have educated protectors. The name of the course is Child Sexual Abuse Seminary: Loyola Law School in the fall, Monday nights. (Go to my website to find it).
I’ll be speaking to a couple of corporations to do corporate motivational speaking. I have just finished the memoir of my own story: “Girl Behind the Curtain: Twisted Obsession, Love, and Law; One woman’s Journey”.
[Attorney Shari Karney’s website is here.]

This interview originally appeared www.thechildcustodyguide.com .