Category Archives: judicial commission

Decisions From The PC(USA) GAPJC

1 Reply

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) heard cases in San Diego, California, last Friday, February 27, and published the decisions yesterday.  Of the three cases, one is related to a higher-profile news item, but the decision does not settle the case, just overturns a specific ruling and the case is remanded back to the Synod PJC for trial.  However, as with most GAPJC decisions there is something in each of these decisions to interest us polity wonks.

I will start with the better known of the three cases so casual readers can get the main point and move on to other reading.

219-08: David Bierschwale, David Lenz, and Carol Shanholtzer v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area
Bierschwale et al. v Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area is a remedial case that derives from the complaint to the PJC of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies about the procedures the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area followed in restoring Mr. Paul Capetz to the exercise of his ordained office.  A lot more detail can be found on that last link and the links it contains, but here are the important facts for understanding the GAPJC decision:

Mr. Capetz was ordained a Minister of Word and Sacrament in 1991 but following the passage of G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” statement, asked, as a matter of conscience, to be released from the exercise of his ordained office in 2000.  The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area granted that release.  Following the 217th General Assembly (2006) adopting the new Authoritative Interpretation about declaring a departure or scruple Mr. Capetz applied to the Presbytery for restoration to the exercise of his ordained office.  In a meeting with the Committee on Ministry he stated his departure:

“I affirm the Constitutional Questions asked of me at my ordination. However, I have to raise a principled objection or scruple. I cannot affirm G-6.0106b. Nor can I affirm the position of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on the question of the morality of homosexual relationships.”

At the Presbytery meeting in January 2008 the body took action on three motions.  The first, referred to in the decision as the Departure Motion, was to affirm that his declared departure was not related to an essential of the faith.  The second, the Restoration Motion, was to restore him to the exercise of his office.  And the Third, the Validation Motion, was to validate his ministry teaching at a seminary.

Following the passage of these three motions a complaint was filed with the SPJC alleging the Presbytery acted irregularly in passing these three motions and requesting that they be nullified.  The officers of the SPJC issued a Preliminary Order dismissing the case on the grounds that the relief requested was effectively the removal of Mr. Capetz’s ordination which must be done as a disciplinary case, not a remedial case.  The complainants filed an appeal and amended their complaint asking “the SPJC admonish the Presbytery and order it to refrain from conducting further irregular ordinations, installations, restorations or validations.”

The SPJC decision was issued in August 2008.  It dismissed the case on the grounds that no claim was stated on which relief could be granted.  The case was appealed to the GAPJC.  In the appeal there were twelve specifications of errors.

In their decision the GAPJC sustained only two of the specifications of error:

Specification of Error No. 4: The SPJC erred by not conducting a trial to determine whether there are facts that show: (a) Capetz stated a departure from G-6.0106b and (b) if so, whether that departure was a failure to adhere to the requirements of G-6.0108; and if the facts show that (a) and (b) occurred, whether the Presbytery’s action was irregular.

This Specification of Error is sustained.

Specification of Error No. 5: The SPJC erred by not conducting a trial to determine whether there are facts that would show the Presbytery waived the “fidelity and chastity” requirement of G-6.0106b in considering Capetz as a candidate or applicant for membership in the Presbytery; and if so, whether that action by the Presbytery was irregular.

This Specification of Error is sustained. This case is not remanded for a determination in the abstract as to whether any presbytery may decide that the “fidelity and chastity” requirement of G-6.0106b can be waived for any candidate or applicant for membership in a presbytery.  Rather, the SPJC shall decide only on the basis of the facts of what the Presbytery did with respect to Capetz, and whether that particular action was irregular.

Before I go any further with the analysis of the decision let me remind you of a critical fact — Mr. Capetz never gave up his ordination.  Almost all of the case law, precedents, and AI’s on this subject deal with candidates for ordination and therefore are mostly irrelevant to this case.

The critical section on the GAPJC reasoning says:

Bierschwale, et al. did not allege that there was any procedural irregularity in the manner in which the Presbytery took action on any of the three motions,including the Departure Motion. Any alleged irregularity in the process by which motions such as the Departure Motion are adopted is reviewable by the SPJC under the holding of Bush. In this case, Bierschwale, et al. complained that the Presbytery acted irregularly in adopting the Departure Motion because Capetz’s statements to the Presbytery were a serious departure from essentials of Reformed faith and polity and not a proper exercise of freedom of conscience under G-6.0108b.

This Commission finds that Bierschwale, et al. have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the SPJC should determine whether Capetz’s statements and the Presbytery’s adoption of the Departure Motion are in violation of G-6.0108. The SPJC should address whether Capetz’s statements were a proper exercise of freedom of conscience under G-6.0108, and whether the Presbytery properly approved them in the Departure Motion. The standards for determining whether departures from essentials of Reformed faith and polity are permitted include whether a departure deviates from the standards in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government, infringes the rights and views of others, or obstructs the constitutional governance of the church. (G-6.0108 a, b.) The trial of this case should include a presentation of evidence to determine whether these three requirements of G-6.0108 have been met.

So the Departure Motion is reviewable and a claim has been stated on which relief my be granted, and in a unanimous decision the GAPJC sends the case back to the SPJC for a hearing on the facts.  And yes, there is a reference in there to the previous decision 218-10 – Bush v. Pittsburgh.

The Decision section makes interesting reading, even though this particular decision will have limited importance.  (An appeal from the new SPJC hearing could set the landscape for deciding departures.)  As I quoted above, the part on the Departure Motion is the pivotal part and the other ten errors not being sustained mostly hinge on the fact that Mr. Capetz was already ordained or that they were related to the Restoration Motion.  It was po
inted out that if Mr. Capetz’s restoration were to be challenged based on his lifestyle that must be done as a disciplinary case, not a remedial case.  Further, the decision says that the “undisputed record” of the case does not contain a basis for disciplinary process against Mr. Capetz, but that a disciplinary case could be filed based on other information regardless of the outcome of this case.

For the polity wonks, a couple more items of interest: 
1)  The additional requested relief in the amended complaint, the request to tell the Presbytery to not do this any more, was not sustained.  As was made clear in Bush, there can be no blanket prohibition or standards but each case must be dealt with on its own merits.

2)  There is an interesting and important footnote.  I will let it speak for itself:

The question of whether the type of examination contemplated by G-11.0402 is required for restoration has not been raised in this case, is not before this Commission, and need not be addressed by the SPJC on remand. [Note: You probably know already but G-11.0402 is the section on examining ministers for membership in the presbytery.]

3)  This decision specifically points out that if anyone is looking to this case to see if the 2008 AI overruled Bush you can forget that.  Neither the AI nor Bush are related to the restoration to ordained office.

4) I am a little surprised that throughout this decision I did not find a reference to the 1992 decision 205-05 Sallade, et al. v. Genesee Valley Presbytery.  This older decision is one of the very few that specifically deal with call standards for previously ordained individuals.  As that decision says: “this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that presumes ordination.”

Possible reasons for not referencing Sallade are numerous.  Maybe the most obvious is that the current case dealt with validation of ministry while the previous case was about a “position that presumes ordination.”  So there are questions of call process and nature of the ministry that separate these.  It could have been an issue that the AI or G-6.0106b were not in affect then since those deal with ordination, but Sallade depends on the Definitive Guidance of 1978 which was in full force and effect when Mr. Capetz was examined, having not been removed until the 218th GA in June 2008.

So, this is just another step on the journey for this case.  The complainants will have their day to present the facts on certain of their points.  The case is remanded back to the SPJC for trail on the issues in specifications 4 and 5 only.  We will see where it goes from there.

219-06: Hyung K. Yun, Yoon Soo Kim, Young Yoon Kim, Kwan Young Lee, Seung G. Ahn, In Bae Chun, Richard Yun, and Kee Ho Lim v. The Session of the Korean United Presbyterian Church of New Jersey.
This is a remedial case based on a complaint filed by members of the church regarding two congregational meetings in October, 2005.  There were allegations made about irregularities in electing officers related to the nominating committee process and questions about the membership roles and who could vote at the meetings.

The Presbytery of Newark PJC issued a May, 2006, decision “reciting all parties’ acknowledgment that irregularities and delinquencies had occurred and stating that all parties had agreed to six specific remedies. The PPJC found that the church officer nominating committee had been properly formed. Those persons elected at the congregational meeting were later ordained and installed and have completed their terms of office or have resigned.”

Despite the decision saying “all parties had agreed” the PPJC decision was appealed to the PJC of the Synod of the Northeast which dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no basis for an appeal.  That decision was appealed to the GAPJC which previously ruled that there were grounds for appeal and the case was remanded back to the SPJC.  In April 2008 the SPJC ruled that the PPJC had erred in accepting the case because the complaint was made against the nominating committee and congregation which are not governing bodies.  That decision was appealed back to the GAPJC.

In this decision, the GAPJC found:
1)  The PPJC acted correctly in not invalidating the election and besides, that specification of error is now moot since the officers elected are no longer serving.
2) The PPJC did properly consider all appropriate evidence in the case.  Furthermore, to complain that the decision was “unfair and unjust” goes against the fact that all parties agreed to the remedies.
3)  The SPJC did err in its decision that the PPJC should not have accepted the case to the extent that in addition to claims against individuals and the congregation there were claims against the Session that should have been heard.

Bottom line:  The previously agreed to remedies are to be enforced.

For the polity wonks the most interesting part is a concurring opinion signed by three members of the GAPJC.  This opinion serves to point out a potential problem in PC(USA) polity related to deacons.  They note that in 1997 Book of Order section G-6.0403, regarding the organization of deacons, was amended to add the “b” paragraph permitting deacons to be actively serving on a “commissioned” basis without the organization of a Board of Deacons.  The previously existing section G-14.0223 about the composition of the nominating committee was never adjusted for this possible circumstance.  Should we watch for this “housekeeping” Book of Order amendment coming soon?

219-07: The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of Wyoming v. Gordon R. J. King.
This is a 10 to 5 decision related to a disciplinary case filed against Mr. King.  If you want the detailed history you can read the GAPJC decision, but in October, 2006, the PPJC filed its Final Decision.  Mr. King appealed this decision to the SPJC and when they did not sustain any of his specifications of error he appealed again to the GAPJC.

This case is interesting because it revolves around the Presbytery’s Standard on Sexual and Ethical Conduct and whether the facts in the case match the standard.  The GAPJC decision says

The application of a local standard for conduct (i.e., the Standard) does not relieve an appellate body of the obligation to determine whether that or any other legal standard has been properly applied. That determination is a question of law, not a question of fact.

It then goes on to overturn Mr. King’s conviction on the basis that the added “required” consideration of “proof of misuse of authority and/or power” was not present.  As I read this, the implication of the “required” is that it is part of “any other legal standard.”

This would be the implication of the Dissent which says,

The undisputed facts match specific examples of the offense…contained in the charge on which King was found guilty listed in item number five of the Presbytery’s Standard

The Dissent goes on to say:

The SPJC decision includes a concern that this standard might be ambiguous. However, our task in this disciplinary action is not to critique the Standard as written by the Presbytery. Our task is to determine whether there is any basis for the PPJC to conclude that the facts
in the case constitute a violation of the Standard. We cannot substitute our legal conclusion for that of the PPJC unless we can find that there is no basis for the decision, based on a clear error in matching the facts to the offense charged.

The PPJC decision is overturned apparently based upon “other legal standard[s]” even though the presbytery’s standard was apparently met.

New PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Administrative Commissions In The Spotlight

1 Reply

(If any of you just started reading my blog thanks to Bruce’s gracious endorsement
I appreciate you checking it out.  This particular post will probably
give you a feel for what he calls “painfully balanced and
excruciatingly thorough.”  It definitely falls into the thorough part.)

Almost two weeks ago on October 27 the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PC(USA)) issued three substantive decisions and one procedural decision.

In reading through the documents the two that the GAPJC wrote lengthy decisions about both focused on issues regarding the operations of an Administrative Commission (AC).  Now I realize that one of these decisions, Sundquist, et al., was in regards to churches departing the PC(USA) and contains additional related language.  That got the headlines.  But in my reading of the decision it seems that the majority of it, the parts dealing with the power of an AC, would apply to almost any AC regardless of the reason for creation.  In the same way, the Lee, et al. decision, while occasioned by a dispute within a congregation, was also at the heart of it about the AC that was created for dealing with the situation.

219-03 – Robert Sundquist, et al. v. Heartland Presbytery
This case results from the Presbytery‘s handling of the request by two churches (First Presbyterian, Paola, (new EPC Lighthouse congregation, continuing congregation) and Hillsdale Presbyterian) to be transferred to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  When the first congregation started talking about the request for transfer the Presbytery established an Administrative Commission to handle the situation. 

Coming to the GAPJC were five specifications of error:  1) The AC was given original jurisdiction before the facts established that it was needed.  2) The AC was empowered to dissolve pastoral relationships before they determined it would further the mission of the Word.  3) That certain powers could not be delegated to Presbytery committees.  4) That the AC was empowered to take the “full power and jurisdiction” of the Session if the Session were to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of requesting dismissal.  And 5) making the powers of the AC effective when “when it should become evident to the Commission that minister(s) or congregation member(s) are moving toward expressing a desire for separation and that reconciliation is not likely.”  (These are my summaries, read the decision for the full specifications with Book of Order citations.)

The GAPJC did not sustain any of the specifications of error effectively siding with the Presbytery.  But note that four of the five specifications essentially deal with the powers of an Administrative Commission.

The decision section is extensive, stretching seven pages, but contains some significant writing on AC’s that I suspect will become standard citations for the power and operations of Commissions.  This is already evident in the GAPJC citing this case in the simultaneously released Lee, et al. decision.

The decision begins by pointing out several principles of AC’s including that “The functions of an administrative commission are limited by the appointing body, and may include any function that the appointing body wishes to delegate (with few exceptions expressly provided for in the Book of Order).”  The decision goes on to say:

Powers delegated to administrative commissions must be specifically described (G-9.0502). This is consistent with the principle that the jurisdiction of each governing body within the church is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, and that powers not expressly mentioned in the Book of Order are reserved to the presbyteries (G-9.0103).

Based on the principles of AC’s the GAPJC found that “The argument of Sundquist, et al. that, the Presbytery must take all the steps to dissolve a pastoral relationship or assume original jurisdiction over a session, including investigation, notice and an opportunity to be heard, before appointing an administrative commission or delegating power to it, has no Constitutional basis and is in error.” (emphasis in original)  But the decision reiterates that the AC must follow of the Book of Order requirements in its actions.  The decision agrees with Sundquist, et al., that an AC may not automatically assume original jurisdiction “when a session calls a meeting for the purpose of considering actions that may lead to separation from the PC(USA),” but it finds that the Synod PJC correctly held that the AC fulfilled the requirements of the Book of Order.  (Interesting footnote here that the parties agree that the action of the AC is not being challenged, only the Presbytery Resolution empowering the AC.)  The decision says:

Appointing an administrative commission with the power to assume original jurisdiction or dissolve or dismiss a congregation or dissolve a pastoral relationship does not mean that the commission will inevitably exercise this power. In this case, the Resolution provided a process that insured that granting of such powers was separated from the exercise of the powers by the requirement that the AC must first determine that it is “evident to the commission that minister(s) or congregation member(s) are moving toward expressing a desire for separation, and that reconciliation is not likely” (Resolution, section 3 (emphasis added)). This determination is an important buffer between the grant of authority and exercise of that authority by the AC.

and

The Resolution reflected the Presbytery‟s desire and intent to give broad powers to an administrative commission that may be faced with particularly fluid and difficult circumstances, but conditioned the exercise of those powers on appropriate pastoral considerations for reconciliation in addition to the procedural safeguards imposed by G-9.0505b and G-11.0103i, o and s.

The Appellants claimed that the full Presbytery needed to act upon certain items before an AC could get involved.  The GAPJC says:

Without an administrative commission in place, the alternative would have required the Presbytery to call the session and pastor to the next plenary meeting of the Presbytery to air the differences in front of the entire Presbytery. Such a process would be unwieldy, use an undue amount time and resources, result in poor stewardship of Presbytery resources, and would in all likelihood not afford the best opportunity for a full hearing or reconciliation. There is greater potential to act pastorally, build trust and seek reconciliation in smaller groups.

This discussion answers the first two specifications of error.  Basically, an AC is given specific powers to exercise on behalf of the presbytery and in the place of the full presbytery.  The conclusion is that in this case the power and authority was granted and the AC exercised them properly.

The decision related to specification of error 4 was interesting because while it was related to the power of an AC, it hinged on the claim that giving the AC the “full power and jurisdicti
on of the Session” when “a Session calls a congregational meeting for the purpose of considering actions leading to separation from the PCUSA” restricts the right of a Session to call a congregational meeting to request dismissal to another Reformed congregation.  The applicable section of the Book of Order, G-15.0203, reads:

a. When a particular church of another denomination requests that it be received by a presbytery of this denomination, the presbytery shall verify that the church has been regularly dismissed by the governing body of jurisdiction, and the advice of the highest governing body of that denomination dealing with relations between denominations has been received, and shall then receive the church in accord with its responsibilities and powers.(G-11.0103h.)

b. Similar procedures shall be followed in dismissing a particular church from this denomination to another. (G-11.0103i)

The GAPJC decision says:

Sundquist, et al. assert that a session has an “implicit” or “implied right” to call a congregational meeting to consider requesting dismissal to another denomination, but at oral argument to this Commission suggested that it was a “privilege,” not a “right.” Any such privilege exists only within a covenantal relationship between a church and the presbytery. On the contrary, G-7.0302 and G-7.0304 limit the business of congregational meetings and do not include the topic of seeking dismissal. In 2008, the 218th General Assembly adopted Item 04-20 (Minutes, 2008, p. 48), which refers to G-7.0304 and states, “Withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not a matter that can be considered at a congregational meeting.”

[Side note to GA commissioners, polity wonks, and other GA Junkies:  Congratulations if you knew that was in Item 04-20.  I missed that one.  And it shows how much business GA has to deal with resulting in a lot of stuff going through “under the radar,” particularly when it goes through on the consent agenda like this did.] 

They continue on to say that it does not mean that a congregation can not request dismissal, but as the Book of Order section quoted above says, the management of the process lies with the presbytery.  This section then goes on at length to discuss the “Gracious, Pastoral Response” resolution from the last GA (04-28) and says in part:

Presbyteries and congregations have a reciprocal obligation for this process (G-4.0302). Whether the presbytery‟s power “to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i) is retained or delegated to an administrative commission, it is to be exercised in a pastoral manner, with litigation seen as a last resort, “deadly to the cause of Christ” (Item 04-28, section 2). (emphasis in original)

Any privilege to seek dismissal is conditioned on the cooperation of the congregation, the session and the pastor(s) with the presbytery in a process that operates in the manner set forth in Item 04-28. There shall not be any secret or secretive acts by sessions, pastors or congregations; bylaw changes or transfers of assets effectively negating the Book of Order or diminishing a church’s connection to the PC(USA); or curtailment of communications with the presbytery as a prelude to dismissal. Congregational meetings called or conducted by sessions for the purpose of voting on dismissal without the involvement of the presbytery are improper and have no binding effect.

This section of the decision closes:

Thus congregations, sessions, and pastors who fail to abide by the principles of the Resolution for a Gracious, Pastoral Response or presbytery policies (such as the Heartland Resolution) that embody these principles shall have breached important responsibilities and duties. As Presbyterians, the church at every level must visibly demonstrate the covenantal ties that bind us as the one church of Jesus Christ.

[Robert, did you every think your Commissioner Resolution would figure so prominently in a GAPJC decision?]
Update:  At about the same time I finished this post up Rev. Robert Austell, the primary author of Item 04-28 posted his own comments about the decision, particularly Part II.  While I see some of the language here as positive he was troubled by how this GAPJC decision “turned around” the Resolution relative to the original rational. Unfortunately, the rational section of an overture or resolution does not get published with the final item.  Check out his new comments on “Power and Trust.”

The third part of the decision is also very interesting because the claim is made in specification of error 5 that empowering the AC when it is likely a resolution will not be possible binds the conscience of pastors, elders, and members.  The decision points out: “However, the record is clear that the Paola and Hillsdale pastors and sessions had done much more than express their views about a desire for separation, but had taken action to withdraw their congregations from the denomination.”

The decision cites five previous GAPJC decisions that differentiate between thought and action, including the recent Spahr v. Redwoods decision.  The GAPJC concludes:

In this case, there is no evidence that Presbytery, either by adopting or following the Resolution, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has, or necessarily would, improperly bind the conscience of church officers. The mere creation of an administrative commission is not an act of discipline. Free expression of conscience is limited for officers and pastors under G-6.0108b, and does not encompass the calling of congregational meetings, moving churches to seek dismissal from the denomination or obstructing constitutional governance of the church.

[Polity note:  To me this is a very significant finding by this GAPJC as we go forward.  While Bush v. Pittsburgh was not one of the cases cited, probably because it deals with ordination, this decision clearly parallels Bush and the decision that “scrupling” is related to belief and not action.  This may signal that a challenge to the new GA Authoritative Interpretation on scrupling behavior would be successful.]

Finally, regarding the empowerment of committees of presbytery to add additional churches to the list that the AC was responsible for the GAPJC says:

Here the Presbytery acted to make every church in the Presbytery potentially subject to the AC, conditioned upon action by the COM or the Presbytery Council (or their designated subcommittees) to name a particular church to be actively subject to specified powers of the AC. Although not prohibited by any specific provision of the Book of Order, a better practice would be for the Presbytery itself to name any additional specific churches to come under the authority of the AC.

Four commissioners signed a concurring opinion that rem
inds everyone of the historic principles regarding schism that date back to the Plan of Union, 1758, and basically say that once a majority has decided an issue every member shall “actively concur”, “passively submit”, or “peaceably withdraw.”

There has been some reaction to this decision.  The team from Heartland Presbytery that successfully defended the Presbytery is pleased with the result and the moderator of that team, the Rev. Chad Herring, has written a summary for the Presbytery that is posted on their web site.

On the other side, Elder Michael McCarty in his blog Around the Scuttlebutt takes particular issue with Part II of the decision.  He is on record that historical Presbyterian principles permit congregations to affiliate and disaffiliate unilaterally but the principle is not reflected in our present Constitution.  It then follows that the need for consultation and management by the presbytery is not necessary and is in fact an impediment.

As we have seen through this process, much depends on the presbytery and the tone it sets.  I can not speak for these cases but there has been some harsh criticism by others in the past about how this process went forward.  This was all before the Gracious, Pastoral Response Resolution and there is news this week that in another presbytery the process worked and a church was dismissed to the EPC.  While the GAPJC decision now applies denomination-wide to AC’s, it does not necessarily affect presbytery policies on how they implement a Gracious, Pastoral Response.

219-05 – Jae G. Lee, et al. v. Presbytery of Midwest Hanmi
This case also deals with the power and authority of administrative commissions and how it is exercised.  The situation was that the church “was severely affected with disorder, and its Session became unwilling or unable to manage [it’s] affairs.”  The AC created by the Presbytery was given the authority of the session from Book of Order Chapter 10 and the authority of the presbytery from Book of Order Chapter 11.  I won’t rehash the history of the church and AC over the course of the six months involved, but it takes up half of the report and it indicates sketchy or non-existent records of AC actions and a Presbytery meeting that broke down into a “physical mêlée.”  The GAPJC decision summary at the start of the decision section says:

This case is tragic. It involves issues of culture and language, power and stubbornness. It also reflects misunderstandings on the part of individuals and governing bodies as to processes and procedures set forth in the Book of Order. Because the facts in this case reflect extraordinary and egregious conduct and unique cultural circumstances, the application of this Decision to other circumstances is limited.

There were six specifications of error and the GAPJC sustained three and did not sustain three.  Those errors that were sustained were because of procedural flaws on the part of the Presbytery.  If you note the authority given to the AC above, it was not have any authority in regards to Chapter 6 covering church officers, so it acted improperly when it dismissed them.  That should have been done by the full Presbytery under the Resolution creating the AC.  In an interesting polity maneuver, the GAPJC does point out that elders could have been dismissed by removing them from the membership rolls since that is covered in Chapter 10.  And in discussing the AC’s power being limited to that granted by the presbytery it cites the Sundquist decision.

Regarding the specifications of error that were not sustained, the GAPJC is brief in its decision that those points were either done correctly, or in one case stating that a witness at trial can act as both a factual and expert witness if they have the proper knowledge.

There were two other decisions also reported:

219-02 – PC(USA) v. Ranson
While the decision in this disciplinary case was pretty straight forward, sustaining the findings of the Synod PJC, there was a preliminary decision regarding the “late” arrival of the petition for appeal.  While the request was mailed in a timely manner it was not received within the 45 day window.  The GAPJC said that an appellant should not be penalized for the unpredictability of the delivery process and allowed the appeal to go forward.

219-04 – Wolfe v. Presbytery of Winnebago
In this case the Rev. Wolfe H.R. began to seek employment as a minster but was advised by the Presbytery COM that she could not do that and should seek secular employment instead.  While there are a couple of twists and turns, the remedial complaint filed by Rev. Wolfe with the Synod PJC was that she was being restricted without having a disciplinary hearing or due process.  The Synod PJC, both on executive hearing and again the full PJC when Rev. Wolfe challenged the decision, ruled that there was no claim on which relief could be granted.  The GAPJC decided that the COM overstepped its authority and that a decision like this should be made by the presbytery.  Therefore there is a claim on which relief could be granted and it was ordered back to the Synod PJC for trial.

Well, that is clearly enough for now.  That is my take on this round of GAPJC decisions.  Have fun reading the decisions and deciding for yourself if you are so inclined.

Another Case Of “Since ‘X’ Is By Definition Impossible, What You Saw Could Not Have Been ‘X'”

Leave a reply

Over on the PuritanBoard there has been an active discussion about the Edwards v. Pittsburgh Presbytery PJC Decision.  But one of the contributors to the discussion, Tim Vaughn, brought up a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) case from Tennessee where an interpretation of the defense, not the verdict, used the concept that since something was by definition impossible it could not have happened.  As Mr. Vaughn puts it:

I read through a PCA court case from Tennessee where a pastor let a
woman preach during Sunday night service, and after being brought up on
charges his defense was that since the PCA doesn’t allow woman
preachers, and she was a woman, she couldn’t have been preaching.

Mr. Vaughn provides the link to the September-October, 2000, issue of Presbyterian & Reformed News that details the case and the judicial commission’s decision not to proceed to trial, but telling the pastor and the church at large to not let it happen again.

Part of the investigating panel’s work was to determine if the views of the pastor, Teaching Elder John Wood, were in line with the standards of the PCA.  The committee found:

TE Wood stated to the panel that he holds to a view that: 1) excludes women from ordination; 2) excludes women from preaching (authoritative teaching); 3) permits women to do basically whatever unordained men can do in the church. Also, the panel found no evidence of Mr. Wood’s agitation regarding or promotion of a view that women should be ordained or that women should preach in the PCA, either locally at CSPC [Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church] or in the PCA generally.

And while the GA Standing Judicial Commission concluded from the Investigating Panel report that there was not a “strong presumption of guilt,” they did caution the church:

However, in making this determination the SJC is not endorsing the view of TE Wood that “women may do basically whatever unordained men can do in the Church,” and PCA ministers and elders are cautioned, for the peace and unity of the Church, to take great care in the teaching and implementing of views that might give the appearance of promoting a view that women may be ordained, or that women may preach the authoritative Word of God in a worship service.

Within the body of the Report of the Investigating Panel, reproduced in the newsletter, TE Wood told the panel about an earlier conversation he had with some concerned church leaders:

…he was using the word “preach” in a broad, but he believes Biblical, sense–the witness that each Christian bears before the church and the world, but he also stated that he should have been more careful to articulate his belief that women should not be ordained to the teaching or ruling eldership and that they should not be permitted to “preach” in the traditional sense of authoritative teaching from the word of God, as teaching elders are called and ordained to do.

Reacting to this in another article in the newsletter, Pastor David Coffin is reported to be the one suggesting the twisted or confusing logic:

Regarding Mr. Wood’s views, the pastor from Fairfax, Virginia, said, “Though as I understand them his views in this matter appear clearly contrary to Scripture, I don’t find myself too exercised over the possibility of such views having a great impact in the PCA. I expect that the obvious internal tensions are simply too much for most of our men to bear.” He stated that he understood Mr. Wood’s view to be that a woman by definition cannot preach because she does not hold the preaching office, even though she may perform precisely the same act in the same setting. In response, Mr. Coffin referred to the views of Jonathan Edwards, who supposed it was obvious to all that if there was an office authorized to preach then there must be some activity called preaching forbidden to those who do not hold the office.

I included the Jonathan Edwards reference since Janet Edwards, of the Edwards v. Pittsburgh case that started this discussion, is a direct descendant of his.

Interesting to see this logic as part of a very different polity and doctrine debate.

Closely Watched Judicial Cases Affecting the PC(USA) Scheduled For October

Leave a reply

We got news this week that two closely watched judicial cases with implications for the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be heard by their appropriate judicial bodies this coming October.

The first of these will be the trial of the Rev. Janet Edwards by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh on October 1.

This hit the news last week with a news release by the Presbyterian News Service about the case.  I am at a bit of a loss to explain the release of this news item at this time unless a) it was a slow news day or b) the trial date was announced.  I’ve been looking for documents related to the trial on line and not finding any so all I can say is that I suspect, but can not confirm, option b.

A quick recap of this case:  The Rev. Janet Edwards preformed a same-sex ceremony for a lesbian couple back in June, 2005, and everyone involved with the ceremony is describing it as a “wedding.”  A complaint was made, an investigating committee formed, and the investigating committee filed charges.  One little problem… The charges were filed four days past the deadline that investigating committee had to meet so the Presbytery PJC dismissed the charges.  A new complaint was made, a new investigating commission went to work and filed five charges, in a timely manner, and back in June the PJC reviewed the charges and dismissed three of the five.  Among the new charges was the accusation that parts of the ceremony were not Christian, but contained Buddhist elements related to the beliefs of one of the partners.  That was part of what was dismissed on the theory that if a ceremony is prohibited in the first place you can’t specify how it should be done properly and what is improper.  (If that theory sounds familiar hold the thought, I’ll get back to it in a minute.) (Story on the dismissal from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)

A few notes and comments on the story so far:  In researching this I have seen several references (like this article) to the original dismissal as being for “statute of limitations.”  While I am not a lawyer I understand the statute of limitations to relate to the offending action not to the judicial process itself.  Since the investigating committee missed a deadline this would be an administrative problem.  And since the charges were brought up again clearly it is still within the time limit on the alleged infraction.  Related to the charges being brought up again, this new hearing has also been referred to as “double-jeopardy.”  Again, the first case did not actually go to a “guilty/not guilty” decision, therefore it is not double jeopardy in my understanding of the process.

It is interesting to consider the outcome of this case.  It would have been within the realm of possibility, based on the current legal precedent, that all the charges against the Rev. Edwards were dismissed back in June since that hearing was after the Spahr v. Redwoods Decision in April.  That decision said “By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage.”  It went on to conclude that since it can’t be a marriage the minister can not be guilty of preforming a same-sex marriage.  All the Presbytery PJC had to do was cite this precedent and “game over.”  But this result would have been about as unsatisfying as the GAPJC decision.  And the dismissal of three of the charges does have that similar ring of legal reasoning.  (I am not a church lawyer so if I missed a critical point in our polity here related to the hearing or dismissing the case please let me know.)

So it appears that the PJC sees a point in hearing this case.  It could be that Edwards will be acquitted based on the Spahr decision.  It could be that she will be acquitted or found guilty on the merits, rather than the definitions, of this case alone.  If it is decided on its own merits I would expect this to make its way up the judicial ladder and it could be the case for a more satisfying decision by the GAPJC.  The GAPJC has eight new members elected at the last GA so the balance or dynamics of the body may change.  We will have to see.

In the latest Presbyterian News Service article Rev. Edwards is quoted as saying “I’m sure that we will press the parts of the Spahr decision that
supports my presiding at the wedding and calling Brenda and Nancy’s
relationship a marriage. We see a lot of positive
things in the Spahr decision.”  I would say to be careful what you ask for because by the Spahr decision says that by definition the relationship can not be a marriage.  The Rev. Edwards has a web site with information about the case called “A Time To Embrace” on which she has posted a statement in her defense.  The brief makes specific reference to W-4.9001.  After the GAPJC made clear in the Spahr decision that this is the definition of marriage and anything that deviates from this is not a marriage, Rev. Edwards now argues (p. 31) “[W-4.9001] is definitional in nature only, and contains none of the language that the Book of Order instructs must be present to set forth a mandate or a prohibition.”  The brief goes on to argue that there is no prohibition on same-gender marriage ceremonies, seeming to ignore that the fact that one of the decisions they cite says there are no such thing as same-gender marriage ceremonies based upon the Book of Order passage Edwards’ cites.  While Edwards’ brief does briefly mention the definition in the Spahr, it puts much more emphasis that an acquittal is in order because the charges are vague and not defensible.

There is one additional point in the brief that I find interesting.  It makes note of the action by the 218th General Assembly to vacate previous Authoritative Interpretations regarding the ordination of self-acknowledged practicing homosexuals, and it discusses the GAPJC’s divided interpretation of W-4.9001 as to its applicibility as a prohibition against future same-gender marriage ceremonies.  The brief does not mention that the 218th General Assembly, by a wide margin (I got it right that time), voted not to propose changes to W-4.9001.

Well, that was more of a point-by-point analysis than I had planned.  OK, on to the second case…

Regarding the second judicial case, I was notified two days ago that trial is now set to begin on the “Episcopal Church Cases” before the California Supreme Court on October 8.  Don’t let the “Episcopal” distract you; there are amicus curiae briefs for this case filed by Clifton Kirkpatrick and the national office, the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, and the Presbyterian Lay Committee.

This case is a test case on church property in California and comes from three linked cases out of Los Angeles and Orange Counties where three Episcopal Churches tried to realign with other Anglican communions outside the US and the Dioceses went to court to keep the property.  The case is highlighted by the fact that in this particular case the Appellate Court decision used the “highest government” legal theory, which favored the hierarchical church and ruled against the particular churches in their bid to hold onto property, while other Appellate Court decisions have used the “neutral-principles analysis” which would favor the particular congregation.  With both on the books the Supreme Court took the case and will decide on the proper legal theory for our state.

I probably don’t need to remind any regular readers that there is a lot riding on this state Supreme Court decision.  Along the length of the State of California there are Presbyterian, as well as Episcopal, churches trying to get out with their property and there are rumblings of more waiting in the wings for this decision.  I don’t know how the decision in this case could influence other places in the country, but it could have a major influence on the denominational map in California.  Then again, we could go with the “Graceful Seperation” that General Assembly endorsed.  Again, time will tell.

Synod PJC Lets Restoration To Ordained Ministry Stand

2 Replies

A few days ago the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies dismissed the remedial complaint filed against the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area regarding their restoration of the Rev. Paul Capetz to the practice of ordained ministry.  The Rev. Capetz is on the faculty of United Theological Seminary, an independent theological institution with a UCC heritage.  He had asked to be released in 2000 because he could not agree with Book of Order section G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” standard.  With the passage of the PUP Report he asked to be restored while declaring a scruple.  The Presbytery agreed in January and restored Mr. Capetz.  The complaint was then filed with the Synod PJC.  I’ve held off a couple of days hoping to get official language, but I have not found it yet so I’ll discuss this decision based on what was first reported by the Witherspoon Society.

According to the Witherspoon Society piece, the Synod PJC ruled that the Book of Order and interpretations by previous General Assembly PJC decisions all deal with the ordination process and since Mr. Capetz was previously ordained there was no basis for complaint.  I would also note that the Authoritative Interpretation resulting from the PUP report also deals principally with the ordination process, and that another GAPJC decision deals only with a call to employment in a PC(USA) entity.  In light of this precedent and case law this is a reasonable decision by the SPJC, even if it seems counter-intuitive based on all these previous decisions.  To determine a new interpretation on this particular circumstance will require appeal to the GAPJC or action by the General Assembly.

If you are interested there are a whole series of GAPJC decisions on this which have carved the lines fairly precisely.  As I list these I will usually rely on the very brief description found in the Annotated Book of Order.   One series of decisions has dealt with the ordination process.  The decision in 205-4: Gary J. LeTourneau et al v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area in 1993 made clear that a “self-affirmed practicing homosexual” (SAPH) may not be certified ready for ordination.  The prohibition on ordination was reaffirmed in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and in 218-04: George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery in 2008.  However, the GAPJC also made clear that if you are celibate you may be ordained based on 212-12: John S. Sheldon, et al., v. the Presbytery of West Jersey. And then in a couple of decisions that bridge between the two extremes, 214-5: Ronald L. Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and 215-8: Presbytery of San Joaquin v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods and Edgar T. Hart, Steve Nesheim, Larry Ballenger, Bill McDonald, Merle Wood, Rebecca Jordan-Irwin, and Kent A. Webber v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods, the GAPJC basically reaffirmed that orientation alone is not an impediment to ordination, but if there are reasonable grounds (not rumor) to believe the individual is a SAPH than the ordaining body is obligated to investigate this.

As far as ordination is concerned, these have all been related to the ordination process and the GAPJC has made it clear in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and reaffirmed in 211-2: Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Fort Lauderdale, Florida that an ordination may not be annulled under these circumstances.  And the GAPJC did caution in 215-5: Daniel J. McKittrick v. The Session of the West End Presbyterian Church of Albany, New York not to rush the ordination or installation process to reach this end.

There is one other thread in the GAPJC decisions which is applicable here.  While an ordination may not be annulled in these cases, the GAPJC did say in 205-5: Ronald P. Sallade et al v. Presbytery of Genesee Valley in 1993, and reaffirmed in several of these other cases, that a SAPH, if ordained, may not be called to employment in a PC(USA) position that “presumes ordination.”  In the case of Mr. Capetz, he is employed by an independent theological institution and the presbytery validated that ministry.

As I skim through these previous decisions, it strikes me that there is no set precedent for restoration to ordained ministry.  (I’m sure you will let me know if I missed a paragraph somewhere.)  And while it does seem to go against the intent of many of these decisions, and of the recent 218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh, I see no reason under current decisions that the SPJC should not have dismissed it.  As I said before, the real test will be the GAPJC if it is appealed.  Time will tell.

Decision in the PCA SJC Louisiana Presbytery Case

1 Reply

On March 6 trial was held by the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America in the case of Louisiana Presbytery and their examination of TE Steven Wilkins.  In a moment the results of that trial…

But to cover the bases I want to get caught up on the prosecutor situation since my last post on February 11.  As I mentioned at the end of that post, RE Sam Duncan had announced his intention to resign as the prosecutor in the case.  Upon his resignation TE Dewey Roberts was named as the prosecutor.  Our thanks to Rev. Lane Keister at Green Baggins for posting RE Duncan’s resignation letter.

Well, after trial on Thursday and deliberations that evening, the SJC returned their verdict on Friday morning.  In count 1, a technical count about classifying declared departures that Louisiana Presbytery pleaded “not guilty” to, the charge was dismissed.  In count 2, that the presbytery did not conduct the examination of TE Wilkins to properly find a “presumption of guilt,” to which the presbytery pleaded “guilty,” the SJC “admonished” the presbytery, the lowest form of correction.

Now, I am not going to try to reinvent the wheel here because there is a good summary post at Reformed Musings about the proceedings, and if you want the details from a ruling elder close to the situation in Louisiana Presbytery you must check out HaigLaw’s post about the decision.

Looking forward it is tempting to say that the PCA has sent a message that Federal Vision Theology is not compatible with their doctrinal standards and that remaining leaders and churches who hold to the Federal Vision will flee or quickly be chased away to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).  But it is important to point out that this whole case was more about examinations regarding the theology than about the theology itself.  And there is not one unified Federal Vision Theology but several varying approaches leaving some aspects doctrinally untested.  So the controversy may continue until a clear declaration regrading doctrinal standards is made by the SJC.  Or, the PCA might take this as a good point to take a break and get distracted by its next controversy.

But it will be interesting to see what sort of “legs” this topic has because it has clearly “got the attention,” “struck a nerve,” “rattled the cages,” (fill in your favorite cliché here) of the various proponents and opponents to this theological controversy.  And, with out going into details here, note that it deals with the nature of the covenant community, a topic at the core of Reformed theology.  But one post on Green Baggins currently has 707 comments to it and there is a thread on Puritan Board that has developed quite a discussion as well (4239 posts to date). So at least at the moment the topic has momentum in the blogosphere.  We will see what happens next and what happens to the momentum.

Recent News from Louisiana Presbytery and the PCA SJC Trial

6 Replies

Over the weekend there was another meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and we are once again indebted to HaigLaw for his first hand information about the meeting.  (And as an aside, HaigLaw has a nice new look to his blog page.)

The quick rundown of the most recent events that got us here:  At a January 19 meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery they decided to plead guilt to one charge and not guilty to the second charge they faced in church court and turn the trial of Federal Vision (FV) advocate TE Steve Wilkins of Auburn Avenue Church over to the higher church court but within days the church and the minister decided to leave the denomination for an FV friendly denomination and everyone figured that would be the end of that.  But wait, it can’t end that easily…

The February 9 special meeting was called because the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the PCA has decided to go to trial on March 6 in Atlanta on the one count that Louisiana Presbytery pleaded not guilty to.  HaigLaw gives a blow-by-blow description of the meeting but a few interesting points add to the convoluted nature of this specific proceeding.

The first is that while attendance appears small from the report of the voting (5-5, 6-5, 7-7), the numbers suggest good turnout since the Louisiana Presbytery web site lists seven churches in the presbytery.  (Yes Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has been removed from the list).  Figure there should be 14, or slightly more, total votes since it would be one Teaching elder and one Ruling elder from each church.

But the second point, as you can gather from my numbers above, is that the votes show the Presbytery is split on this.  A motion to change their plea to guilty on the second charge failed on a 5-5 tie.  The written content of their defense passed by a 6-5 vote.

The next, but related, item of business dealt with the request of Rev. Duane Garner to continue as a member of Louisiana Presbytery laboring outside its bounds.  Rev. Garner is an associate pastor at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church but would prefer to stay with the PCA rather than departing to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) with his church and his senior pastor Rev. Steve Wilkins.  Permission to labor outside the bounds was denied on a 7-7 tie and a request that TE Garner show his exact adherence to the PCA constitutional standards at the next Presbytery meeting passed on a 6-5 vote.  The question arises out of the fact that Rev. Garner is second author on a Federal Vision book with his boss, TE Steve Wilkins, so there is a paper trail.

Finally, I will conclude with the fact that the prosecutor for the case, Ruling Elder Sam Duncan, was a guest at the meeting.  HaigLaw relates that Mr. Duncan recommended to the SJC that the remaining charge be dropped since with Rev. Wilkins’ departure it was moot, but the SJC voted to continue to trial.  Mr. Duncan declined to give his opinion of what the possible punishment would be if the Presbytery was found guilty.  And Mr. Duncan also said that he would be resigning as prosecutor for the case. 

There was one more comment by RE Duncan that was outside the scope of HaigLaw’s post but came out in the comments and in Jeff Meyers’ blog Corrigenda Denuo.  Jeff Meyers relays information from Mr. Garner that Mr. Duncan said that “No one from Louisiana Presbytery is going to get a fair trial before the SJC.”  This has lit up the blogosphere including the comments on both HaigLaw and Corrigenda Denuo.  Well, TE Lane Keister was a member of Sam Duncan’s prosecuting team and took the time to call him up, find out about the context, and post it on his Green Baggins blog.  The comment boils down to the fact that details in Federal Vision cases are so wide spread now that you could not find a “jury” that had not been influenced by “pre-trial publicity.”  It is not that the SJC members are inherently biased against the Presbytery.  This has unleashed a significant discussion and the comments on the Green Baggins blog post are up to sixty at the moment.  If you are interested, check it out.

PCA SJC Indictment of Louisiana Presbytery and other developments

Leave a reply

Within the last couple of days the initial documents related to the Presbyterian Church in America‘s General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission case against Louisiana Presbytery related to their examination of Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins have been published on the web.  We are indebted to Bob Mattes for the documents as well as an analysis.

The story so far:  The Central Carolina Presbytery complained to the 2006 PCA GA that Louisiana Presbytery had as a member TE Steve Wilkins who held theological views that differed from the Westminster Standards.  The GA SJC ordered Louisiana Presbytery to examine TE Wilkins, which they did and the GA SJC reviewed the case in October 2006 and said that they did the examination wrong.  Over the winter of 2006-2007 Louisiana Presbytery did an exhaustive reexamination of TE Wilkins and found that his views did not differ substantially from the Standards.  The GA SJC ruled again that this time the examination process was appropriate but in judging the examination the presbytery did not properly examine the differences in theology.  The result was that the Louisiana Presbytery is going to trial concerning their examination finding.

The prosecuting team has now issued their indictment of Louisiana Presbytery and Mr. Mattes has posted it on his regular blog Reformed Musings.  Specifically, the indictment has two counts:  1)  That the presbytery “failed properly to handle TE Wilkins’s differences” with the Westminster Standards.  2) “Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitution…”

To summarize the remaining bulk of the two counts, Louisiana Presbytery was responsible to not just examine TE Wilkins and take his word that he viewed his theology in conformity with the standards, but they also were required to critically examine what he wrote and said, and “classify the differences” according to the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO)  16-3(e)(5) (The RAO can be found towards the end of this online PCA Book of Church Order.)  In this section the RAO has three categories of differences: semantic, not out of accord, out of accord with the Standards.  Presbyteries must assign the differences to one of these as part of the examination process.

The indictment is a long document that also lays out large pieces of TE Wilkins’ responses to support the “strong presumption of guilt.”

In addition to the indictment, there is also a citation from the PCA SJC ordering a plea to be entered by February 1, and if a “not guilty” plea is entered, ordering the trial to begin on March 5, 2008.

In addition to the indictment and citation, Bob Mattes also provides a commentary as one of the guest bloggers on the Green Bagginses blog.  This is a great discussion of the details of the case and analysis of what Louisiana Presbytery did versus what the RAO requires.  I want to highlight three of his comments.

First, regarding the significance of this case he writes: “This is a landmark case in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the likes of which one nobody wanted to see but one which has become absolutely necessary for the peace and purity of the church. As such, the SJC is being absolutely scrupulous with its procedures, following their guidance to the finest detail.”

Second, it is important to remember who is on trial, not TE Steve Wilkins, but Louisiana Presbytery.  However, Mr. Mattes points out:

Of course, TE Wilkins isn’t on trial here, Louisiana Presbytery will be if they plead “not guilty.” However, it is LAP’s incorrect handling of TE Wilkins’ examination at the core of this case, which naturally involves his views in a major way. TE Wilkins doesn’t have to be on trial for his views to play a major role in the case.

Finally, in terms of possible results if Louisiana Presbytery is found guilty, he says this:

…LAP has two options open to it:

1. LAP can repent of its errors and demonstrate this by conducting a fair and impartial trial of TE Wilkins; or

2. LAP can leave the PCA with the churches that agree with TE Wilkins’ errors.

The Federal Vision theology is being discussed in several of the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed branches in North America and how this case plays out could (will?) have far reaching consequences.

In other developments, one of the things the blogosphere has been a-buzz over is a great summary of Federal Vision Theology by Prof. R. Scott Clark at Westminster Seminary California.  It is of moderate length but does a great job not only laying out the basic structure of the Federal Vision theology but discussing its historical background.

In one other interesting development, Pastor James McDonald in his blog Family Reformation posted an article by his friend R. C. Sproul Jr.  that was originally published elsewhere.  In this reprinted article Sproul is pretty clear that his beliefs are not in line with the general tenets of Federal Vision Theology, but he is still gracious to his friends in the Federal Vision camp.  He does not clearly come out and say they are wrong, he just says that he does not accept those theological ideas.