Reprinted from The Christian Post, an article on Lesbian Marriage (recently held 2011, January)...

|Tue, Jan. 04 2011 04:01 PM EDT

2 Lesbian Episcopal Clergy Marry on New Year's

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

Two lesbian Episcopal priests kicked off the New Year by marrying in Massachusetts.

The Very Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, dean and president of Episcopal Divinity School, and Mally Lloyd, canon to the Ordinary, married on Saturday at St. Paul's Cathedral in Boston in front of nearly 400 guests. The Rt. Rev. M. Thomas Shaw, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, solemnized the marriage.

For orthodox Anglicans, the lesbian union was another act of defiance.

"This is another action of reckless disregard for the life of the Anglican Communion and the authority of the Bible by The Episcopal Church," the Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, president and CEO of the American Anglican Council, told The Christian Post. "They continue to ignore the Communion’s pleas for restraint and continue to go their own way."

The Episcopal Church in the U.S. defines marriage as between a man and a woman. But in 2009 the national body passed a resolution allowing bishops, particularly those in civil jurisdictions where same-sex marriage and civil unions are legal, to provide "generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church."

That year, Shaw gave the green light for clergy in the Diocese of Massachussetts to solemnize all marriages. Same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004.

The blessing of same-sex unions within The Episcopal Church is nothing new and such actions have drawn rebuke from the wider Anglican Communion, which is comprised of more than 77 million members worldwide.

Anglican leaders worldwide agreed to a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions in 2004. They also agreed to practice restraint on the consecration of bishops living in same-sex relationships. But the U.S. body has continued to defy the moratoria to the frustration of conservative Anglicans.

Robert H. Lundy, spokesman for the American Anglican Council, noted that The Episcopal Church has long blessed same-sex unions. But the latest union between Ragsdale, 52, and Lloyd, 57, is being touted as a marriage, and the first lesbian marriage of two senior Episcopalian clergy at that.

"For many people, this is splitting hairs," Lundy commented. "It may be the first time it's being called a marriage, but it's nothing new."

"All this will do for others around the Communion is further illustrate what we've been saying here," he said. And the AAC has long stated that The Episcopal Church has departed from traditional Christian and Anglican Communion teaching.

"For most people, they already broke the camel's back a long time ago," Lundy said.

Last year, The Episcopal Church consecrated its second openly gay bishop despite calls by the wider Anglican Communion to practice "gracious restraint." As a consequence, The Episcopal Church was suspended from participating in ecumenical dialogues and stripped of any decision-making powers on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order – a body that examines issues of doctrine and authority.

PRESS RELEASE

Lesbian Episcopal Clergy Married by Massachusetts Bishop 

“The majority of the Episcopal Church is increasingly practicing a separate faith.”
-Jeff Walton, Spokesman for IRD’s Anglican Action Program

Washington, DC—The marriage of two lesbians, both high-profile Episcopal priests in Massachusetts, has spotlighted anew the long-running controversy over same-sex unions in both the U.S.-based Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion with which it is affiliated.

The Rev. Mally Lloyd, a ranking official of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, married the Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, dean and president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, on New Year’s Day in Boston, according to the Patriot-Ledger. Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, the state’s highest ranking Episcopal prelate, presided. Ragsdale has been a controversial figure in the 2.1 million-member denomination for both her outspoken affirmation of same-sex “marriage” and homosexual clergy, as well as her unqualified defense of abortion as a “blessing.”

Bishop Shaw has also openly supported gay marriage for years. Shaw gave his parish priests permission to perform same-sex marriages soon after the 2009 Episcopal General Convention voted to allow “generous pastoral response” in such situations.

Jeff Walton, spokesman for IRD’s Anglican Action Program, commented:

“Much like the consecration of openly partnered homosexual Bishops Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool, the Episcopal Church’s embrace of same-sex unions continues to drive a wedge between liberal Anglicans in the U.S. and traditionalists in the Global South.

“Ultimately, this is a dispute about scriptural authority, with liberals following what they attest to be widening human experience about sexuality, while traditionalists appeal to historic teachings of the Church and a plain reading of Scripture.

“The majority of the Episcopal Church is increasingly practicing a separate faith from what most Anglicans practice worldwide.”

Alan Wisdom, IRD Vice President for Research and Programs, commented:

“The Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is instituted by God as a gift to all humankind, and that we are to honor that gift.

“Shall we assert the right to redefine marriage to suit our own contemporary notions of justice? Shall we treat marriage as if it were no different from other sexual relationships? Or shall we reaffirm the vision of an exclusive, lifelong, one-flesh union of the two complementary sexes created by God? Only the latter option is faithful to the Scriptures and the worldwide Christian tradition.”

Alan Wisdom’s paper “Is Marriage Worth Defending?” is viewable on the IRD website.

The Institute on Religion & Democracy works to reaffirm the church's biblical and historical teachings, strengthen and reform its role in public life, protect religious freedom, and renew democracy at home and abroad.

http://www.theird.org/NetCommunity/page.redir?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theird.org%2f&srcid=4291&srctid=1&erid=976737

###

Commenting on this Press Release, and "Is Marriage Worth Defending," the Rector of the Church I attend in Mill Valley, California (Church of Our Saviour) responded by email in this way:

Dear Peter,

Regarding the IRD piece, I think most or all of these points from the perspective of scripture, tradition, and reason are much more comprehensively handled in Tobias Haller’s scholarly Reasonable and Holy. ( https://www.churchpublishing.org/products/index.cfm?fuseaction=product&productID=6228 )

I agree with some 90% of what the IRD author articulates as goods of marriage. The deeper question is what is essential to marriage. He appears to argue that procreation, amongst a few other goods, is essential. I find this assertion fallacious, as we know numerous heterosexual couples who are biologically childless, and I think we would be loathe to claim that their marriages are any less valid than, say, my own. Moreover, the assertion that marriage can only be between a man and woman is largely just that : an assertion without any deeper appeal to reason, along the lines of “we’ve never done it this way before.”

I also quibble with the author over the assertion that the Bible offers a consistent view of marriage. Given the tacit acceptance of polygamy amongst some of the patriarchs, concubinage amongst the heroic kings of Israel, the primacy of celibacy in the New Testament, and Jesus’ largely negative view of the institution of marriage as it was manifest in his time (our appeal to the wedding in Capernaum in our wedding liturgy is amongst the flimsiest of scriptural arguments in the BCP – the focus is never on the bride on the groom, but rather on what Jesus is up to in the kitchen!), I find the assertion, along with the remark that marriage should be the “norm” dubious. Moreover, the understanding of marriage and sexuality – even in Jesus’ time – is very far removed from our own. Much of the biblical world regarded sexuality as the domain of the man (the woman was regarded as passive, and idealized as obedient) and marriage largely about the transmission of patriarchal property and legitimacy and the protection of male honor. This is a very far cry – probably farther than we can imagine – from the legal equality and protections that are mutually held and enjoyed by married couples today, or the legally recognized agency of women in sexual relationships (prohibiting rape in marriage is a strikingly recent addition to the law in many states), or the recognition that same-sex orientation is found naturally occurring in the human family and wider creation.

For these reasons, I think it best to say the biblical record seems to hold this overarching theme: that fidelity, mutuality, and charity define a healthy relationship of any kind. Given the ways marital fidelity and infidelity are used as images by the prophets and in the apocalyptic literature, faithful marriage exhibiting these virtues is held as an example of the fidelity that God hopes for His people.

As Tobias Haller has argued more eloquently than I in Reasonable and Holy, I do not believe that same-sex marriages pose the threat that the IRD and others appear to argue they do. Quite the contrary. The question has helped raise up the goods of marriage which I believe are essential, and have been too often lost in a hyper-sexualized, unchaste, and shallow depiction of married life in much popular media. For starters, the goods of marriage include:

• Mutuality (which assumes, as I understand it, monogamy)

• Fidelity and stability

• The creation of a locus of hospitality that brings good to the wider community (the establishment of the household) – and this can include hosting a family, including children – biological or adopted.

The sexual relationship is meant to help support, reflect, and cultivate these goods in the relationship. It is not an end (a good) unto itself. In this sense, marriage helps us discipline our sexuality. The witness of same-sex couples in my own lifetime has been to precisely this. In many cases, I have learned more about how to be faithful to my marriage vows and wife from them than from many heterosexual married couples I know. Put another way, and contrary to the assumptions of the IRD article, to argue the good of heterosexual marriage does not necessarily negate the possibility of these same goods in homosexual marriage.

I am concerned that much of the argument coming from the far right tends to raise marriage to the level of an idol. It is clearly not the ideal state for all people. In this regard, however, I remain quite conservative (and I believe orthodox) in that permanent fidelity or continent celibacy are the ideal choices held for us vis à vis sexuality both in the overall biblical record and in Catholic teaching. Christian marriages are healthy and fruitful only in as much as they cultivate the charity of each member of the family and charity in the wider community. For me, marriage is certainly not the end-all and be-all of Christian life. But I see no salient reason yet to withhold it from those same-sex couples who feel called to it. This is something the wider Episcopal Church is studying presently.

Unlike the IRD, I think we’re actually turning a corner with younger generations. I see younger people entering marriage with far greater care and attention to the vows and content of marriage than did many of their parents in the “me” generation. In The Episcopal Church, we have gotten much more serious about premarital preparation. Even for couples who are already cohabiting, this has turned out to be incredibly important work to forge a lasting and faithful marriage.

Another irony of our times: it is my understanding that the highest divorce rate is not found in the more liberal parts of the country, but in the Bible belt and the deep South. My analysis of this is actually marriages are set up to fail by overly high expectations often clothed as Christian ideals and exacerbated by the economic pressures and inequities and the sexual romanticism of our age.

I don’t have to tell you (or anyone) that marriage is hard work. So is living in community. Both require considerable discipline. But then, a life of charity always does, whether we’re coupled or single, right?

The Reverend Richard Helmer +
Rector, Church of Our Saviour
Mill Valley, CA

Self identified Lesbian minister tried for homosexual marriage ceremonies, Presbyterian Church USA

by Peter Menkin

The Rev. Jane Adams Spahr testifies at her trial for violating her ordination vows
 by conducting same-gender marriage
ceremonies

A blatantly gay player for changing the Presbyterian Church USA to accept Gay Marriage is again up for appeal on charges of committing her fourth offense of marrying homosexual people in another Church ceremony. Openly Lesbian herself, as she self-describes her position as an ordained Presbyterian Church USA minister, now retired, her lifelong mission has been to get the Church to let gays and Lesbians be married in the sight of God, though this is against Church doctrine.

The Redwood Empire trial was reported as: Spahr officiated at 16 same-sex weddings during a window when the unions were legal in California. She is a former San Francisco lesbian minister who has challenged the church on its stance on homosexuality. The Napa Register also reports she “persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience” against the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) between June 17 and November 2008 by performing the ceremonies as marriages.

The Church trial was described by reporter Alisha Wyman, Covenant Presbyterian Church in Napa, drew a crowd of ministers, media and other interested people. Six commissioners from the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of the Redwoods, which represents 54 congregations in Northern California, presided over the proceedings, sitting at a covered table at the end of the sanctuary.

Testimony from the Lesbian couple in the trial gave the usual heart rendering story of their sadness concerning the nature of denial of marriage rights in the Church, and the usual claim of their being second class citizens as a result of the Presbyterian Church USA refusing to accept marriages that are not between a man and a woman.

As argument of the defense, Scott Clark, who is representing Spahr along with defense counselor Reverend Beverly Brewster, offered Spahr didn’t do anything in violation of the constitution or the Bible. It is the defense’s opinion that both call for the church to be open to its members and love of all God’s people, Scott Clark said.

The Gay activist, retired minister, Reverend Spahr, who is 68 years old and as a Lesbian minister who is sexually active, was charged in the Presbytery of the Redwoods with violating governing documents of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) by calling those ceremonies “marriages.” Prosecutors are asking for the lowest level of censure: public rebuke. Many opposed to Gay Marriage in the Presbyterian Church USA may be asking why so slight a punishment for so chronic and blatant an act done in a near chronic series of actions for which she is neither repentant, nor sorry, but very proud of committing.

In another Napa Register newspaper report. The discipline decision was explained this way: In its acquittal of Spahr, the commission reasoned that the definition of marriage is a definition only and is not subject to discipline. Spahr also didn’t define the ceremonies as “marriages” in her reports.

Scott Clark, representing Spahr, said she was adhering to of inclusion and openness in her acts.

The ten couples stand with Janie Spahr and Defense Counsel Scott Clark and Beverly Brewster for the reading of the decision. Jim Spahr, Sphar's former husband and long-time supporter, sits with Prosecuting counsel JoAn Blackstone who is a friend of the Spahr family.

These Progressive religious theological arguments that are so popular and widespread in California and especially Northern California and San Francisco, are held by Reverend Spahr, who has been a minister as an evangelist for the progressive organization That All May Freely Serve since before retiring in 2007. She has been an ordained minister for 36 years and served at the First Presbyterian Church in San Rafael, California (Marin County and north of San Francisco), the Metropolitan Community Church in San Francisco and the Downtown United Presbyterian Church in New York. So notes reporter Alisha Wyman in a second Napa Register story. This writer assumes reporter Wyman was eyewitness at the trial just held.

In its guilty verdict, the commissioners censured her with rebuke; they stayed her sentence until an appeals process is complete.

Spahr, a lesbian activist, at the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Napa, California USA was told, the commissioners urged the church to re-examine its policies, which are contradictory and against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, moderator Jim Jones read from the opinion. So the eyewitness report said.

By the Napa Register newspaper story, a reader would believe the members of the Church that held the most recent attempt at forming a religious marriage between homosexuals favors such actions:

“Please understand, there is nothing but love for Jane and the work she is doing for us,” said Covenant Presbyterian Church elder Elizabeth Groelle.

In an August 30, 2010 press statement by the Presbyterian Church USA with the titled, “Spahr found guilty on same-gender marriage charges”: ‘Journey of reconciliation’ needed as state, church law diverge, court says”—

Civil law was not the issue in this trial. “This is an ecclesiastical trial,” Blackstone said, “and we are not here to debate civil law.” The prosecution called no witnesses.

Spahr, 68, an honorably retired member of the Presbytery of the Redwoods, was charged with presiding over the June 20, 2008, marriage ceremony of a same gender couple while such marriages were recognized and recorded as legal by the State of California.


In addition Spahr was charged with presiding over an additional 15 same-gender marriages during that period of time.


The third charge was that in presiding over the secular marriage ceremonies, Spahr was violating her ordination vows by failing to obey an Authoritative Interpretation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Book of Order.

“I am deeply proud of the PJC and all involved with the process,” Redwoods Executive Presbyter and Stated Clerk Robert Conover said, “and I am profoundly moved by the sadness of those who feel hurt by this decisions.” “I am deeply proud of the PJC and all involved with the process,” Redwoods Executive Presbyter and Stated Clerk Robert Conover said, “and I am profoundly moved by the sadness of those who feel hurt by this decisions.”

[A defense witness named] Krause testified … on the scriptural understanding of marriage and how Spahr did or did not act in violation of her vows of ordination. She argued that the Book of Order definition of marriage is based on a contemporary understanding of partnership, while the scriptural understanding is based on the idea of a wife as property and subordinate to the husband.


Krause noted that one of the PC(USA) predecessor denominations, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., changed the definition of marriage in its constitution in the 1950s in response to cultural changes that opened up the opportunity for remarriage in a church after divorce.

Thus, Krause noted, marriage is a unique blending of state and church authority.




"Calvin taught that the civil authority creates the contract and the church solemnizes it,” Krause said. When the definition of marriage was in harmony between the two institutions, Krause continued, the 2008 authoritative interpretation had logic…

The statement for Presbyterian Church USA as released to the Press is credited to: Anitra Kitt…a free-lance writer in northern California and a candidate for the ministry under the care of the Presbytery of the Cascades.

Susan Childress, Special to The Layman Online, Posted Monday, March 6, 2006 said in her web report, A seven-member California Redwoods Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission found that the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr, an ordained Presbyterian minister, evangelist and lesbian activist, committed “no offense” and acted “within her right of conscience” when she pronounced each lesbian couple “bride and bride and partners in life” in 2004 and 2005. (Note this is Jane Spahr’s prior trial, not her recent one of 2010 reported on in The Layman.)

It remains clear by the Presbyterian Church USA Layman website that Reverend Spahr remains both unrepentant and “swears” to continue her revolutionary purposes to change marriage in the Presbyterian Church USA so it is also between avowed and practicing homosexuals:

“Today is just a beautiful day for us,” said Spahr immediately after the Commission’s 6-1 ruling at Church of the Roses in Santa Rosa, chosen because of its location within the Redwood Presbytery and for the lack of its association with either the defense or prosecution.

“Today there was an honoring of who we are, and we can’t tell you what this means to us,” Spahr said. Proclaiming that she will continue to marry both lesbian and gay couples, Spahr added, “I know we’ll continue to do our work with love, with integrity and with justice.”

Ten couples stand with Janie Spahr and Defense Counsel Scott Clark
and Beverly Brewster for the reading of the decision. Jim Spahr, Sphar's former husband and long-time supporter, sits with
Prosecuting counsel JoAn Blackstone who is a friend of the Spahr family.

Part of the practice and belief held by homosexuals regarding homosexual marriage is they are the future, as is gay and lesbian marriage the future. One Lesbian who is married said to writer Susan Childress, and she quoted her:… Douglass, 41, a Rochester resident raised in San Rafael, California, said she met Spahr 27 years ago when she attended a Presbyterian youth group where Spahr served. “Being a lesbian in a Presbyterian church has been really hateful because you’re not seen as being okay,” she said. Douglass resolved the issue by staying in the denomination and believing that “the church would just have to catch up.”


The San Francisco gay newspaper The Advocate reported briefly on the findings:

“This is such a sad moment for the Church” Spahr, who has been a minister for 36 years, said in a statement. “Today, the Church rejected God’s” amazing hospitality and welcome. It deeply troubles and saddens me.�

Interestingly, in its verdict, the church praised Spahr:

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.�

Spahr and her legal team are looking into options for appeal.


Addendum


Janie began her “out” liberation work with and for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people

as the Minister of Pastoral Care in the Castro area of Metropolitan Community Church in San

Francisco from 1980-1982 when her own Presbyterian denomination did not know what to do

with this “lesbyterian”.


In November of 1982 Janie, along with many friends, founded the Ministry of Light which became the Spectrum Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns. She served

as their Executive Director for over 10 years. From youth groups, parent groups, PFLAG, support groups, family camps, AIDS Ministry, speakers bureau, this ministry has become the L/G/B/T center in Marin County, California, where it continues to flourish. Janie completed her work there on February 28, 1993.


In November of 1991 Janie was called to serve as one of four Co-Pastors at the Downtown

United Presbyterian Church in Rochester, New York. She was denied that call by the

denomination’s highest court in November 1992. In March of 1993 The Downtown United

Presbyterian Church invited Janie to become their evangelist to spread the good news by

“personing the issue” and challenging exclusive church policies.

Janie has traveled throughout the country, educating and informing Presbyterians and others working on behalf of greater

inclusiveness for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.CLGS is honored to include her papers in the CLGS Archives, together with materials from That All May Freely Serve, a pioneering LGBT-oriented justice ministry within the Presbyterian Church (USA). Both collections are currently being catalogued and archived. CLGS will make an announcement when these are accessible and available for research.

(Biographical data comes from the LGBT Religious Archives Network Profile Gallery.)


This article appeared originally in The Church of England Newspaper, London where it may still be found.