A Religious Liberal Blog

This site hopefully can provide some vehicle by which I can comment, complain, and once in a while praise the state of religion in this country and around the world from a liberal protestant perspective.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

A Few Items

Jane Spahr was recently cleared by a Presbyterian court for her role in performing a marriage for a lesbian couple. It's is a victory for her, for moral conscience, and for loving commitments. But the court had to ignore the language of the Presbyterian constitution.

Yesterday I had a chance to sub for a junior high gym class. It was disconcerting and gratifying at the same time. Seeing kids being picked on, much like my own experience with gym, was hard but being in a position to stop it and provide some consolation was good. It makes me wonder how kids survive that time period in their lives.

I also ended up leading a workshop on the Labyrinth to a local pagan group. It was a good discussion, but I think they may have been astounded that I'm a Christian. Given how the religion is viewed, especially in a bible belt region like ours, it was a teachable moment.

I ended up responding to Chris Tessone's post on the question of whether process theology was compatible with the idea of the transcendence of God. It depends on how one views transcendence, but I argue that the two can be linked up. Been busy this week so I apologize for the sparse postings.


At 10:37 AM , Blogger Alan said...

Actually they didn't ignore the Book of Order. They took it seriously. There is nothing in the BoO that prohibits same sex marriages.

At 11:00 PM , Blogger Dwight said...

My understanding is that Section W-4.9001 has been used to prohibit gay marriage and is the basis by which a number of church trials have emerged. I could be wrong on this, because I believe what Sphar did was the right thing to do morally, I wasn't sure if the right thing and the constitution meshed on this point.

At 7:43 AM , Blogger Gaius said...

Hmm. I'm thinking Dwight is right.

Not the first time a court has done that sort of thing. Ignore the text in order to do what's morally right, I mean.

But it has more commonly been the Supremes, eh? Not a church court.

At 11:16 AM , Blogger Alan said...

Indeed W-4.9001 has been used to prohibit gay marriage because it talks about marriage being between one man and one woman. However, it doesn't say that there can't be other definitions, nor does it prohibit gay marriage.

At 5:27 PM , Blogger Dwight said...

That makes sense Alan, do you think the right wing will try to change that in the constitution in the future?

At 10:34 AM , Blogger Alan said...

They already have an overture to do just that:



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home