“…Bill and I were wed a third time. This time it was a legal marriage, recognized by the state of Connecticut and officiated by two faithful Christian ministers. And it was Presbyterian. The liturgy was Presbyterian. The witnesses were Presbyterian. The two grooms were Presbyterian (Bill became a new member and deacon of our church in 2008). Everything was Presbyterian about it except that it will not be a marriage that is recognized by the Presbyterian denomination. All those present agreed that God was surely in our midst that evening and God once again blessed our relationship.”

CROMWELL, Conn. — A teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been found not guilty by the Southern New England Presbytery’s Permanent Judicial Commission of violating his ordination vows when he married his same-gender partner.

The Rev. John Merz married William Starowski in 2009 in Connecticut, where same-gender civil marriages are legal.

In an article published in the March 2009 issue of Presbyterian Promise news, Merz wrote “… on January 8th in our still decorated from Christmas living room, surrounded by members of our church ‘covenant group’ (a church fellowship group) Bill and I were wed a third time. This time it was a legal marriage, recognized by the state of Connecticut and officiated by two faithful Christian ministers. And it was Presbyterian. The liturgy was Presbyterian. The witnesses were Presbyterian. The two grooms were Presbyterian (Bill became a new member and deacon of our church in 2008). Everything was Presbyterian about it except that it will not be a marriage that is recognized by the Presbyterian denomination. All those present agreed that God was surely in our midst that evening and God once again blessed our relationship.”

Following the ceremony, he wrote that a toast was given to “hope for the Presbyterian Church (USA) that it will one day (soon) recognize this marriage (and others like it) as one of its own….

In filing the original charge Stephen Nazareth, a ruling elder at Greenwood Community Church (PCUSA), stated that the charges were filed “out of frustration that the Presbytery of Southern New England has been unwilling or unable to enforce its own constitution.  Since Rev. Merz “marriage” his specialized ministry has been repeatedly renewed in spite of this lifestyle not being in compliance with Holy Scripture and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the specific standards of the presbytery through the Committee on Ministry. His recent appointment to the Committee on Ministry was my personal breaking point on this matter.”

Read More

_____________________________________

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, provided these comments about the trial.

I spoke today (Nov. 23) in Hartford, Conn., as a witness at the Southern New England presbytery trial of Rev. John Paul Merz who “married” another man. The counsel of the prosecuting team was Rev. Parker Williamson, the former head of the Presbyterian Layman, a godly, good, and capable Christian man. He had asked me to serve as an expert witness on Scripture. Several court cases at the General Assembly level or at the synod level had already occurred in previous years using clearly untenable reasoning to justify homosexual practice.
One “rationale” used was that a minister who “marries” a person of the same sex cannot be prosecuted for doing so because those doing the prosecuting don’t recognize the legitimacy of the marriage. Imagine the same argument applied to a man marrying his mother or two women concurrently. The point is that the offender falsely views his relationship with another of the same sex as marriage.

Another “rationale” was that the statements in the Book of Order and Book of Confessions and Directory of Worship that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman are “only” definitional and carrying no implication whatsoever that homosexual “marriage” is wrong. This is somewhat like claiming that the definition of a triangle as a three-sided figure does not mean that it is wrong to draw a four-sided figure and call that a triangle; or a definition of marriage as a union of two persons does not preclude a union of three or more persons being called a marriage.

Given these precedents Parker Williamson knew that the prosecuting case would be sunk unless a new kind of defense would be adopted, namely, one that was based on what Jesus and Scripture generally says. The Constitution of the PCUSA repeatedly affirms that Scripture is the ultimate authority of all decisions. If these statements are to be taken seriously, then it behooves any PCUSA court investigating homosexual offenses by ministers of the gospel to consider carefully what Scripture says. Court precedents can be invalidated if their reasoning is shown to be absurd.

The lawyer for the defense was from a high-powered law firm that takes in hundreds of millions of dollars each year. He came across to those on the prosecuting team as a rude and bombastic fellow, a legal bully, though this outward affect seemed not to put off the seven-member Permanent Judicial Commission that was hearing the case. Parker Williamson, on the other hand, was a real gentleman throughout the proceedings. The defense lawyer argued the clearly unreasonable positions cited above. He added the additional bad argument that no action could be taken against his client because we could not inquire as to whether the relation was sexual (it, of course, was sexual) so that he could not be charged with any wrong for being “married” to another man.

When it came time to ask Rev. Williamson if he had any witnesses, I was introduced as an expert witness on Scripture for the prosecution. The moderator of the Permanent Judicial Commission questioned whether I could contribute anything of relevance. Remember when controversy arose over the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools? Civil courts allowed extensive testimony on evolution and ID in order to evaluate the law. Shouldn’t a PCUSA court given even greater attention to Scripture since it is the word of God? The moderator said the PJC would recess to discuss the issue of my testimony. When they came back they did the bare minimum to give the appearance of considering Scripture and avoid the problem of not allowing a witness to speak who had been flown in special for the occasion.

They gave me a mere 15 minutes to speak. In that time, in response to questions asked by Rev. Williamson, I talked about the witness of Jesus, of the creation texts, and only a small bit on Paul (given time). I also addressed how we know that the male-female character of marriage was pervasive in Israel and early Christianity. I noted that it was irrelevant whether a man in a homosexual “marriage” was engaging in sex or not, so far as the decision of the court was concerned, because bestowing the name “marriage” on his union automatically gave him permission to engage in sex, since Scripture treats marriage as the only venue where sex is permissible (indeed, commanded).

The lawyer for the defense cross-examined me, not by asking about Scripture but by asking me repeatedly if I was aware of this or that verdict rendered by a PCUSA court. I told him that I was there as a witness of Scripture, not an expert on PCUSA court cases; that though I had only a broad familiarity with these cases I knew that they had not considered Scripture, and that Scripture trumped badly reasoned court cases. When I made the last point a woman lawyer who was a member of the PJC let out a cry of disgust (so unprofessional).

The defense lawyer attempted to berate me to give a simple yes or no answer and the moderator joined in. When the defense lawyer was done, Rev. Williamson directed some questions to me that made the point that I was a witness for Scripture, not PCUSA court cases, but that I did recognize that these decisions had been made independent of a consideration of Scripture. When I confirmed this, the defense lawyer suggested that I was a liar, as if I either I must have all knowledge of these court cases or none at all. The moderator of the PJC never admonished the defense lawyer for his rudeness.

The PJC moderator refused to allow Rev. Williamson to introduce highlighted statements from the Book of Order, Book of Confession, and Directory of Worship emphasizing the importance of Scripture. They also gave the defense lawyer a follow-up last word even though the Book of Order specifies that the prosecuting counsel gets that privilege.

Sadly the presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission of Southern New England voted 7-0 that the homosexually active “married” minister had not violated the Constitution of the PCUSA. Words no longer have their normal meaning. Scripture was given only nominal consideration and no possibility of trumping very bad rulings in the PCUSA. This is why the PCUSA is losing membership at a significant rate each year.