Category Archives: judicial commission

Synod PJC Upholds the Presbytery PJC Decision In Spahr Case

2 Replies

The Rev. Jane Adams Spahr appealed the decision of the Presbytery of the Redwoods Permanent Judicial Commission in her disciplinary case to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific. The appeal was heard Friday March 25 and the decision released early last week.  The executive summary is that the Synod PJC, without dissent, did not sustain any of the 13 specifications of error and attached an interesting comment section which identifies two important points of polity for the General Assembly PJC to consider on further appeal.  The Presbytery PJC decision remains in force.

Briefly, the background in this case is that the Rev. Spahr was previously tried for preforming same-sex ceremonies that could be interpreted as a Christian marriage but the GAPJC found that, by the definition in the Book of Order, a same-sex union can not be a marriage and therefore she was not guilty because what she was charged with was not possible (Spahr(2008) decision).  The Rev. Spahr has since conducted more ceremonies and has been charged again with this offense.  The Presbytery PJC found her guilty, following the GAPJC precedent and interpretation, and gave her both a rebuke and an apology for having to find her guilty under current church law.

There is an important and pressing polity issue embedded in this case which is the situation of preforming same-sex marriages in a civil jurisdiction that permits them, in this case California during the “window period,” but when the church does not permit or recognize them.  In the recent Southard decision, which involved a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts, this issue was not addressed since the GAPJC dismissed the charges on appeal based on the fact that the Rev. Southard performed the ceremony before the Spahr (2008) decision was published.  [Correction: this issue was addressed – see the comment below]

In this present case the facts are not in doubt — all those concerned are clear that the ceremonies preformed were intended to be rituals of Christian marriage officiated by an officer of the church and were consistant with the laws of the State of California at the time of the ceremonies.  But as the SPJC notes at the beginning of the Preliminary Statement “…the outcome of this case depends upon the application of ecclesiastical precedent to those facts.”

The SPJC notes that the controlling precedent is the Southard decision and goes on to say:

The question is this: in the performance of these same-gender marriages, did Spahr’s participation in any way “state, imply or represent” that these ceremonies were ecclesiastical marriages, the standard set in Southard? This Commission concludes that it did.

After a summary review of the facts and testimony in the case the SPJC concludes with

The standard at the time Spahr conducted the weddings and the standard used by the PPJC in arriving at its decision was Spahr (2008), which held “that officers of the PC(USA) authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage.” Southard followed and offered a more narrow view. This Commission is compelled to follow Southard as the most recent decision by the GAPJC. There is no prejudice to the parties because the conduct prohibited by Southard is a subset of the conduct previously prohibited by Spahr (2008).

Because of the number of specifications of error, and the fact that none were sustained, I will not walk through all 13.  The key specification was number 2 — “The Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission erred in constitutional interpretation when it determined the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr committed ‘the offense of representing that a same sex ceremony was a marriage.'”  The response to this specification is the longest, references back to the Preliminary Statement and wraps up with “Under both Spahr (2008) and Southard, the implication that a civil marriage is also an ecclesiastical marriage when performed for same-sex couples is a violation of the constitutional standard.”  The decisions in three other specifications refer back to this rational.

In three of the specifications of error (9, 10, and 11) the specification points to sections of the Book of Order related to inclusion and justice and makes the claim that the PPJC decision “…constitutes both error in constitutional interpretation and injustice in the decision.”  In all three cases the SPJC responded “The constitutional interpretations of Spahr (2008) and Southard by the PPJC are not inconsistent with the Book of Order when read as a whole.”

And for the polity wonks, the SPJC did their job fact checking the specifications of error because they note that one reference cited in a specification (G-5.0502) “has no application to this case” and that another (G-5.0202) does not exist.

The SPJC has included at the end of the decision a one-page Comments section where they make note of three important polity points in this case.

Let me jump to point 2 first, because this is the church-state matter I have raise before. The SPJC raises the concern for the pastoral role of Teaching Elders and here is their comment, in its entirety with my emphasis added in the last paragraph:

2. This Commission has a continuing concern about the pastoral role of a Minister of Word and Sacrament to those same-gender partners who wish to have a civil marriage. Spahr and Southard help to clarify the difference between civil and ecclesiastical weddings and the prohibitions required from PCUSA clergy in officiating at same-gender ecclesiastical weddings.

Our concern is for those PCUSA clergy who wish to officiate at a same-gender civil wedding. What would such a minister need to do to faithfully perform a civil wedding while conforming to PCUSA polity regarding ecclesiastical weddings? Would a Minister of Word and Sacrament be faithful to PCUSA polity, for example, if they officiated in a civil wedding outside a church plant, performed without any reference to the Directory for Worship, have the wedding license signed with no reference to a denomination or an ordination, or sans any other implication stated or unstated to the PCUSA? Or, is it a violation of church polity for PCUSA clergy to officiate at a civil same-gender wedding in all circumstances?

In a time when increasing numbers of states permit same-gender weddings and civil unions, it is important for the church to clarify how its clergy might pastorally participate in such secular occasions while honoring the PCUSA’s definition of Christian marriage.

I mention this first because I think their first points relates to this.  The first comment is about the role of the GAPJC in interpreting the constitution: “It is troubling that the GAPJC appears to have usurped the legislative province of the General Assembly when it created a new basis for discipline in Spahr (2008)… Whatever our opinion of the principle may be, it would appear that if the GAPJC has authority to proscribe specific behavior in this instance, it may do so in many other instances as well.”

An important and interesting observation, but one I do not entirely agree with.  I agree that any issue is best dealt with through the full General Assembly, but we also must realize the the Assembly has limitations in time.  At one time in the mainline church, and currently in some Presbyterian branches, the full GA sits as a judicial body deciding such cases. However, with typically a dozen cases now coming to the GAPJC between Assemblies there is no time in the full Assembly’s schedule for individually hearing these cases themselves.  For purposes of expediency and efficiency the GAPJC has been empowered as a commission to act with the Assembly’s authority in these matters.

Regarding legislative action on these matters the Assembly has had the opportunity to speak and has chosen not to.  Even regarding the formation of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage, on which I served, the Assembly charged us with writing a social witness document and explicitly charged us not to write a polity statement. Given this vacuum the GAPJC was in the position to fill it when a question arose.  While I fully agree that “The General Assembly and the presbyteries are more representative and better equipped to consider such matters by the usual practice of amending the Book of Order,” to date they have not, or are content to let the GAPJC decisions be the guiding authority.

Finally, the third comment is a message to us all and is important enough to quote it in full:

3. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has had a long season of discourse and debate regarding issues involving the participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons within the life of the church. Bound by the call of Scripture and Christ’s message of grace and love, many have chosen to stay in the midst of conflict to serve as advocates for those people and issues important to them. This Commission heard argument referencing the personal and poignant nature of this debate from participants on all sides who care at deep levels about the direction the church may go. The goodwill evidenced between the parties and their commitment to the church’s discernment process was an example of how members may remain faithful to their convictions yet further the resolution of conflict. In her decision to stay within the bounds of the PC(USA) and be subject to the church’s polity and discipline, Rev. Spahr’s ministry provides another example of engagement and commitment. May the church, as it continues this debate, find friends among colleagues in ministry and work with them, remaining subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit.

So for the moment nothing has
changed in this debate.  The indication is that there will be an appeal to the GAPJC so we will have to wait for that to play out before we have an interpretation and guidance on the nature of marriage as described in Confessions and the Book of Order. Stay tuned…

New PC(USA) GAPJC Decision — The Southard Decision

1 Reply

Yesterday the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their decision in disciplinary case 220-102:

Southard v. PC(USA) through Presbytery of Boston


If you are looking for a sound-bite length summary of the whole case you will not find one.  The Commission has given us a multi-layered decision, but has done us the favor of helping to define the layers.

The facts of the case are agreed by both sides: That on March 1, 2008, the Rev. Jean Southard officiated at a marriage ceremony between two women in Waltham, Massachusetts.  The ceremony was characterized by the participants as a “Christian Marriage.”  Further details are enumerated in the history section of the opinion to show that this same-sex ceremony was represented as a marriage ceremony.

Two additional legal details are important to keep in mind here:

  1. At the time of this ceremony same-sex civil marriage was legal in the state of Massachusetts.
  2. The decision in disciplinary case 218-12, Spahr v. PC(USA) through Presbytery of Redwoods, was decided on April 28, 2008, about two months after this ceremony was preformed.

In the Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission trial the Commission acquitted the Rev. Southard saying in part:

The Prosecuting Committee has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that W-4.9000 contains mandatory language that would prohibit a Minister of Word and Sacrament from performing a same-gender marriage.
Since the Preface to the Directory of Worship (clause b) states that the Directory uses language that is “simply descriptive”, this Commission takes this to mean that the definition of Christian marriage in W-4.9001 is merely descriptive; there is no mandatory language in this article.

This was overturned on appeal by the Presbytery to the PJC of the Synod of the Northeast.  The Rev. Southard appealed that decision to the GAPJC.

First layer: The specific actions of Rev. Southard
The GAPJC wrote this regarding the charges related to the ceremony preformed by Rev. Southard:

This Commission concluded in Spahr that prior authoritative interpretations lacked mandatory language. Southard conducted this ceremony two months prior to Spahr. Sensitive to the authoritative interpretation in Spahr, this Commission agrees with the SPJC that Spahr cannot be applied retroactively to the facts of this case. Therefore, Southard did not violate the Book of Order or her ordination vows by erring in her constitutional interpretation. She did not commit an offense because the applicable authoritative interpretation (Spahr) had not yet been promulgated.

So, a definite line has been drawn in PC(USA) polity at April 28, 2008, when the GAPJC decision in the Spahr case provided an authoritative interpretation that the language in the Directory for Worship is mandatory.

Based on this conclusion the charges against the Rev. Southard are not valid and she is acquitted of violating the constitutional requirements of the PC(USA).  The first two specifications of error in the appeal, the ones dealing with the specific charges, are sustained.

Second layer: Constitutional Interpretation
Here is the “but” that the GAPJC seems to be putting in the decision.  The third specification of error deals not with the specifics of the ceremony preformed by with more general constitutional interpretation:

The SPJC erred in constitutional interpretation by determining that a minister of the Word and Sacrament who performs (participating in and directing) a same-gender marriage as a Christian marriage commits an offense prohibited by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Authoritative Interpretations and violates his or her ordination vows.

This specification of error was not sustained.  The decision essentially says that the status quo, the current prohibition made mandatory in the Spahr decision, is in effect.  The new polity twist in this case was the fact that same-sex marriage is legal in some states, but the GAPJC says that when it comes to Christian Marriage in the PC(USA) that does not matter:

The question before this Commission, then, is whether the Massachusetts law defining this relationship as a legal marriage changes the impact of the definitions in W-4.9001. This Commission holds that it does not. While the PCUSA is free to amend its definition of marriage, a change in state law does not amend the Book of Order. It is the responsibility of the church, following the processes provided in the Constitution for amendment, to define what the PCUSA recognizes as a “Christian marriage.” Consequently, Spahr’s holding, “By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage,” remains in effect.

This Commission further held in Spahr, for prospective application, “that the liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services.” In light of the change in the laws of some states, this Commission reiterates that officers of the PCUSA who are authorized to perform marriages, when performing a ceremony for a same-gender couple, shall not state, imply, or represent that the same-gender ceremony is an ecclesiastical marriage ceremony as defined by PCUSA polity, whether or not the civil jurisdiction allows same-gender civil marriages.

So, it was not an offense back in March of 2008, and it might not be prohibited at some future point, but the Commission reasserts that it is prohibited now in the church, even if civil same-sex marriage is permitted by the state.  This also seems to imply that while the officiating pastor may not be guilty of an offense, if the Spahr decision is extended to this one, no marriage ceremony was actually preformed since “a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage.”

Technical details
There are four more specifications of error which were decided on procedural grounds.  In the case of specifications 4 and 5 they were not sustained because they “do not accurately reflect the holding of the SPJC as to the matters involved.”  In the case of specifications 6 and 7, the errors were sustained.  These dealt with the decision of the SPJC which reversed the PPJC’s decision when it should have remanded the case back to the PPJC for a new trial and in doing so did not provide specificity on one of the charges.  With the dismissal of the charges these are rendered moot.

Concurring Opinions
There are three concurring opinions attached to this decision.

1) This opinion, signed by five commissioners, expresses the sentiment that this is at its core a human rights issue and in light of that urges the PC(USA) to “amend the constitution to allow for the marriage of same sex couples in the PCUSA, and otherwise welcome gay, lesbian, and bisexual people into the full fellowship of the church.”

2) This is the longest concurring opinion, running a full page in narrative, signed by six commissioners.  Four of these six also signed the first concurring opinion. As the authors say, “[Our] concern is whether W-4.9001 provides an effective and unambiguous definition of Christian marriage.”  To the point they write later on:

To claim that this paragraph is primarily and intentionally legal in nature places a strain upon its obvious narrative purpose. As a fourfold theological outline of Christian marriage in narrative form, it is arguable that it propose
s either regulatory imperative or legal intention. Certainly, it does not have the kind of language or format that the church has come to expect in definitional statements, for the language in this paragraph is not obviously legislative, in the sense of providing regulatory lines that define boundaries or proscribe behavior.

and

Thus, W-4.9001 has become contested regarding whether it can bear the interpretive weight that judicial process and decision has put upon it. The church needs a sharper degree of clarification and guidance that precisely defines how it understands marriage, especially in light of the high financial and personal burden involved.

For all the polity wonks out there, I recommend having a look at this concurring opinion — you may or may not agree with it, but they have done a good job of clearly stating where there might be problems when theological narrative is applied as polity for judicial process.  (And now I am going to have a look at nFOG and see how it would stand up to this test.)

3) I will let the opening paragraph of the third concurring opinion, signed by three commissioners, speak for itself:

We concur with the Decision of the Commission, and with the holding that Spahr is not applicable as precedent because the actions taken by Southard took place before the Spahr Decision was rendered. However, it is disingenuous of Southard to claim that no guidance was available from the larger church on the advisability of performing a same-gender marriage.

Their point is that the Spahr Decision is not the first one and enough guidance is present in the 1991 Authoritative Interpretation and the 2000 Benton Decision to have discouraged this ceremony from happening.  The opinion concludes “While Southard may be commended for her desire to provide compassionate pastoral care, a failure to seek out the guidance of the larger Church would raise a concern about Southard’s willingness to ‘be governed by our church’s polity, and to abide its discipline.'”

Personal Comments
Having served on the PC(USA) Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage I want to add just a brief comment about the polity situation the PC(USA) now finds itself in.

As the second concurring opinion points out so clearly, section W-4.9001 of the Book of Order provides a theological definition of marriage where even the civil dimension is part of God’s order.  Our committee was painfully aware that there are on-going changes in the civil realm that those of us of faith can speak to, but the church as an institution can not control.  This means that the second point of the four-fold definition of marriage is something we as a church can not specify and yet we have it in our constitution.  While some of us would have liked to have seen something done, with the theological diversity on the committee the exact nature of the adjustment was not immediately clear.  The discussion was however moot since our charge from the General Assembly was to make our report a social witness document and the charge excluded from our purview constitutional changes.  As you are probably aware, the 219th General Assembly accepted our report for study and took no further action on constitutional changes.

Looking Forward
If you are following these issues in the PC(USA) then you are no doubt aware that another, similar case is working its way through the judicial process.  Back in August there was a new trial for the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr where she was charged with, and found guilty of, conducting same-sex marriages.  The circumstances are similar because such marriages were permitted under California law at the time they were preformed.  She has filed an appeal to the Synod PJC and there is every expectation that whatever the decision is there an appeal to the GA PJC will be heard at some point in the next year or so.

As you might expect this case comes with an additional twist of its own.  The presbytery sustained the charge that Rev. Spahr had “persisted in a pattern or practice of
disobedience concerning the aforementioned authoritative interpretation
of the Book of Order.”

At first glance, it appears that the GAPJC has now clearly set the legal tests for hearing this case.  The PPJC seems to have thought so in finding her guilty but expressing their personal disagreement with the outcome.  But as we know, there is still the appeal to be heard by the Synod PJC and there may be other procedural issues that arise.  We will see how the process plays out.

Well, I think you see why I described this decision as defying simple sound bites.  On the one hand, this case is over and the defendant has been found not guilty.  On the other hand, the PC(USA) constitutional standard – as currently understood by judicial commission interpretation – has been reiterated, including the understanding that earlier same-sex marriage ceremonies could not, by definition, actually be marriage ceremonies in the PC(USA).  Stay tuned to see where this legal standard takes us in the future…

Another Step In The Journey — Synod PJC Decision In Parnell And Others v. Presbytery Of San Francisco

1 Reply

It strikes many Presbyterians with surprise, that the General Assembly… should be largely occupied in discussing the question… They ask with displeasure, “Are fundamentals never to be settled among us? Is the church never to be relieved of these debates, which thus agitate the settled foundations of our theory?” We may answer to these indignant questions with an emphatic No. The good brethren who thus deplore these renewed discussions of first principles misconceive the nature of the human mind and of free institutions. While man remains the creature he is, such discussions are to be expected and desired. Each generation must do its own thinking, and learn for itself its own lessons in first truths and general principles. If we insist that this generation of Presbyterians shall hold our fathers’ principles on trust, and by mere prescription, the result will be that they will not hold them sincerely at all.

I will let you live with that quote for a few minutes.  (If the curiosity is killing you about who said it and when then jump to the end or do a web search for it.) In a sense this quote is timeless and maybe captures the unique nature of Presbyterianism better than any other I know.  And while there has been some recent discussion and lamenting about how slowly our polity can move, the truth is that for a church that is supposed to embody a covenant community we do move slowly because it is about discerning God’s will through the journey of the whole community.  You may remember that in the PC(USA)’s predecessors, women were not ordained as deacons until American Presbyterianism was into its third century (1906), it was another 24 years until women were ordained as ruling elders, and then an additional 26 for ordination as teaching elders.  Changes in ordination standards are slow in moving and as one widely-cited GAPJC ordination decision from 1975 testifies, these issues may still be unsettled decades later.

So, the decision from the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific that was released last week should be viewed as one little step in the larger context of the community’s discernment that has been on-going and is not yet complete.

I ultimately want to comment on the decision, and while I hesitate to once again recite the background that this decision comes out of, let me at least briefly remind those that don’t follow this debate as closely as some of us polity wonks of a few of the important background points that are applicable here:

First, while there have been multiple amendments sent to the presbyteries to try to remove or modify the ordination standards section in the Book of Order, also know as the “fidelity and chastity” section, G-6.0106b still remains a constitutional standard for ordination.  Yes, another amendment is being sent to the presbyteries this year but to date the collective discernment of the denomination has been to keep the standard.

Second, with the adoption of the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity in 2006  the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) that included the following section on applying the standards to those seeking ordination:

c. Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include:

(1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.

The AI then goes on to say that one governing body’s application of the standards is reviewable by higher governing bodies.

In response to this AI some presbyteries passed policies about what are essentials, but in the Bush decision the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) ruled that there could not be blanket policies, but rather candidates must be considered on a case-by-case basis.  However, in that ruling the GAPJC also stated that:

“Under our polity, violations of behavioral standards are to be addressed through repentance and reconciliation, not by exception or exemption. The freedom of conscience granted in G-6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards.” The fidelity and chastity provision may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it.

The 218th General Assembly (2009) chose to issue a new Authoritative Interpretation that clarified the intent of the PUP Report as expressed in the rational, which was not binding.  This AI contradicted parts of the GAPJC Bush decision and rendered those sections void.  The AI said:

The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112, interprets the requirements of G-6.0108 to apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”

This AI was based upon an overture to the 218th GA from the Presbytery of John Knox and has acquired the informal title “Knox Authoritative Interpretation” or “Knox AI,” a title propagated in the decision we are about to look at to distinguish it from the earlier “PUP AI.”  The original overture from Knox carries the title “On Adopting an Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 to Ensure Proper Application of Ordination Standards.”

The third perforatory point I want to make is that although there have been several GAPJC decisions related to ordination standards all of them have dealt with procedural matters and issues of timing.  Specifically, the earlier cases have clarified that a statement of departure must be made by the candidate and assessed by the presbytery at the time of their examination for ordination.  Specific to this case GAPJC decision 219-11 (Naegeli and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco) specified that examination on a departure must take place at the time of examination for ordination.

While the brief (yes, for this issue that is brief) review above may be familiar to many of my readers, I include it here because in my discussion that follows there are points that refer to these pieces of the past history.

It is important to remember that up to this point all of the case history of all of the judicial cases dealing with declaring exceptions to ordination standards are related to the process of doing so and rulings have not been rendered related to a specific candidate’s declared exceptions and how the presbytery has dealt with them.  That is what makes this new decision different.

This new case, Eric Parnell, Bruce McIntosh, Cordelia Shieh, Margaret Gelini, Greg Roth, Marsha Roth, Randy Young, and the Session of Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church, Complainants, v. The Presbytery of San Francisco, Respondent, is a remedial case brought by the complainants following the November 10, 2009, examination for ordination of candidate Lisa Larges.  This was the court of first impression and the Synod of the Pacific PJC heard testimony on the case and in a 5-4 decision did not sustain any of the five specifications of error.  The minority submitted an extensive dissent in which they disagree with the majority on four of the five specifications.

The ruling of the majority can actually be summed up very succinctly:  The presbytery’s actions were consistent with the current Authoritative Interpretation and the previous GAPJC rulings.

The dissenting opinion is a bit more complicated but I would summarize that as: While the facts in the case are not in dispute there are essentials of faith and polity here for which exceptions should not be granted.

Now, if all you wanted was the executive summary you can move on and I invite the polity wonks to stick around and see if you concur with my analysis of the decision.

Let me begin with the fourth specification of error, the one everyone agreed not to sustain.  That specification was that the presbytery erred in granting a departure to G-6.0106b “because departures can only be granted with regard to the interpretation of Scripture, not conduct.”  The relevant section of the Book of Order here is G-6.0108b:

b. It is to be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves. (G-1.0301; G-1.0302)

This looks like a good call on the part of the PJC because while the most recent AI addresses behavior this section does not place Scripture and conduct in this context.

Now considering the specifications of error which the PJC disagreed on – The first was that the candidate’s refusal to abide by G-6.0106b, a constitutional requirement, was equivalent to answering “No” to the fifth constitutional question for ordination about being “governed by our church’s polity.”  The second was that wishing to be exempted from G-6.0106b is “a serious departure from Reformed faith or polity.” The third specification of error was that the the presbytery was wrong to grant the exception because “such an act obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.”  Finally, the last error was that the exception that was granted “exceeds the bounds of freedom of conscience for one who seeks to hold office in the PC(USA).”

In answering all of these the prevailing decision references the most recent AI, the “Knox AI,” to argue that the process the presbytery followed complied with the current interpretations of the Book of Order.  Regarding whether the declared objection was “a serious departure” the decision says, in part:

In the absence of a preponderance of evidence showing that Presbytery erred in its decision to accept the candidate’s departure, this SPJC accepts the Presbytery’s decision that the candidate’s departure did not constitute a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity. (p. 4)

So, given the evidence at trial, and lacking strong evidence to the contrary, the SPJC finds no errors in the presbytery’s process and finds no reason to overturn their collective decision on the matter.

While the actual decision portion of the prevailing decision takes up about two pages, the dissenting opinion takes just over four pages.  The heart of the decision is the discussion of the second and third error specifications combined.  They begin their argument from the testimony of the expert witnesses for both sides:

From the testimony heard we conclude that the preponderance and emphasis of scripture supports the conclusion that the unanimous witness of both Old and New Testament is that fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness are Reformed mandates to be applied to those called to leadership in the Church. “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable…” [I Timothy 3:2]. Many other texts, Old and New Testaments, confirm this conclusion, such as Genesis 2:24, Genesis 18:20ff, Mark 10:10, Romans 1:26-31, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Jude 7, to mention only a few. No texts suggest that fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness are in violation of Scripture or that infidelity in marriage or sexual activity in singleness are consistent and supported in Scripture.

For the Candidate to separate her actions from Biblical truth is a serious departure from Reformed faith. (p. 7)

They then go on to review the PUP AI and then discuss the examination process:

In this case, the facts are clear and undisputed. The Candidate for ordination to the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament appeared upon the floor of the Presbytery of San Francisco, and during her ordination examination, declared a departure pursuant to G-6.0108 using the process described in the PUP AI, specifically in section c(2).

In her Statement of Departure, the Candidate declared that she was bound by her conscience to reject the authority of G-6.0106b, with respect to the “requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.” She expressly declared, “By my conscience, faith, and theology, I cannot and will not accept the terms of this standard”.

Each party to this matter urges divergent scriptural and constitutional interpretations but neither party contests the operative facts of this case. In a like manner, neither party asserts any deficiency in the process of the presbytery in arriving at its decision in this matter.

We are therefore squarely faced with the determination as a matter of law or polity whether the departure of the Candidate was a serious failure to adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith as expressed in the constitution.

We find that it was.

When it comes to the living of one’s life there may be considerable divergence of opinion of what it means to live one’s life “in obedience to scripture and conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church.” We may not have, nor may it be desirable to have, an exhaustive list of what those standards are. But we know one of them. The second sentence of G-6.0106b emphatically declares that it is the “requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” [italics added]. The language of the Constitution specifically and explicitly declares that requirement to be among the historic confessional standards of the church. (p. 8-9)

They finish this section by arguing for, and concluding, that the most recent AI and the Book of Order are at odds here.  “G-6.0106b and the Knox AI cannot both be honored in this case.” (p. 9)  Without citing the Bush decision they echo Bush where that decision says:

While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers. (p. 5)

and again from Bush:

The SPJC correctly stated that the fidelity and chastity provision of G-6.0106b is a mandatory standard that cannot be waived…. Presbyteries do not have the authority to restate or define such standards. (p. 7)

As I said, that is the heart of the dissent.  For error 1 the minority briefly argues that answering a constitutional question by saying “yes, except for…” is essentially saying no.  For error 5 the dissenting opinion appeals to the preceding argument about essential standards to say that if something is indeed essential, than rejecting it does exceed the bounds of conscience.

Finally, it is important to note the comment attached to the decision that, in part, says:

Given the importance of these issues to the instant parties, this Commission and the larger church body, we look forward to the GAPJC’s guidance and direction. This Commission joins with the parties of Bierschwale II in imploring the GAPJC to rule on the continued authority of Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh (Minutes 218-10, p.319) in light of the 2008 Authoritative Interpretation on G-6.0108b.

Well, the complainants have stated that they intend to appeal so a stay is in place for 45 days to give the complainants time to file the appeal and the GAPJC time to accept it.  This raises an interesting question about the appeal timeline and the voting on the amendment to G-6.0106b — Might an appeal be rendered moot and denied when no remedy is necessary if the amendment were to pass?  On the other hand, are these issues important enough and general enough that a GAPJC decision would be useful regardless of any changes to the constitution because the section at issue is actually G-6.0108 and not the “fidelity and chastity” language?

If you are interested in other coverage of the decision you can find it in all the usual places: Presbyterian News, The Outlook, The Layman , and the Covenant Network.

And two brief additional comments: 1) The 5-4 vote by the SPJC was in very similar proportions as the 156 to 138 presbytery vote to sustain the candidate’s examination.  (56% to 44% compared to 53% to 47%)  2) Counsel representing the complainants included Mary Naegeli who was the lead complainant on the earlier case I mentioned in this sequence, Naegeli and others v. San Francisco Presbytery.

So that is my take on this decision and the status of declared departures in the PC(USA).  Of course, declared departures and “scruples” are nothing new being almost as old as American Presbyterianism itself.  But once again, even as the denomination looks at adding to its confessional standards, there is the necessary discussion about what is an acceptable departure from the essentials of the Reformed faith.

And that quote at the beginning of this piece?  It may or may not surprise you that it is 150 years old – a point in time almost exactly half-way between the beginnings of American Presbyterianism and today.  We keep on arguing, but we have been for 300 years.  Polity takes time, struggle, and a willingness to be in discussion, discernment and prayer as we seek the will of God together.

And so for completeness I leave you with the full, unedited, opening line from Robert Dabney in his essay “Theories of the Eldership.”

It strikes many Presbyterians with surprise, that the General Assembly and our leading periodicals in this year 1860, one hundred and fifty years after the beginning of our church in America, should be largely occupied in discussing the question, “What is Presbyterianism?”

Presbytery PJC Decision In Redwoods v. Spahr (2010)

5 Replies

The last three days the Permanent Judicial Commission of Redwoods Presbytery has been hearing arguments in the disciplinary case of Redwoods Presbytery v. Jane Adams Spahr.  The Rev. Spahr is accused of conducting ceremonies for same-sex couples that are prohibited by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) but were legal civil marriages under the laws of the State of California at the time.  If this sounds familiar it is — this is a variant on the case filed against Rev. Spahr in 2004 that lead to General Assembly PJC Decision 218-12 that gave us the, shall we say interesting, decision that the Rev. Spahr could not have been guilty of conducting same-sex marriages because “The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.”  It may be a unique legal decision, but it is the prevailing interpretation on this subject and figures in the Commission decision.

This Commission sustained three of the four charges against Rev. Spahr, all related to the authority of the Book of Order and her persisting in preforming these ceremonies after the previous GAPJC decision.  But the Commission also weighed in with their judgment about the current polity situation in the the PC(USA).

Before I get to a discussion of the decision, I want to make a couple of observations about the trial itself.

One aspect of this trial is that it was probably the first one with significant real-time commentary on Twitter.  You can find most of the tweets under @revjanespahr and #revjanie.

It was interesting to follow the trial play-by-play, but as with most things on Twitter these days it also came with the attendant amount of snark, such as: “Oh God, she just mentioned the ‘silent majority.'” and “Blackstone: Same old same old — GAPJC.”  I would also note that virtually all of the tweets I saw were from Rev. Spahr’s supporters with none, that I saw, from anyone clearly supporting the prosecution.  Maybe I just didn’t find the hashtag.

A couple of items came across in the tweets that I wanted to comment on.
1) The argument that the Directory for Worship is descriptive and that it contains no “shalls.”  This was the argument that carried the day in a Presbytery PJC decision that acquitted the Rev. Jean Southard in a similar case in Boston Presbytery.  However, on appeal the Synod PJC found that the Presbytery PJC was in error in this reasoning and we await a General Assembly PJC case to clarify this.  But I will also say that after serving on the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Religious Marriage I came away with the understanding that W-4.9001 was the equivalent of a “shall” section and that is why I wanted to recommend to the General Assembly wording to make the civil marriage section of the definition more flexible.

2) Also related to the Special Committee and the definition, I think several of us on the Committee, myself included, came away from the study wondering if the church should be acting as the agent of the state in executing marriage licenses.  In my own experience I know that in such diverse settings as Mexico and Germany the civil marriage and the religious marriage are two distinct events with the religious ceremony possibly happening minutes or years after the civil ceremony.  This concept came up in this trial, based on the tweets, with arguments by the defense that the two are linked in the Book of Order and by the prosecution that they are not.  At least that is what I gathered from two 140 character messages.

Anyway, with that as preface, and with the understanding that this case probably has two appeals to go before it is settled, what did Redwoods Presbytery PJC give us this time?

Charge 1 was that Rev. Spahr solemnized a marriage “in direct violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (GAPJC) in its Decision and Order in Disciplinary Case 218-12.”  This effectively says that W-4.0991 is a constitutionally binding requirement of the Book of Order.

Charge 2 was that Rev. Spahr “persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience concerning the aforementioned authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order.”  In other words, since the previous GAPJC decision she had conducted multiple same-gender marriages.

Charge 3 was that Rev. Spahr “By intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the above-referenced authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order as set forth in Disciplinary Case 218-12, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, failed to be governed by polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in violation of your ordination vows (W-4.4003e).”

These three charges were sustained by the Commission on a 4-2 vote.

The fourth charge was unanimously not sustained: By publicly, intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the Book of Order, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, have failed to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church (W-4.4003g).

OK, that is the verdict.  Expect an appeal and another trip to the GAPJC. (And expect mainstream media reports to miss the nuances of the polity.)

What is most interesting about the decision is the second page with the commentary by the Commission.  They begin:

The Permanent Judicial Commission, in sustaining the first three charges, recognizes that while the Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr has indeed performed these marriages, which were and continue to be legal marriages, she did so acting with faithful compassion in accord with W7.3004. These marriages were legal in the State of California, being civil contracts (W4.9001), and are different from same sex ceremonies. The testimonies of those at court clearly demonstrated this difference.

We commend Dr. Spahr and give thanks for her prophetic ministry that for 35 years has extended support to “people who seek the dignity, freedom and respect that they have been denied” (W7.4002c), and has sought to redress “wrongs against individuals, groups, and peoples in the church, in this nation, and in the world” (W7.4002h).

But their commentary goes on as a word for the whole church:

In addition, we call upon the church to reexamine our own fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.(G3.0401c) We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the Gospel.

But the decision concludes with these words:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we are constrained to accept that the following language in GAPJC Disciplinary Case 218-12 is authoritative and should be followed until and unless modified: “We further hold that the officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.”

and

We implore the Synod and General Assembly levels of our church to listen to these testimonies, which are now part of this record, to take them to heart, and to do what needs to be done to move us as a church forward on this journey of reconciliation.

The penalty imposed is censure with rebuke (D-12.0102) and she is “enjoined to avoid such offenses in the future.”  If the decision is appealed the censure is held until the completion of the process if this decision is upheld.  Censure with rebuke is the lightest option available to the Commission and is effectively a formal declaration that what she did went against the constitution of the PC(USA).

Addendum:  A couple of additional words of commentary on this decision.  I waited a few hours to add this both to give me time to think about it and because I thought the decision pretty much spoke for itself. But to cast this in light of our polity the members of the PJC walked the fine line between “God alone is Lord of the conscience” [G-1.0301a] and “It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government.” [G-6.0108a]  Their commentary clearly, to me at least, reflects their personal frustration that while they agree with the pastoral care Rev. Spahr has carried out and disagree with the applicable sections of the Constitution and the current interpretations, the majority none-the-less recognized their obligation to abide by the current standards enacted by the majority.  One can object to the strength or extent to which the PJC majority expressed their personal beliefs, but one must admire and appreciate their faithfulness to the PC(USA) process and connectionalism.  So yes, they effectively said “These are the rules, you have broken the rules, we think the rules are wrong but we must still find you guilty.”  This was further expressed in the penalty, which is the lightest that can be imposed and is effectively saying “Go and sin no more.”

Also in contemplating this decision the question keeps coming round of what specifications of error could be cited as grounds for appeal?  Since the defense seems to have focused on the idea that W-4.9001 is descriptive and prescriptive, that is that there is no “shall” language in there, that is certain to be one of the points.  This has been discussed for a while now and it will be useful if the GAPJC does provide guidance on what it means for the Directory for Worship to be descriptive.  From what I have seen and heard I don’t think I can pick out any procedural points that would be grounds for appeal but I did not follow extremely closely.  I don’t think that either personal conscience or the difference between civil and ecclesiastical definitions of marriage would be strong points of appeal.

Expecting an appeal, or possibly a decision in the Southard case that could impact this one, it is far too early to say this is the final word on this decision and this issue.  However, it does highlight where the PC(USA) is right now with different understandings on marriage and the fact that there needs to be a recognition that same-gender marriages are legally recognized in some jurisdictions and countries.  As the Special Committee report said…

We can not agree

but

By the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, with the love of God, and in the communion of the Holy Spirit, we covenant together to:

• Honor the truth that Christ has called and God works through each member;

• Listen to one another with openness and respect;

• Support and pray for each other and for one another’s ministries;

• Earnestly seek and carefully listen to each person’s discernment of God’s will found in Scripture;

• Struggle together with perseverance to find God’s will for us even when the way is difficult;

• Love one another even when we disagree, and to commit ourselves to the reconciliation of any broken relationships we have with one another;

• Honor who we are as Presbyterians by respecting the fallible discernment of the body, bearing in mind that individual conscience, held captive to the word of God, cannot be thus bound.

Web 2.0 Meets Ecclesiastical Discipline — Where Are The Lines Of Responsible Blogging?

4 Replies

I think many of us expected it to be only a matter of time before these two worlds collided and while blogging has been increasing in religious circles it appears we now have, to my knowledge at least, the first case in Presbyterian circles of possible ecclesiastical discipline for statements made while blogging.  More on that in a moment, but first a little perspective…

Public airing of theological discussions goes back at least as far as a crazy German monk who annoyed Pope Leo X by nailing 95 Theses to a chapel door in Wittenberg.  It may seem strange to us today but in that time and place it was Martin’s equivalent of blogging back in 1517.

But as Presbyterians our system has some interesting features that help inform our understanding of discussion and church governance.  Going back to the “Radical Principles of Presbyterianism” that statement includes:

[T]hat a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein; that, in like manner, a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united: that is, that a majority shall govern;

This has been understood to include the necessity of meeting together, or as the PC(USA) Book of Order puts it [G-4.0301e]

e. Decisions shall be reached in governing bodies by vote, following opportunity for discussion, and a majority shall govern;

So within the Presbyterian system there are two principles I want to highlight at this juncture: 1) The system is representative, having Elders, Teaching and Ruling, chosen by God through the voice of the people that are responsible for most of the decision making.  2) That these representatives come together for conducting business, to join together in discerning the will of God at prescribed times and places.

In the long run point number one above may be the more interesting and complicated of the two.  For today, let me side-step this point by observing that the vast majority of those on the internet discussing the fine points of Presbyterian polity are Teaching and Ruling Elders or candidates working to be ordained as Teaching Elders.  But as much as Presbyterianism is a step away from an episcopal system towards democratization of the ecclesiastical structure, it will be important to think through the implications of the internet when everyone in the denomination can contribute to doctrinal, polity and theological discussions in near real time.  What does it look like when you scale up the congregational structure from the level of a particular church to the level of national discussion.  (For some very interesting thinking about that you can start reading TE Landon Whitsitt’s chapter drafts for The Open Source Church.)

Let me focus instead on the second point above — that discussions related to governing body decisions are intended to occur in the face-to-face environment of the judicatory meeting, and what happens when they happen outside that circle.

I want to start out by noting that taking issues out of the judicatory and into public forum is noting new.  As I mentioned above, in a sense Dr. Martin Luther did that in 1517, and it has happened on a regular basis ever since.  Many individuals who had either reputation or means of communication have taken advantage of them.

Let me give two contrasting examples from the Presbyterian Church in Canada during the church union movement early in the twentieth century.  I take these from N. Keith Clifford’s book The Resistance To Church Union In Canada 1904-1939.

The first individual is Robert Campbell, senior clerk of the General Assembly.  He was the first major opponent of church union and beginning in 1904 he argued against it based on a number of different issues.  As only us Presbyterian polity wonks could appreciate, while much of his theological argument did not get significant traction, he had a certain level of agreement from some prominent proponents of union regarding specific polity arguments he made, especially concerning the process of sending the union question down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  Leave it to the Presbyterians to rally around process.  As Clifford says [pg. 26]

There were indeed others who had doubts about union, but it was Campbell who defined the issues, exposed the irregularity of the unionists’ procedure, and proposed the alternative around which the first resistance organization crystallized.  Once the resistance became organized outside the structures of the church however, Campbell’s position as senior clerk of the assembly prevented him from assuming leadership of the movement, and he gradually slipped into the background.

His “slipping into the background” did not prevent him from taking his stand and voicing his opinion in public and he published a couple of pamphlets and one book ably making the case against union and generally forcing the unionists to address, and even agree with, his objections.  However, Clifford later speaks of his leadership [pg. 41] when new alliances were forming against union:

The problem in this instance was not Campbell’s background but his position as senior clerk.  He had been appointed to this permanent position in 1892, more than a decade before the church union question appeared on the assembly’s agenda.  Consequently, he saw himself as a leader of the whole church and not just a part of it.  When the dissidents organized in 1910, therefore, he would not accept a leadership position, even though the purpose of the group was to support his alternative of federation.  Thus, when the resistance movement began to take on a life of its own, shaped by those who assumed leadership, Campbell gradually faded into the background of the controversy to the point where later opponents of union failed to appreciate that except for his efforts the unionists might very well have accomplished their purpose in 1912.

Furthermore, after 1912, no one who was opposed to union was elected moderator or appointed to any major committee responsibility in the church.  As a result, from 1913 until his death in March 1921, [ed. note: Union was accomplished in 1925] Campbell served an assembly dominated by unionists.  His role tended to deflect attention even further  from his importance as an early opponent of union.  The ironic twist  in all this was that the unionists recognized the significance of Campbell’s refusal to accept an office in any of the resistance organizations, and when he died, they were the only one who publicly eulogized him for his service to the church during his twenty-nine years as clerk of the General Assembly.

Clifford goes on to quote some of the eulogies.  One said that while they might have differed with him in opinion, “yet we never ceased to admire the lucidity of his argument, his confidence that he was right, and the courtesy with which he treated an opponent.”  Another spoke of him as a “keen debater” who could take as well as give but “he was without bitterness and never allowed public differences to interfere with private friendships.”

On the other hand, where there have been repeated tensions about what is printed and how it is written has been in official publications of Presbyterian branches.  The Canadian union debate was no different.  Following the 1910 General Assembly meeting Dr. Ephraim Scott, editor of the official publication the Presbyterian Record became a main target.  Dr. Scott had recorded a dissent to the Assembly action to send the union proposals to the presbyteries and that and later public criticism of the unionists actions made him a target.  There were calls for him to resign if he could not support the official position of the Assembly and in the following year various charges and rebuttals were publicly aired.  At the 1911 Assembly the outgoing Moderator said that the Record was “not worthy of the church and needed shaking up.”  [Clifford, pg. 30]  An amendment to a committee report was proposed that would require faithful representation of the Assembly action or strict neutrality.  Clifford reports that the amendment failed because one prominent unionist argued the reporting was not sufficiently biased to remove the editor and another respected commissioner, at that time neutral on union, argued that the church press should be free and the editor could express his own views.  It also helped that presbytery voting on the 1910 proposal was showing weaker support for union than the proponents expected and they realized that there was a longer road ahead than they had reckoned.  But it should be noted that, as Clifford tells it, few – if any – specific charges were brought against Scott and none were validated.  As the editor he was a convenient and high-profile target.

As I said a moment ago, the use of an official publication by the editor to advocate a particular position is still a major issue and in the last couple of years we have seen criticism in the Free Church of Scotland for advocating the flexibility to have worship music beyond unaccompanied psalm singing, in the Church of Scotland in advance of the 2009 Assembly where the editor advocated her stance on the ordination standards issue, and recent criticism of the PC(USA)’s Presbyterians Today for taking a position that seemed to presume adoption of the Belhar Confession.

Related to the situation I’ll mention in a moment, Sean Gerety comments about another historical case, the Clark-Van Til debate in 1944, where the Presbyterian Guardian provided information on, and editorialized for, the Van Til side of the debate but information on the Clark side had to be obtained privately.

So can Presbyterians take their debates outside the meetings?  Clearly I think that they can, to some degree, since my own blogging sometimes crosses the line from news to commentary.  And I appreciate Dr. Richard Mouw’s historical perspective, comments, and opinion on why the Belhar Confession should not be adopted by the PC(USA).  There are numerous examples of other bloggers who contribute in this way.  There appears to be real value in the Web distributing information and opinion to a wider audience than could be reached using earlier techniques, like a chapel door or the party line in an official publication.

But having said that some branches have decided that wider and public debate at certain times and on certain topics is not appropriate.  For the 219th General Assembly the PC(USA) put out a document on Using Social Media At General Assembly.  The short answer in the document is “don’t during meetings,” except they phrased it like this “The guiding principle for using social media at a General Assembly is to be attentive and present to the community gathered immediately around us and to the mysterious and wondrous movement of the Spirit of Christ in this place.”  This addresses the use of social media only during the meeting.  At the 2009 Church of Scotland General Assembly they decided that the topic of ordination standards was such a hot topic that the Assembly approved a ban on discussing the topic in public, including the web, while a special commission does its work.  As far as I have seen, the silence on the topic has held very well.  (Update:  Please see the comments for some more on the PC(USA) policy and clarification of implementation and intent.)

So with that as perspective let’s look at the current specific case.  On the one hand it revolves around a larger issue in the PCA right now, the controversy over the Federal Vision Theology.  But on the other hand this case is dealing with it at the local level, specifically in the Siouxlands Presbytery, that I have written about before.

But the issue at the moment is not the Federal Vision argument itself but how the argument has been conducted.  A complaint has been filed with the presbytery by Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church, Minnetonka, MN, complaining that TE Brian Carpenter “caused great offense and harm to us as a church, as well as harm to the good name of our pastor…”  They go on to note the action filed with the presbytery and say:

However, in the context of the Presbytery alone, we were content for the matter to be heard and disposed of in the proper courts, being the called meeting of October 20, 2009, with Dr. Moon’s testimony of what we know to be his true beliefs.

Mr. Carpenter, however, was unwilling to allow the issue to remain within the confines of Presbytery and the appropriate courts. Instead, in actions that worked to prejudice Dr. Moon’s good name and reputation in the larger PCA and Reformed world, Mr. Carpenter wrote an inaccurate and unfair representation of Dr. Moon’s views on the Aquila Report, a public blog. Mr. Carpenter has every right to disagree with Presbytery, to think it wrong, and even (perhaps) to report the actions taken by our Presbytery. But his actions went beyond these to the point of ensuring Dr. Moon’s good name and reputation, as well as the name of our church, were damaged publicly, and in some ways irretrievably.

In another complaint Christ Church Mankato complained against TE Wes White

We, the Session of Christ Church, write to bring to your attention a matter of utmost concern to us.

On February 7, 2010 TE White began posting information on his blog that we believe to be injurious to TE Lawrence, Christ Church, and the Siouxlands Presbytery. On February 18, we contacted TE White privately and informed him of his fault (Matthew 18:15ff), requesting that he remove the posts, acknowledge his fault, and ask forgiveness of those he had wronged. TE White replied to us that his conscience was clear in the matter, and has not removed the posts nor sought forgiveness.

The blog posts we object to are as follows…

In the matter of the first complaint the investigating committee found a strong presumption of guilt but the presbytery chose instead to refer it back to the committee to provide specific instances with analysis of the error(s).  That blog post provides TE Carpenter’s response to the committee and defense of his position which includes issues of how his case was handled.  May help explain the alternate motion the presbytery adopted.  On his own blog he has a new post analyzing the requirements of the Book of Church Order and advocating for an open process in judicial proceedings.

Regarding his own case TE White tells us “The Administrative Committee of the Presbytery of the Siouxlands reviewed these materials and was unsure as to what the Session of Christ Church was asking.”  It sounds something like a judicial case on which no remedy can be applied.  The Administrative Committee recommended the presbytery refer it to decide what options are available.  The presbytery, again, chose a different course and passed a substitute motion to appoint a committee to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation.  (The investigation to decide if charges can be filed and if so, what charges.)

So at this point we have two individuals for which specific charges are being considered related specifically to their blogging activities.  Christ Church closes their second letter with this request:

Since this is not the first time disputes have arisen over what someone has said about someone else or the Presbytery on the internet, we request that the Presbytery make its expectations clearly known.

This is what the PC(USA) and the Church of Scotland did with their actions.  You may not agree with the total ban in each case but at least they were clear.

Where does this leave us?  You may have your own thoughts on all this but here are a few that occur to me.

First, in these specific instances we will have to see where the judicial process leads.  There are specific charges to be brought, a presbytery level trial if the strong presumption of guilt is present and charges made.  And then there is the possibility of appeal.   Buckle up for the ride.

Second, it is tempting to make the distinction that you can blog about doctrine but not about people.  However, a bit of reflection and you realize that when the problem, perceived or real, is that another individual holds a view in error it is our responsibility to inform that person of their error.  What is more important here is how that happens.

Third, the larger problem here is that the problem, in the opinion of some people, was that the presbytery had erred.  Remember, we hold in tension the polity principle mentioned above “that a majority shall govern,” with the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXXI.iv) “All synods or councils… may err, and many have.”  How do we balance majority rule with the possibility of corporate error?  As Presbyterians we look to the review of higher governing bodies.  As the problem goes wider does that now make blogging to the wider audience acceptable?

Fourth, for good or ill the Internet and blogging are powerful tools for disseminating information and expressing opinions to a wide audience.  And it is not going away.  These cases show that the lines of what are and are not acceptable are not well defined and so we will need to find ways to live with it and behave in a Christian manner on it.  We could take the “no blogging” approach, the “blog but no names” rule or “keep it abstract not concrete” to limit what could be construed as personal attacks.

As corollaries to all this let me suggest that we bloggers should be slow to compose and do it prayerfully.  When I began my first field mapping class the professor suggested to us that we should be as free with the eraser as the pencil.  And continuing with this theme, we need to be aware that with our fallen nature we will make mistakes and if we are at this long enough offend someone.  The facts may be in our favor but can we present them in such a way that, as they said of Robert Campbell, “he was without bitterness and never allowed public differences to interfere with private friendships.”

Let me conclude by saying that I am not passing judgment in these particular cases or even weighing in on the actions of anyone involved.  I have not been following it closely enough to have a well-formed opinion and I will rely on the full judicial process to investigate and adjudicate that.

So where are the lines?  Can we correct error in such a way as to preserve truth and make ecclesiastical discipline restorative, even on the web?  This issue will not go away so I look forward to others weighing in and governing bodies discerning where they wish to draw the lines.  Let us see what develops.

Final PCA SJC Decision In Bordwine v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery

Leave a reply

This past Thursday the General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their final decision in the case of TE James Bordwine, et al. vs. Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  By a vote of 17 concur, 2 dissent, and 3 absent (with no disqualified, recused or abstaining) the Proposed Decision was affirmed by the full SJC.

This case is regarding the process and conclusions of the investigation and examination of TE Peter Leithart by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  (For more details you can check out the enumeration of the facts in the decision or my brief summary when the Proposed Decision came out last December.)  The Commission found:

II. Statement of the Issue

Did PNW err in its handling of the Reports from the PNW Study Committee appointed to examine Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder?

III. Judgment

Yes.  The Complaint is sustained, and the case is sent back to PNW with instructions to proceed according to the Reasoning and Opinion of this Decision.

Then the Reasoning and Opinion Section begins with:

The Record in this matter suggests that there are aspects of the teachings of TE Leithart that are in conflict with our standards.

The section goes on to briefly point out that since a formal disciplinary judicial process had not been carried out in this case the relief requested by the Complainants of declaring his views out of accord could not properly be made.  On the other hand, without the judicial process the Presbytery can not declare that the views are not out of accord.  But there is a strong presumption of guilt, the test for initiating judicial proceedings.

The Decision sets forth a two step process:  1) To counsel TE Leithart concerning his views and to encourage him to either “recant and make reparations for those views,” or “to take timely steps toward affiliation with some other branch of the visible church that is consistent with his views.” 2) Failing one of the outcomes of step 1 to then begin the judicial process.

Having now set out the basic findings of the Decision, I wanted to comment on the significant difference between the Final Decision and last December’s Proposed Decision.  The Final Decision is seven pages long, the Proposed Decision is twenty.  The difference is almost exclusively in the Reasoning and Opinion section.  In the Proposed Decision the SJC wrote an extensive analysis of the documents from the PNW investigation showing where TE Leithart’s views were problematic.  There is none of this in the Final Decision.  In the Final Decision the SJC shortened up their reasoning a bit to simply state that a strong presumption of guilt exists and then leave it to the judicial process, if there will be one, to decently and in order make the decision if the views are out of accord.

The second way that the Final Decision differs from the Proposed Decision is the inclusion of “Step 1.”  In the Proposed Decision the order was to “institute process.”  In the Final Decision the preceding step of non-judicial counsel was added to try to achieve a restorative outcome without the divisiveness the judicial process can bring.

I would also note that the cover letter indicates that the two dissenters to the opinion have not indicated an intent to file a Minority Report so this Decision is final and no decision between a majority and minority report will need to be made by the General Assembly.  (I would also add that there might be a minority opinion floating around out there but not a minority report, and second in my reading of the BCO to send a Minority Report to the GA requires at least one-third of the voting members of the SJC to dissent and the two dissenting votes is far short of that so a minority report would not be appropriate.)

There has been some significant response to the Final Decision including The Aquila Report, R. Scott Clark, and A Profitable Word. But once again I thank TE Jason Stellman at Creed Code Cult for his views on the matter since he is the closest to it, being one of the Complainants.  In addition, I am deeply appreciative of his making the decisions available.  And once again, I leave you with his words about this situation:

Although I do agree with the PCA’s decision (obviously, since I wrote the Minority Report and personally argued the complainants’ case before the SJC panel last Fall), I have absolutely no desire to prosecute a case against a good man and godly scholar simply to prove a point and set legal precedent for other NAPARC churches to follow (which a conviction certainly would do). For the sake of the weak semblance of unity that our Protestant churches have, I would prefer that this case be resolved in some way besides a long, drawn-out (not to mention expensive and time-consuming) court battle. While the confessional side may very well “win” if this thing goes to trial, I can’t help but feel that we’re all losers here. I know I’m supposed to feel a deep sense of satisfaction that, if Rev. Leithart is removed from the PCA, justice has prevailed and the system is shown to have worked, but I just can’t seem to shake the feeling of emptiness—not to mention the bitter taste in my mouth—that this whole process has occasioned.

Steps In Ecclesiastical Discipline In Two PCA Presbyteries

4 Replies

Regular readers know that in spite of my great regard and agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith I prefer the formulation of the Marks of the True Church in the Scots Confession and some other Reformed confessions.  The WCF [25:4] says “Churches… are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” The Scots Confession puts it thus:

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. [Chapter 18]

Many people have problems with the idea of invoking “ecclesiastical discipline” since it may conjure up images of heretic trials and draconian punishment.  Regarding this let me make two points.

  1. It is important to remember that “discipline” relates to the word “disciple,” as the root of the words suggests.  One online resources tells us that “discipline” derives from the meaning “instruction given to the disciple.” True discipline is instructional.
  2. Related to that the intent of ecclesiastical discipline is to be restorative and not punitive.  As the Confession says “whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.”  We are not out to “get” someone but to restore them to right relationship with God and the Community.

Finally, I would also emphasize that discipline involves a process and in the Presbyterian sense it encompasses the Covenant Community and may impact on our “reformed and always being reformed” as the community tries to discern how God is calling us to be faithful to Scripture.

With that preface I wanted to summarize two recent events in Presbyterian Church of America presbyteries.  In both cases these are on-going issues and the recent news only represents the latest steps.

The first began as a bit of a “sleeper,” or at least was overshadowed by a higher profile case going on at the same time, but in the last two weeks it has really taken on a life of its own in one little corner of the blogosphere.  Let me say at the onset that much of the reporting on the web comes from one side of this controversy but in reading a lot of the articles the timeline and facts of this case do not appear to be in dispute.

This case began in the Spring of 2008 and involves the examination of a Teaching Elder in the Presbytery of Siouxlands specifically regarding views which are currently referred to as Federal Vision theology.  For a good detailed summary of this case I refer you to a piece last September that TE Brian Carpenter wrote for the Aquila Report.  In the interest of full disclosure I need to let you know that Mr. Carpenter is a complainant in one part of this case, now under investigation in another part, and also has a personal blog – The Happy T.R.   That will become important in a moment.

UPDATE: Wes White has now posted an all-in-one-place summary/timeline on this issue in Siouxlands.  Thanks.

Here is a summary so what follows will make more sense:  In April 2008 TE Wes White and TE Brian Carpenter asked the Presbytery of Siouxlands for an investigation of a member of the Presbytery and whether he was teaching federal vision theology contrary to the Standards of the PCA.  The Presbytery denied the request, White and Carpenter filed a complaint at the next Presbytery meeting and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the General Assembly.  A panel of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) sustained the complaint and the Presbytery was ordered to conduct an investigation.  The investigating committee was created, worked over the Summer of 2009, and by a 4-2 vote brought a report to the September Presbytery meeting that there was a “strong presumption of guilt.”  On the floor of Presbytery one of the dissenting members of the committee, TE Joshua Moon, moved a substitute motion to not accept the report and recommendations and the substitute motion prevailed.  He then made the motion that there was no “strong presumption of guilt” that the views of the member who was investigated were outside the bounds of the Standards and that motion prevailed by a narrow 20-17-1 vote.  New complaints were filed with the Presbytery.  The first summary ends at that point but TE Carpenter writes on his personal blog that at a called meeting at the end of October the new complaint was sustained and a new investigating committee formed.  In addition, a church session sent an overture asking for an investigation of a second TE, that individual answered the charges on the floor of Presbytery, the Presbytery voted to accept that examination as fulfilling the examination and find no “strong presumption of guilt,” and TE Carpenter filed a complaint in that case that the investigation was not extensive enough to fulfill the requirements of the Book of Church Order. A January item from the Aquila Report informs us that one session in the Presbytery found the new overture and other writings and statements of TE Carpenter  to have misrepresented another TE to a strong degree and they overtured the Presbytery to “find a strong presumption of guilt that Mr. Carpenter has publicly sinned…by violating the ninth commandment.”  These writings include his pieces on The Aquila Report and The Happy TR.  That brings us to the stated meeting of January 22…

The Aquila Report brings us one summary of that presbytery meeting, written by the other original complainant TE Wes White.  In the original case the second investigating committee brought a unanimous recommendation that the Presbytery find a strong presumption of guilt that the member’s teachings were outside the bounds of the Standards.  The Presbytery chose to postpone action on the report until September and formed a committee to “instruct and advise that member.”  On the one hand see above abo
ut discipline being restorative, on the other hand confer TE White’s personal blog for his analysis of the make-up of the committee and conclusion that it lacks balance.

The Presbytery also denied the complaint from TE Carpenter that the October examination was not sufficient.  The Presbytery did accept the overture regarding TE Carpenter’s actions and has set up an investigating committee to make a recommendation whether he had broken the ninth commandment by misrepresenting another member.  Part of this accusation has to do with his writing about the previous Presbytery meeting on his blog and the Aquila Report.  In line with the concept of ecclesiastical discipline it is interesting to note that in a completely unrelated item of business “a teaching elder who had previously been indefinitely suspended for a public sin was restored to office and the Presbytery expressed thanksgiving to God for the exemplary repentance God had worked in his heart.”

Still with me?  So here is where this story took on a life of its own on the blogosphere.  Following the meeting TE White and TE Carpenter weighed in on the meeting on their blogs.  In fact, Mr. Carpenter expressed his frustration a number of times in the first few days following the meeting and then felt the conviction of the Spirit, repented of his more sarcastic writing and took down most of his initial postings.  (Yes, I am aware that there are cached copies but to honor Mr. Carpenter’s wishes I won’t link those, you will have to find them yourselves.)  I do wish that at least the original post were available because in spite of the sarcasm I believe it clearly conveys both the passion that TE Carpenter has for the issue as well as the frustration he feels in trying to get the Presbytery to adequately deal with it.  From my saved copy let me simply quote part of the two paragraphs related to the new investigating committee that will be examining his behavior:

Now, I am not in the least perturbed by all of this… I think judicial investigations are fine and good. I am not threatened by them in the least. I didn’t do anything wrong. I did some things that some don’t like. I did some things that some don’t think are right, but they are mistaken. My conscience is clear. And if a fair and competent investigation can convince me that I did do something wrong, I will repent.

I have some good hope that the committee appointed to investigate me can conduct a fair and competent investigation…  The PCA has a fine constitution and I have the right and ability to make use of the provisions afforded by it.

The summary by TE White, while maybe not as passionate, is strong, seems to lay out the facts with supporting quotations, and shows a similar level of frustration.

Others are weighing in online with less detailed posts about the meeting and the controversy.  This includes TE Lane Keister on Green Baggins, Jordan Harris at Sacramental Piety, and Steven Carr at Beholding the Beauty, all from Siouxlands Presbytery.  From elsewhere R. Scott Clark on the Heidelblog, Kevin Carrol at Reformed and Loving it, David Sarafolean at Joshua Judges Ruth, and Mark Horne.  I would also note that Wes White has continued to post so keep watching his blog Johannes Weslianus for news updates and detailed critiques from his perspective.  Brian Carpenter, in addition to his mea culpa and self-editing, has left a few things up at The Happy TR but is taking a step back from blogging for a while.

This particular case is interesting in a general sense because any Presbyterian blogger should be wrestling with the question of whether their work is contributing to or hindering the purity and peace of the whole body.  The lines are not always clearly drawn and each of us needs to decide where we draw the line and then be accountable to the rest of the body for our decisions and to be open to correction.

It is also worth pointing out that intertwined with the developments in this Presbytery are responses to the recent SJC proposed decision in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery case in the form of a Supplemental Brief by TE Robert S. Rayburn.  I will not go into any detail on this in part because Lane Keister has been analyzing and critiquing it at Green Baggins (as of today he is up to Part 6).  This case will be reviewed by the full SJC next month.

While it is tempting to announce “And now for something completely different…”, I turn to another presbytery’s action that may be different in content, but still represents a step in the process of ecclesiastical discipline.

About two weeks ago the Presbytery of South Florida ruled on a complaint filed by six members of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church who had been banned from the church grounds.  According to an article on the Sun Sentinel web site the Presbytery sustained the members’ complaint, ruled that the members had not been granted due process, and ordered the ban lifted.  (For the record, this article seems to be the only source for this news, the newspaper based some of it on “a document” they obtained, and the Presbytery did not comment for the story although a member of the Coral Ridge Session did speak on the record.  I would also note that their terminology is a bit off.  For example, they say “denominational officials” made the decision which is technically correct, since the presbytery is made up of ordained officers of the church, but to a reader not familiar with Presbyterian polity it would probably sound like one or two high-ranking national figures rather than the membership of the next-higher regional governin
g body.)

According to the document the Presbytery decided that the church “acted impulsively, improperly, prematurely, and without warrant.”  The representative of the Session expressed disappointment with the decision but said the session would comply and reopen the case at the March Session meeting.  Possible outcomes could be reconciliation or an ecclesiastical trial.  The representative of the break-away group indicated that the Presbytery decision does not directly impact their new worshiping community.

It should be pointed out that there are traditions and legacies in play here, as I have described before.  It is good to read that Coral Ridge does not consider itself an island unto itself but part of the Presbyterian connectional system.

As I said at the beginning both of these actions are just part of more extensive processes.  There will be more to come, possibly a lot more.

Standing Judicial Commission, Presbyterian Church in America, Decision In The Pacific Northwest Presbytery Case

Leave a reply

With thanks to the “usual suspects” – De Regnis Duobus, Green Baggins, and Tchula Presbyterian Church – we are alerted to the news that yesterday the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their decision in the case of Bordwine, et al. v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery.

The brief background on the case is that the 35th General Assembly (2007) approved a report on the Federal Vision Theology stating that it was not in accord with the Westminster Standards (the Standards).  Since then, presbyteries have been examining members who have declared exceptions to the Westminster Standards and this case results from one of these examinations, the exam of TE Peter Leithart by Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PNW).  While the Presbytery decided that Pastor Leithart’s views were not out of accord with the Standards some of the dissenting members of the Presbytery filed a complaint first with the Presbytery, and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the SJC.  In brief, the SJC agreed with the complainants.

First, it is important to note that this is a “Proposed Decision” which under the SJC Manual 19.5 is not binding on the parties but if a party objects within 14 days they may request a rehearing on the case before the full Commission.  The final decision will be issued in March, 2010.

In their decision, the SJC reviews the history of the case and the work of the “study committee” the Presbytery put together to investigate the differences that TE Leithart voluntarily offered to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery following the GA approval of the report.  The SJC notes:

The PNW Study Committee was charged with examining Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder in light of the June 2007 General Assembly’s receptions of the Ad Interim Committee’s Report on the theology of the Federal Vision.  In spite of being entitled a “study  Committee,” [sic] what was essentially formed was a committee with an assignment to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation.

It is helpful to note at this point that a “BCO 31-2 investigation” is the response of a session or presbytery when there is a report regarding one of its members “affecting their Christian character.”  That section goes on to say that if that investigation “should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved” then a judicial case is in order.  I bring this up here because the fundamental question answered by the SJC is whether the Presbytery failed to properly find a “strong presumption of guilt.”

The SJC decision then goes on to say:

The work product of this Committee, including the Committee Report, the Minority Report, and Leithart’ [sic] Response, constituted an excellent BCO 31-2 investigative report. The only conclusion that a court should reach, given the excellent work product produced by the PNW Study Committee, would be that there is a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of Leithart are out of accord with some of the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Standards.  This does not mean that Leithart is a heretic. He is not. This does not mean that Leithart is not or whether he is a Christian.  He is. This does not necessarily mean that Leithart is outside of the broader reformed community. The sole question to be determined is whether Leithart’s views place him outside of the Standards as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America.

Regarding the specifications of error by the Presbytery, there were three with two upheld and one not sustained.  The one not sustained was that findings and rulings in a previous SJC decision were misapplied. However, the BCO (14-7) says that previous decisions are to be given “due and serious consideration” but are only binding on the parties involved.  Therefore, for another presbytery to not follow a previous decision is not in itself an error.

The two errors sustained had to do with how the Presbytery handled the initial complaint.  In one case they ruled that it was a motion to reconsider and having voted in the minority the complainants were not in a position to bring such a motion.  In the second case the Presbytery  had ruled that without charges actually be filed in the case a complaint was out of order.  To both specifications the SJC reminded everyone that under BCO 43-1 “it is the right of any communing member of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a court to whose jurisdiction he is subject.”

The SJC decision then makes extensive, detailed, and specific reference to Leithart’s statements to support the opinion that there is a strong presumption of guilt that he is out of accord with the Standards.  They note that while Leithart appeals to Scripture in support of his views, and that Scripture is the “supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined,” (WCF 1.10) they also point out that although the Constitution is subordinate and fallible the BCO (29-1) affirms that it is still adopted as “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”  The decision then goes on to say:

By appealing to Scripture in this way to justify positions that are out of accord with our Standards, an individual, or group, is in effect… amending the Constitution, not by judicial act, but by personal interpretation.  If someone believes that the Standards have incorrectly or inadequately stated what Scripture says about a particular topic, then instead of ignoring what our Standards state and justifying their positions by personal interpretations of Scripture which are not consistent with the Standards, they should propose amendments to the Standards to clarify or expand the Standards, since our Constitution holds them to be “standard expositions of the teaching of Scripture.”

In my mind that summarizes the essence of being Presbyterian – we acknowledge Scripture supreme and our interpretations fallible, but our discernment of Scripture and God’s will in our courts (in the Presbyterian sense) as a collected body is on the whole more sound than our individual interpretations.

Anyway, back to the decision… What next?

It is our opinion that PNW, even though confronted with statement(s) and writing(s) of Leithart that place him out of accord with the fundamentals of the Standards, as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America, chose to place Leithart’ [sic] statements in the kindest of light and engage in critical thinking and reasoned judgment… [long quote from the PNW report not included]

In failing to exercise this critical thinking and reasoned judgment, PNW has failed to guard the church of teachings and writings “which injured the purity and peace of the church,” (BCO 13-9.f) and in doing so has caused much pastoral confusion and harm.

In conclusion the decision states:

In determining what is the appropriate remedy, the SJC remands and sends this case back to PNW with instructions to institute process, based on this finding of a strong presumption of guilt, and appoint a prosecutor, to prepare an Indictment of Leithart and to conduct the case.

A final decision will be issued in Marc
h 2010.

While I am sure there will be a lot of reaction coming out in the next few days as the decision is read and maybe a full hearing is requested, and I will post some of that when appropriate, today I will leave you with the words of TE Jason Stellman, one of the complainants in this case, in his concluding comments on his blog De Regnis Duobus:

Please be in prayer for all who are involved in this matter,regardless of which “side” they are on. When it comes to issues surrounding the so-called Federal Vision, there are those who believe the very heart of the gospel is at stake, and on the other hand there are those who feel that mountains are being made out of molehills and our denomination is being turned into a mere sect. But what no one should forget is that intertwined with all the doctrinal debate are the personal relationships and livelihoods of those involved. All that to say that this is no occasion for congratulatory back-slapping. Just as the Reformed distinguished themselves from the fundamentalists in that they left the mainline churches weeping rather than rejoicing, so we who witness the state of our churches would do well to lament our own lack of unity.

.
There are no real winners here.

[For some more great discussion with TE Stellman about this case that really helps fill in a lot of details and put the human face on it I highly recommend the November 2008 installment of the podcast Ordinary Means.]

UPDATE: Peter Leithart has posted a theological response to some of the SJC’s comments about his views.

Three Decisions From The GA Permanent Judicial Commission Of The PC(USA) — Ordination Standards And More

Leave a reply

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) heard appeals in three cases last Friday, October 30, and yesterday published their decisions in the three cases, all of which were unanimous.

While the two decisions dealing with ordination standards were highly anticipated, and one of those does finally clarify a point in the PC(USA) ordination process, it is my assessment that for anyone following the polity closely they would not be surprised by the decisions handed down.  And while this closes the book on two of these cases the third decision does explicitly anticipate the possible continuation of the judicial proceedings.

This first one is unlike the other two…

In remedial case 219-12 Phinisee v. Presbytery of Charleston-Atlantic as you read through the history of the case it begins to sound like a comedy of errors.  Unfortunately, for anyone who has served on a Committee on Ministry for any length of time several of the aspects begin to sound too familiar.

In this case the church that the Rev. Phinisee was pastoring developed a conflict in the congregation which they were trying to work through with a consultant and the COM.  The pastor and session requested an Administrative Commission, the COM wanted to handle the process themselves.  So far fairly standard.

The issues of the case revolve around 1) a request in writing by three elders to the moderator of the session (Rev. Phinisee) to call a session meeting and Rev. Phinisee not calling the meeting and 2) the COM calling a session meeting to call a congregational meeting to dissolve the pastoral relationship with Rev. Phinisee.  This happened in December 2006 and the Rev. Phinisee filed his remedial complaint with the Synod PJC in early January 2007.  The case was further complicated by the Synod PJC failing to act within 90 days and the complainant then asking the GAPJC to assume jurisdiction.  The GAPJC then told the SPJC to get moving.  The SPJC did and basically found that everything was done according to process.

The appeal to the GAPJC had six specifications of error of which the GAPJC did not sustain five of them.  This included the error that the Presbytery should have appointed an Administrative Commission with the GAPJC noting that the appointment of a commission is “a discretionary function that resides solely with the presbytery.”  Where the GAPJC did sustain the error is in the SPJC’s finding that the congregational meetings were properly called.  In brief, they noted that a COM does not, of its own authority, have the power to call a special session meeting (which in this case called the special congregational meeting).  The presbytery may delegate that to the COM but the record is clear in this case that they had not.  The GAPJC also noted that the Rev. Phinisee was at fault as well for not calling the session meeting after receiving the legitimate written request from three elders.  Due to the passage of time no direct relief could be granted in this case but the GAPJC did order the Presbytery to establish an administrative commission to review policies and procedures.

In closing the GAPJC says:

This case demonstrates the consequences of failing to follow the Book of Order for calling meetings and dissolving pastoral relationships. The flaws of the COM procedure were exacerbated by the failure of the Synod to respond in a timely manner to Phinisee’s grievances.  Justice delayed was an impediment to the process and a fair proceeding throughout the course of this matter. Governing bodies are reminded that “all participants are to be accorded procedural safeguards and due process” (D-1.0101).

Case 219-08 – Bierschwale, Lenz and Shanholtzer v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area is a remedial case related to the process for restoring the Rev. Paul Capetz to the exercise of ordained ministry.  Without covering the full history, Mr. Capetz had, at his request, been released from the exercise of ordained ministry because of his conscientious objection to the “fidelity and chastity” section G-6.0106b.  With the 2006 GA Authoritative Interpretation allowing the declaration of an exception he requested, and was granted by the presbytery, his restoration to the exercise of ordained office.

The complainants filed their case with the SPJC on the grounds that in granting Mr. Capetz’ declared exception the presbytery failed to “adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108.”  The SPJC initially dismissed the case on the failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but an earlier GAPJC decision sent it back to the SPJC for trial on one of the three points, the specifics of declaring an exception.  In their decision in the trial the SPJC found that the presbytery had properly carried out the process in G-6.0108 and were correct in their decision to grant the exception.  However, in conducting the trial the SPJC took the unusual step of excluding the public from the proceedings.

At this point is it important to note that the Constitutional standards, the GA Interpretations, and the previous GAPJC cases as they apply to process are nearly unanimous in their application to the ordination process only.  The declaration of an exception is something that is normally considered when an individual is being examined for ordination.  In addition, the application of these standards in the call process of a previously ordained individual is limited by the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision to a “position that presumes ordination.”  Mr. Capetz was previously ordained and seeking validation of ministry in a position teaching at a seminary. In short, this case does not easily fall under any of the established polity and interpretations.  As has been pointed out in such cases before, if there is a question about Mr. Capetz’ manner of life under G-6.0106 that would be handled as a disciplinary case.

In their decision the GAPJC noted that all parties agree that the presbytery process was unique to this individual.  Consequently, the GAPJC concurred with the SPJC that granting the exception did not “infringe on the views of others and did not obstruct the constitutional governance of the church.”  Further, “There is nothing in the record to show that he [Capetz] has taken any action that could be deemed to be an act in violation of G-6.0106b.” and “This Commission reaffirms what it previously held in Bierschwale I that Capetz’ future conduct is not at issue in this case.”  The GAPJC did sustain the specification of error that the SPJC trial should not have been closed under the PC(USA) open meetings policy.  (The proceedings in a remedial case may be closed only for reasons of maintaining decorum.)

With that background we come to the third decision which revisits much of this under other circumstances…

Remedial case 219-11 – Naegeli, Stryker and Gelini v. Presbytery of San Francisco does deal with a candidate in the ordination process.

In this case Ms. Lisa Larges, who has been in the process for ordination as a Minister of Word and Sacrament for 20 years, was certified ready to receive a call with a declared exception by San Francisco Presbytery.

A couple of polity notes at this point.  The first is that previous GAPJC decisions have generally held that candidates that can not affirm the standards for ordained of
fice in G-6.0106 should not even be in the process.  With the 2006 Authoritative Interpretation explicitly introducing the declaration of an exception it has been ambiguous at what point the presbytery should act upon the declaration.  The second item to note is that the status of “certified ready” is one usually conferred by the Committee on Preparation for Ministry and need not be voted upon by the presbytery as a whole.  Both of these are noted in the decision.

To briefly summarize the history the CPM voted 12-9 on December 5, 2007 to certify her ready for examination for ordination pending a call.  At the January Presbytery meeting both a majority report for certification and a minority report to remove her from the rolls were presented and by a vote of 167-151 the Presbytery accepted the majority report.  In the remedial case heard by the SPJC that Commission rescinded the status of “certified ready” but did not rule on the declaration because an examination had not taken place.  (Ms. Larges was not present and therefore not examined at the January 2008 Presbytery meeting.)  (And in another side note, if you read the story as currently posted on the More Light Presbyterians web site you will note that they have the timing off — the original AI was from the 2006 GA and it was reaffirmed by the 2008 GA.  The CPM and Presbytery actions took place before the 2008 GA.)

The GAPJC grouped the nine specifications of error into four groups.  For the two related to the actions of the Presbytery, neither were sustained.  The GAPJC agreed that the proper time for declaring an exemption was at the time of examination for ordination.  Part of the reasoning was that the examination was the time when other waivers or exceptions were considered.

The GAPJC partly sustained one of the two specifications of error related to Constitutional Interpretation of G-6.0106b.  While noting that an examination had not formally taken place, they did note that in the action the Presbytery had followed they had not completely fulfilled the requirements of G-6.0108 for the policy and process of declaring an exception.

There were two specifications of error regarding the actions taken by the CPM and one of those was sustained in part.  On one level, actions of a committee of presbytery are not reviewable by a higher governing body since the principle of review applies to governing bodies themselves.  However, as noted in this case, when the action of a committee is the action of the governing body acting through the committee, in this case the CPM, it is reviewable.  However, the GAPJC concurred with the SPJC that while the CPM presentation to presbytery was “not as clear as it could have been,” there was no misrepresentation.

Finally, of the three specified errors related to the Procedures of the SPJC, two were sustained.  One related to the handling and admission of certain confidential documents in what was referred to as “Envelope B.”  The GAPJC decision notes that there are procedures for handling confidential and sensitive material, that the material need not be made public, but that at least the substance of the material (documents or testimony) must be disclosed to all parties even if it is only offered but not admitted to evidence.  If offered but not admitted it still becomes part of the record of the case.  In the point that was not sustained it was agreed that it was acceptable, but not necessarily advisable, to not have a verbatim transcript of pre-trial hearings.

So the result is that the previous action of the Presbytery has been rescinded but the Presbytery is now free to examine Ms. Larges for ordination, including in the examination her Statement of Departure from G-6.0106b.  This is expected to happen next week.

One of the points that the complainants wanted was for the SPJC to instruct the Presbytery that G-6.0106b was a standard of the church and a declared departure from that was not permissible.  Both the SPJC and the GAPJC declined to do so.

However, while emphasizing that each examination must be handled on a case-by-case basis, as part of the decision the GAPJC took pains to reiterate previous decisions about the process and procedures of the ordination process and examination.  They included an extended section from the Bush decision that begins:

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the ‘fidelity and chastity’ portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to ‘any practice which the confessions call sin’ puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108a with respect to freedom of conscience.

And the Commission also cited additional cases on this aspect including Buescher v. Olympia, and Wier v. Second Pres.

The Commission also made a point of cautioning against acting too hastily to ordain so as to preclude a judicial challenge to the way the examination was handled.  Again, there was a good length quoted from a previous case, this time McKittrick v. West End Pres., which includes the caution:

[When] an installation occurs immediately following the examination process, there may be no practical opportunity for a protesting or dissenting party to seek a stay of enforcement of the decision to install. The Presbyterian custom of conducting business ‘decently and in order’ should not be converted into a race in which the swift prevail.

On close reading I get the distinct impression that they are trying to send a message.  Whether that message is “be sure you sweat the details because this will be reviewed” or whether it is “we aren’t saying this in as many words but remember G-6.0106b is on the books” will have to be seen.  (And maybe they are saying both.)  But it is important to remember that up to, and including, these decisions the GAPJC has ruled unanimously but really only on technicalities.  The substance and handling of a declaration of departure has not been formally ruled upon.  If the exception is granted in this case, and a new remedial case is filed there is the very real possibility that it would work its way through the church judicial process parallel to the church taking another vote on G-6.0106b that might remove that section and render the judicial cases moot.

Just another day as we strive to be “reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.”

Breaking News: PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions Published

2 Replies

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has published their decisions on recently heard cases.

In my initial assessment I see no surprises in these two unanimous decisions regarding ordination standards:

219-08 – Bierschwale and others v. Presbytery of Twin Cities:  (Capetz case)  In my initial reading the important polity opinion rendered is that G-6.0106b and previous decisions like Bush v. Pittsburgh apply to the ordination process.  This case had to do with the restoration and validation of ministry, not ordination and call.  In that process there were no problems.  The sustained complaint was that the Synod PJC closed its proceedings.

219-11 – Naegeli and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco:  (Larges case)  This is a much more complex decision with several points being sustained in part and not sustained in part.  Bottom line for polity is that the question of when to declare an exception has been declared to be at the time of examination for ordination.  Practical result is that Ms. Larges has been cleared to be examined at the meeting next week on Nov. 10.  However, while not “instructing” the presbytery in this matter the GAPJC did emphasize the responsibility of determining if a declared exception is “a serious departure from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, and if it determines that she has, it must then decide whether the departure infringes on the rights and views of others or obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.”  The GAPJC appears to have left open the possibility of another case following the presbytery’s decision at that meeting.

Now, I’ll take some time and read every detail before commenting further.