Calling a recent judicial decision “un-Presbyterian,” the lead counsel for the complainants announced this week that an appeal will be filed in a case that will determine whether or not an openly gay California woman will be ordained into the Presbyterian Church (USA).

On Oct. 1, Mary Naegeli, lead attorney in the Parnell (et. al.) v. Presbytery of San Francisco, announced that that the 2009 complaint, which was thrown out by the Synod of the Pacific’s Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) on Sept. 17, will be appealed to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.

Two weeks ago, the SPJC found that the Presbytery of San Francisco ruled correctly after it ordained ministerial candidate Lisa Larges in 2009. The commission ruled in favor of the presbytery in two remaining claims of error after the GAPJC ruled in the presbytery’s favor in nine of 11 other points.

In 2004, ordination standards in the PCUSA Book of Order required ordained ministers to live in chastity in singleness or fidelity in marriage, effectively banning homosexual relationships.

Larges, an openly gay woman, filed a statement of departure, stating the chastity-fidelity clause was a non-essential after seeking ordination in 2004. After a concerned group of Presbyterians filed a complaint, the case made its way to the GAPJC in August.

In its ruling, the GAPJC charged the synod commission with determining whether or not the presbytery’s actions violated either Scriptural or confessional standards.

The SPJC ruled in September that the presbytery could choose which interpretation of Scripture to use in determining how to decide upon Larges’ qualifications for ordination.

“[With regard to homosexual behavior,] interpretations of Scripture and the confessions, and the conclusions that result from those interpretations, have not been uniform in the history and practice of the Church,” the commission ruled.

“The [SPJC] has rendered a decision that is so un-Presbyterian that it can’t stand without some kind of answer,” Naegeli said in a Monday interview, adding that the Parnell complainants plan to appeal within the next 30 days.

“To say that, since scholars disagree on the interpretation of Scripture … means that this area can’t possibly be an essential, is breathtaking,” she added.

Read More [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced in this article is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]