Category Archives: PJC decisions

PC(USA) 221st General Assembly — Actions Related To Marriage

Yesterday afternoon the 221st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) considered the report of Committee 10 – Civil Union and Marriage Issues. Here is a brief summary of the four basic actions that the General Assembly took.

[10-07] On Creating a Task Force to Identify Common Ground and Reconcilable Differences with Respect to Same-Gender Marriage
The first item to be considered came as a overture from Eastern Korean Presbytery requesting a Task Force whose charge it would be to

a. identify common ground and reconcilable differences in biblical understanding and confessional interpretation with respect to same-gender marriage;

b. study the nature, scope, and controversies of the same-gender marriage laws legalized in certain states;

c. assess the impact of such laws and related sociopolitical changes on the ministry and mission of the church;

d. provide the local presbyteries and congregations with theological guidelines for
their ministry, as to understand and apply the concepts and functions
of family and parenting based on biblical norms and ethics; and

e. bring forth practical and futuristic recommendations that would not
only strengthen and promote unity within the church, but also solidify
ministries and missions with ecumenical partners locally and globally.

The Task Force would report back two GA’s from now in 2018.

The Committee recommended disapproval and there was a minority report advocating approval of this request. After some discussion, a lot focusing on whether the PC(USA) needed four more years to study this, the substitute motion was not made the main motion by a vote of 237 to 372 and the Committee recommendation was approved 401 to 185.

[10-03] On Issuing an Authoritative Interpretation of W-4.9000 to Affirm Pastoral Discretion in Performing Marriage Ceremonies

The next item was this Authoritative Interpretation that would permit pastors in jurisdictions that recognized same-sex marriages to perform those ceremonies. The core line in the AI reads, with the amendment:

[W]hen a couple requests the involvement of the church in solemnizing their marriage as permitted by the laws [of the civil jurisdiction in which the marriage is to take place] [~~of the place where the couple seek to be married~~], teaching elders have the pastoral responsibility to assess the capabilities, intentions, and readiness of the couple to be married (W-4.9002), and the freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture (G-2.0105) to participate in any such marriage they believe the Holy Spirit calls them to perform.

The AI would also permit the use of church facilities with the consent of the session.

This debate began with a point of order as to whether this item was out of order under Roberts Rules of Order because it was in conflict with the definition of marriage as found in the Book of Confessions.

Just as when this point arose at the 220th General Assembly, the Moderator turned to the Clerk who suggested that the Assembly receive advice from the Assembly Committee on the Constitution. In 2012, the ACC’s response was along the lines of the narrative found in the front material to the Book of Confessions in the Confessional Nature of the Church Report. At one point the Report says “Nevertheless, for Reformed Christians all confessional statements have only a provisional, temporary, relative authority.” In other words, while important the multiple confessions need to be considered as a body of work and individual points not singled out from the who body.

At this General Assembly the ACC advice took a different direction. The advice was essentially that this action and the confessions are in tension and that it is the responsibility and within the authority of the GA to resolve that tension. Within the ensuing discussion is was observed that in their original advice on the overture the ACC said:

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution advises that the 221st General Assembly (2014) disapprove Item 10-03

[snip]

Section W-4.9001 and related citations (W-4.9002a, W-4.9004,
W-4.9006) limit marriage to couples who are “a woman and a man.” Because
these statements are clear and unambiguous, they can not be interpreted
in a manner that is inconsistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.

When asked about this the ACC response was essentially the same as was previously given – that the Assembly could deal with this tension.

The Moderator ruled the item was in order, the commissioner challenged the ruling of the Moderator and after some significant discussion over the nature of the point of order the Moderator’s ruling was sustained.

With that out of the way the item was debated and the debate was generally civil and respectful. One of the things about this Assembly seems to be the number of times that points of debate are incorporated into questions from the floor. When debate was closed and the vote taken the commissioners voted 371 to 238 to approve the AI.

[10-02] On Amending W-4.9000, Marriage

This item is based on an overture from the Presbytery of Cascades with 16 concurrences. The proposed new wording of W-4.9000, as amended mostly by the committee but slightly on the floor, would be:

“Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a women, to love and support each other for the rest of their lives. The sacrificial love that unites the couple sustains them as faithful and
responsible members of the church and the wider community.

“In civil law, marriage is a contract that recognizes the
rights and obligations of the married couple in society. In the
Reformed tradition, marriage is also a covenant in which God has an
active part, and which the community of faith publicly witnesses and
acknowledges.

“If they meet the requirements of the civil jurisdiction
in which they intend to marry, a couple may request that a service of
Christian marriage be conducted by a teaching elder in the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.), who is authorized, though not required, to act as an
agent of the civil jurisdiction in recording the marriage contract. A
couple requesting a service of Christian marriage shall receive
instruction from the teaching elder, who shall agree to the couple’s
request only if, in the judgment of the teaching elder, the couple
demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the marriage
covenant and commitment to living their lives together according to its
values. In making this decision, the teaching elder may seek the counsel
of the session, which has authority to permit or deny the use of church
property for a marriage service.

“The marriage service shall be conducted in a manner
appropriate to this covenant and to the forms of Reformed worship, under
the direction of the teaching elder and the supervision of the session
(W-1.4004–.4006). In a service of marriage, the couple marry each other
by exchanging mutual promises. The teaching elder witnesses the couple’s
promises and pronounces God’s blessing upon their union. The community
of faith pledges to support the couple in upholding their promises;
prayers may be offered for the couple, for the communities that support
them, and for all who seek to live in faithfulness.

“If they meet
the requirements of the civil jurisdiction in which they intend to
marry, a couple may request that a service of Christian marriage be
conducted by a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who
is authorized, though not required, to act as an agent of the civil
jurisdiction in recording the marriage contract. A couple requesting a
service of Christian marriage shall receive instruction from the
teaching elder, who may agree to the couple’s
request only if, in the judgment of the teaching elder, the couple
demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the marriage
covenant and commitment to living their lives together according to its
values. In making this decision, the teaching elder may seek the counsel
of the session, which has authority to permit or deny the use of church
property for a marriage service.

“Nothing herein shall compel a teaching elder to
perform nor compel a session to authorize the use of church property
for a marriage service that the teaching elder or the session believes
is contrary to the teaching elder’s or the session’s discernment of the
Holy Spirit and their understanding of the Word of God.”

I wish I could have heard more of the questions and debate concerning this item but my schedule did not permit hanging around for most of the livestream. In the part of the discussion I did hear there were numerous questions about global partners and their reactions. I can also say that in what I heard there were no slippery-slope arguments made. And in a nod of cooperation and forbearance the wording in the first paragraph that said “two persons” was changed to “two persons, traditionally a man and a woman.”

In the final vote the new language was approved and will be sent to the presbyteries on a vote of 429 to 175. For comparison, the 220th General Assembly defeated an amendment of similar intent but significantly different wording on a vote of 308 to 338. Note that after that vote the business was bundled into an umbrella item to answer all business in one fell swoop.

This will now be sent down to the presbyteries and will require a concurrence of a majority of them.

[10-NB] New Business
The final item of business was a resolution crafted by the Committee following their completion of the other business. Compared to the extensive text of the rest of these items it is pretty simple:

Recommend the 221st General Assembly (2014) direct the Presbyterian Mission Agency Board and
the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly to engage in the process of working together with churches in the task of reconciliation, starting with visiting
each presbytery and serving as a resource for each presbytery’s
discussion of these actions in congregations and the presbytery at-large
and present voices of reconciliation for the unity of the church.

This is a response to the recognition that for this decision there will be some who will be hurt by the outcome in the same way that some were hurt by the outcome of other decisions in this matter in previous years. The committee itself was careful in its work about being respectful and developing a sense of fellowship in the group. One of the things it did to insert some levity during its work was to have committee members share embarrassing moments during worship. (Example 1, example 2).

It should be pointed out that there was a vote to reconsider this item this morning as the first item of business and a substantive and pastoral amendment was passed without changing the basics of the item.

What’s next
Here are three items the come to mind regarding this action going forward.

First, the amendment to the Directory for Worship does need the concurrence of the presbyteries. if approved by a majority of the 171 presbyteries it will become part of the 2015-2017 Book of Order which takes affect a year from now.

Second, as we know from ordination standards an AI from the Assembly is not the last word. Even if the Book of Order change is approved there is an outside chance that a challenge to a same-sex marriage ceremony could go through the judicial process fast enough that the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission would have the opportunity to supersede the GA’s AI with a ruling that W-4.9001 does prohibit such ceremonies in spite of the AI.

Finally, expect the departures to continue. I am not sure that this action will suddenly and dramatically increase the exodus of churches leaving the PC(USA) as many that I have talked to have anticipated this and taken action on departure in a proactive manner. For most, this is not unexpected but a validation of what they have been saying for years. And while there are numerous factors at play between the action at the last GA and this proposed change to the Book of Order, we have to accept that the exodus has been at least partly responsible for the dramatic swing from a 308 to 338 vote to a 429 to 175 vote. (And at some point I hope to do some number crunching to explore what constraints could be put on the numbers.)

Following these actions a number of pastoral letters and statements have been released. In addition to one from the General Assembly leadership, there is one from Presbyterians for Renewal and another from the Covenant Network. I would also highlight one from Philadelphia Presbytery by their Executive Presbyter Ruth Santana-Grace.

As a bit of an aside, at the same time yesterday afternoon the 42nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America was considering their ascending overtures, including two (Overtures 2 and 5) that reiterated that denomination’s stated views against homosexual practice and same-sex marriage. Both of those overtures were dispensed with fairly quickly, although with a little discussion, as they were ruled out of order since they were both affirmations of what is already established doctrine. However, in an independent occurrence that got a bit of a chuckle from some of us in both denominations, at least one news source got the two largest American Presbyterian branches a bit confused.

So, returning to the PC(USA), it is now time to see what happens as this descends to the presbyteries – both to approve the Book of Order amendment and in general to see what the reaction is. And we pray for the initiative to encourage reconciliation as this effort goes forward. Stay tuned…

Church Dismissals In The Synod Of Southern California And Hawai’i — Part 1

8 Replies

It was just about one year ago now that at a special called meeting of the Presbytery of San Gabriel two churches were dismissed to ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO). In this two part piece I want to discuss the journey that this started as well as take an analytical look at where a couple of presbyteries in the synod are headed at this point. I don’t know if this first part is of any interest to others but what I first envisioned as a brief intro to where the synod is has now turned into its own moderately detailed discussion of my experience with this case. If you just want to see the quantitative analysis feel free to just jump to Part 2.

Part 1: Judicial Case Against The Presbytery of San Gabriel
On 20 October 2012 at a special meeting of the Presbytery of San Gabriel the dismissals of Glenkirk Presbyterian Church of Glendora, CA, and the First Presbyterian Church of Covina, CA, were approved. Polity wonks may recognize the timing of this action was just before the Synod Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) rendered its decision in the case of St. Andrews Session v. Presbytery of Santa Barbara (St. Andrews decision) and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) decided the case of Tom and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco (Tom decision).

Relevant to the San Gabriel action the St. Andrews decision called into question the validity of ECO as a reformed body and the Tom decision raised some issues with the details of the process and the terms of dismissal. The leadership of San Gabriel recognized the implications of both of these cases and began a process to take actions to bring future dismissals into compliance and to try to remedy deficiencies in the two dismissals already approved. In addition, a revision of the Gracious Dismissal Policy (GDP) included not just the specific requirements of the Tom decision but also the numerous lessons learned from the first application of the policy.

However, a remedial case was filed by 12 members of the presbytery specifying nine defects in the presbytery action based on the St. Andrews and Tom decisions. The SPJC accepted the complaint and issued a stay of action putting the dismissal of the churches on the agreement date of 31 December on hold. San Gabriel Presbytery itself put on hold all additional requests for dismissal and other presbyteries in the synod also stopped or slowed down their dismissal processes waiting for the outcome of this case since it might clarify the earlier SPJC decision about the status of ECO as a reformed body.

Before I go any further I need to do the full disclosure thing: I was asked and agreed to serve on the Committee of Counsel that responded to the complaint. Therefore, while I had a front row seat for this judicial process that seat was from the defense table so I have a particular perspective on all these proceedings. In addition, the comments, views and perspective that I will be sharing here are mine alone and, expect in the rare instance I state otherwise, do not necessarily reflect the perspectives and opinions of the other two members of the Committee of Counsel, our legal help, or the leadership of the presbytery.

Following the decisions the presbytery set about to try to retroactively fulfill the spirit of the St. Andrews and Tom decisions by doing three things. The first was to begin the previously mentioned revision of the Gracious Dismissal Policy. The policy was extensively rewritten, incorporating both the lessons learned as well as a great deal of language taken directly from the Tom decision, and this new draft policy was distributed early in 2013. Three opportunities were provided at open sessions outside of regular presbytery meetings for members of presbytery to ask questions and provide feedback. A first reading was done at the March presbytery meeting and the revised GDP was approved by the presbytery at the May meeting with a couple of amendments from the floor to the gracious dismissal process.

While the new GDP is loaded with procedural adjustments based on lessons learned, there are to my mind two significant changes based upon the Tom decision. One is the now explicit requirement for the consideration of the value of the property and the implications of the trust clause in the negotiated agreement with churches and the presentation to the presbytery. The second is the explicit inclusion of the requirement that a 10 year reversionary clause be included in any agreement so that if within the first 10 years after dismissal the church would leave a reformed body the property would revert to the presbytery or the church would have to make payment for the property. This was a point of a lot of discussion — not whether or not to have the reversionary clause but what to actually put in the GDP. In the modern world of the PC(USA) there is a line of thought that you don’t specify numbers in policy documents but take everything on a case-by-case basis. So there was discussion about whether to specify a number and if a number was specified whether to make it binding or advisory and how large a number to put there. It is worth noting that in the debate around these matters the two dismissed churches made it clear that they intended the switch to ECO as a permanent move and not a quick route to independence. I sensed that a few in the presbytery were skeptical of this claim but time will tell.

The second action the presbytery took was to hold a stand-alone debate and vote to approve ECO as a reformed body that a church can be dismissed to. In the original action this was bundled into the dismissal vote itself. This passed the presbytery with a roughly 2/3 approval. Following the vote Dr. Jack Rogers was given the opportunity to speak about, among other things, why his expert testimony against ECO in the St. Andrews case applied only to the union presbytery issue and not dismissals of congregations.

Finally, at another presbytery meeting a member of the pastoral engagement team for the presbytery presented all the financial information that the Tom decision now calls for as well as the ministry rational for the agreements negotiated with each of the two churches that asked to be dismissed.

At the same time that this was going on members of the presbytery leadership were meeting with groups of the twelve individuals who had signed the complaint. The objective was to share the steps the presbytery would be taking as well as discuss possible remedies they might be interested in. I was not part of these discussions and so can not speak specifically to them. Furthermore, I can not speak to anyone’s particular motivations, but over the next few months ten of the twelve individuals contacted the SPJC and asked that their names be removed from the complaint.

The two remaining complainants and the Committee of Counsel continued with the judicial process including entering into mediated negotiations and with those negotiations in progress asking for a postponement of a pretrial conference in March. By the time we reached the rescheduled confer
ence in May the complainants had agreed to drop all but the two charges that dealt sepcifically with the trust clause.

It was actually at the May pretrial conference, during an adjournment of the SPJC, that we finally all agreed in principle to a specific framework for a settlement. The SPJC set a trial date and we told them we hoped we would not need it.

Over the next few days the framework was filled in and a final settlement was worked out. This settlement included a statement acknowledging that while the presbytery acted in good faith in the decision of 20 October, in hind sight and with the new guidance of the Tom decision there were details of the process that did not meet that guidance on the implementation of the trust clause. In acknowledgement of the trust clause and the presbytery’s new GDP each church extended the reversionary clause to 10 years. In addition, they each made an additional payment as a symbolic gesture of a payment for the property and in recognition of the legal expenses the presbytery had incurred on their behalf.

Beyond that there was recognition of the revisions to the GDP, of which the complainants had their input, and the presbytery will be asked to send an overture to the 221^st General Assembly asking the Office of the General Assembly to provide more guidance for presbyteries seeking to discern which reformed bodies churches may be dismissed to. The settlement does not however require the presbytery to approve such an overture.

The churches fairly quickly made the necessary changes and payments on their side and in late June they, and their clergy, were transferred to ECO. The new GDP was approved in May and the pending overture is the last piece that needs to be presented to presbytery. Once that happens I am looking forward to having the Committee of Counsel being dissolved, hopefully with thanks.

Some reflection on the experience
First, it is impossible to ignore the emotional toll all this took on me at all points in the journey. I have many friends and colleagues in the two churches that requested and were granted dismissal. I fully understand that they did what they felt they had to do. It did take some doing to say goodbye and then help them on their way as I helped to defend the presbytery’s actions. Similarly, almost all of the original 12 complainants are friends that I have worked with over many years in this presbytery and synod. This was for me very much a family struggle and while I am glad that I could be part of the resolution, I am saddened by how this originally developed and the tensions and, yes, hurt feelings it caused.

Second, I believe that the eight months in which we settled this was
about as quickly as the judicial process would allow. It was done using
the alternative dispute resolution and did not go to trial. There was a
lot of work involved but we could set the pace of the mediation sessions
and make it happen without having to set those dates with the SPJC.

Having
said that, the logical extension is to ask whether this had to go to
the judicial process at all. The two remaining complainants did indicate
their view that the judicial process is an important part of our polity
and they felt it offered them the protection and supervision they sought
in resolving the complaint. From my perspective I would have rather tried to work it out earlier and gone to the judicial process if that failed. However, because of both the timing of the dismissals and the window to file a complaint – remembering that the charges were based upon cases that were decided in the weeks following the original action – the complainants felt time was short and if they were to keep the judicial option open they needed to file the complaint.

Finally, and this is one point where I think I can say my sentiments are shared by the rest of the Committee of Counsel as well as some of the presbytery leadership, I am very grateful for the patient way that the two dismissed churches stuck with us in the judicial process. They were as gracious about the delay as the presbytery was in dismissing them in the first place. We kept their leadership updated concerning what progress was, or was not, being made and when the additional terms were being discussed they might not have been eager to have modifications but they were extremely helpful in making it happen.

So that is a moderate-length version of where the Synod of SoCal and Hawai’i finds itself at the moment. While this case did not go to trial and so did not definitively settle the question of the eligibility of ECO as a reformed body that churches can be dismissed to, the fact that this case is no longer raising that and other questions within the synod means that presbyteries can once again feel comfortable with having their dismissal processes proceed. In Part 2 I take a closer look at the dismissals in three of the synod’s presbyteries.

Two PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions On Ordination Standards — A Plate Of Polity, Doctrine On The Side…

4 Replies

Today the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their decisions in two closely watched remedial cases. One reason for the high-profile nature of the cases is the fact that they began their lives with G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” language, in the Book of Order, but as of last month that language has been removed and modified in the new G-2.0104b. Does the change in language make the cases moot? The GAPJC said yes… and no.

If you want the summary and outcomes, here you go:

The case of Session of Caledonia Presbyterian Church and others v. Presbytery of John Knox deals with the examination for ordination of Mr. Scott Anderson. The key quote in this decision is:

The Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot is granted, and the Stay of Enforcement is lifted. The only alleged irregularities set out in Appellants’ Notice of Appeal cite G-6.0106b and Authoritative Interpretations of that section as the basis of their Appeal. The language of that section was removed from the Book of Order prior to the GAPJC hearing of the Appeal. In granting this motion, this Commission declines to rule upon the application of a provision of the Book of Order that no longer exists. Nothing in this Decision should be construed to interpret the ordination standards under the new Form of Government, as that issue is not before the Commission.

The second case is that of Parnell and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco and results from the examination to ordain Ms. Lisa Larges. This case was not dismissed but eight of the specifications of error were not sustained for the same reason the Anderson case was dismissed. Where this was different is that doctrine was cited as an irregularity. The decision says:

The record does not reflect that the SPJC ruled on the Appellants’ contention that Scripture and the Confessions prohibit certain sexual behavior. While the Appellants’ complaint was based primarily on G-6.0106b, the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery. Since the doctrinal issue is central to the Appellants’ case, it was error for the SPJC not to expressly rule upon the issue.

The case is remanded back to the Synod of the Pacific PJC and the SPJC is “encouraged to direct the Presbytery to reexamine the candidate under G-2.0104b.”

OK, that’s the bottom line. Now polity wonks, lets do some more reading.

Regarding the Caledonia v. John Knox decision what is striking to me is that while the decision itself is just the dismissal and relatively straight-forward, I did after all give you the complete Decision in the quote above, this is a longer decision. Of the 15 commissioners on the GAPJC (there is one vacant position) eight signed on to one of the three concurring comments and five signed at least one of the dissenting comments. (One commissioner signed both dissenting comments.) So a lot of the commissioners wanted to say something and these additional comments essentially triple the length of the decision.

The concurring comments included commentary on how the General Assembly had issued a flawed Authoritative Interpretation, how the Commission could not consider broader issues than G-6.0106b because they were not raised in the appeal, how the Presbytery should have started over with Anderson under the new Book of Order language as suggested, and how some commissioners would have preferred to have affirmed the SPJC decision rather than dismiss the case.

The dissenting comments focus on how the SPJC decision is flawed because it did not address the doctrinal arguments (like the SPJC decision in the Larges case) and the flawed nature of the GA AI.

The catch of course is that while these statements were made in the decision, since the case was dismissed they do not raise to the standard of Interpretation. However, the tension over the AI from the General Assembly that allowed scrupling of practice as well as belief has been substantial and that issue is reflected in the concurrence by Copeland, Kim, Cramer and Cornman says:

While we find the “Knox AI” to be flawed, we believe that the Presbytery acted in good faith when it based its decisions on its interpretation of that Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 adopted by the 218th General Assembly (2008). G-13.0103r of the Form of Government in force at the time of the contested ordination examination states, “The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.” In this case this would be the Knox AI. The flaw of the Knox AI, however, is that it fails to recognize that any AI, regardless of who issues it, cannot modify a specific requirement of the Book of Order. An AI can interpret the Constitution but the only way to modify such an explicit requirement (G-6.0106b) is through the amendment process.

The decision in Parnell v. John Knox is more extensive, but eight of the eleven specifications of error are dismissed because “the constitutional provisions under which the Candidate was examined are no longer part of the Constitution.” A ninth was dismissed because they found that the record did not sustain the claim that the presbytery itself departed from the Essential Tenants of the Reformed Faith by approving the candidate. There were two specifications of error regarding the SPJC not dealing with the doctrinal issues raised and only dealing with process. These are the errors that were sustained. I have quoted the relevant portion of the decision above where the GAPJC points out that “the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery.” The GAPJC decision is careful to also note that “In sustaining this specification of error, this Commission is not ruling on whether doctrinal error or abuse of discretion occurred, but only that it is not evident from the language of the decision whether or not the SPJC ruled upon this matter.”

There is a concurring opinion by one commissioner who expresses caution that review of ordaining bodies decisions should be done carefully:

The protocol for review by an appellate body needs, therefore, to be very prudently limited to those cases in which either an ordaining body or a Permanent Judicial Commission has very clearly erred or the process is so defective as to have deprived one of the parties of due process, such that there are extraordinary reasons for reversal. The duty of a reviewing body is to be discharged with caution and great deference.

He says that the only reason he can concur is because the recommendation is to have the presbytery do the examination again under the new standard.

There is also a dissent by three commissioners who feel there are no grounds to have the doctrine arguments reviewed by the SPJC: “For an appellate body to be empowered to micromanage the ordination process without there being extraordinary reasons would be ill-advised.” They conclude their comments with the economic argument:

Both parties urged this Commission not to remand this case for further hearings as they recognized that to do so would not only cause significant and unnecessary expense to the church, but would also result in no difference in outcome. This Commission is charged with securing th
e “economical determination of proceedings.” We believe that sending the case back to the SPJC does not accomplish that charge.

A couple of things jump out to me in these decisions:

1) Previous GAPJC decisions regarding ordination standards seem to have been crafted so that members of the GAPJC were unanimous, or nearly so, in the decision. The decisions give the appearance that this was done by focusing on the process. The variety of voices heard in these decisions, particularly the Caledonia v. John Knox, strikes me as a shift in tone and there is no longer an emphasis on high-consensus decisions. It may be the change in circumstances with the passage of 10-A. It might have to do with the fact that these cases have reached a level of maturity that all the procedural issues have been beaten out of them and they are now down to the core doctrinal issues. Or it may be that the church as a whole has reached a point where we need to start taking these issues seriously. I don’t know if others agree but looking over these decisions I sense a change in tone from previous ones.

2) Related to that, these decisions appear to me to be sending a message that the GAPJC is ready to start dealing with those issues, maybe even wanting to based on some of the writing. The feeling is not unanimous, as a couple of the minority comments argue for leaving those issues to the presbyteries. But one concurring decision in the Caledonia v. John Knox case says:

Additionally, the Appellants, while arguing on appeal a scriptural basis for overturning the Presbytery’s action, failed to include such arguments in either their original complaint or the specification of errors. These omissions meant that this Commission was unable to address issues broader than the application of G-6.0106b in its Decision.

They almost seem to be lamenting the fact that they wanted to deal with this but could not work on that problem because of the structure of the appeal.

Now, there is an opinion that differs from mine regarding this, but as I read these decisions it seems to me that the GAPJC is saying it might be time to examine the doctrine at the highest level. The caveat they place is that it needs to be done decently and in order by properly arguing it at the court of first impressions and by properly appealing it in the brief.

So the bottom line – In Mr. Anderson’s case the process has concluded. The stay of enforcement is lifted and he is cleared to be ordained. As for Ms. Larges, the process continues. There will be another trial before the SPJC on the doctrinal issues, there will probably be another examination for ordination before the presbytery based on the new Book of Order language, and I would suspect another appeal to the GAPJC following the new SPJC hearing. While this extends a very long journey even further, the apparent benefit to many of us in this upcoming cycle will the the opportunity to actually have the GAPJC rule on the doctrine and not just the process. Stay tuned…

[Update: Note the comment below by the Rev Mary Holder Naegeli who was in the midst of this case. 1) The remand does not necessarily mean a reopening of the trial, 2) doctrine was discussed by the PJC in the proceedings but not in the decision, 3) The GAPJC consensus seemed to be that they would not accept the case for review another time. Thanks Mary.]

New Ordination Standards Language In The PC(USA) And The Discussion Of Standards

2 Replies

As the polity wonks in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are well aware we have to be studying up on the changes to the Book of Order that go into effect this weekend. The biggest change is the addition of a new section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, and the rewrite of the Form of Government, but there are a few other amendments that changed language elsewhere in the constitution. While the paper copy is still at the printer and the electronic copies are in preparation, especially the annotated version, we do have the vast majority of the new Form of Government from the amendment booklet.

However, there are about 20 locations where other specific amendments have made changes to the Book of Order, and seven of these are in the FOG.

Of these changes the only one to have any substantial opposition in the presbyteries is the new wording of G-2.0104b, the standards for ordination. This is the new number and wording for what was previously numbered G-6.0106b and we will have to learn to have the new number roll off our tongue as the old one did.

Some may say that this debate is over and we can move on to other things so there is no need to get used to the numbering of that section. I think the evidence is that in the short- to intermediate-term there will still be substantial discussion about what it actually means so I at least am getting used to it.

For some this weekend is an occasion for celebration and More Light Presbyterians have released a suggested opening liturgy for this coming Lord’s Day that begins

Common Beginning of Worship and of Church Life
July 10, 2011

Procession
(run free with banners, scarves, ribbons, streamers, etc)

I have not seen a liturgy for those who favored the previous ordination standards language, but I suspect that if there is one it is a bit less exuberant.

The reason that I don’t think the Book of Order citation number will soon disappear from our vocabulary is that there is now a substantial amount of discussion about how to live into the new verbiage.

For example, More Light Presbyterians have issued a guide with their recommendations about moving forward with the new language titled Ordination Guide: So That G-2.0104 Shall Be a
Blessing for our Church and World. On the introductory web page they say:

Fair, accurate interpretation and implementation of 10-A, now known
as G-2.0104 is our top priority. We have created Ordination Guides from
an affirming perspective and we have sent them to staff in all 173
presbyteries…

We need to get this
affirming Guide in the hands, hearts, minds and actions of every
Presbyterian congregation, every Committee on Preparation for Ministry
and every Committee on Ministry. We believe that G-2.0104 can be a
blessing for our Church and world. For 10-A to make the difference it
can make, we need to make sure that it is understood, honored and
followed by every church and presbytery. We know this is a tall order:
11,000 churches in 173 presbyteries. All of us doing our part can make
this happen. Together we are building a Church that reflects God’s
heart.

The guide is not very extensive and addresses all the primary audiences briefly. It frequently says something similar to this passage that is part of the advice to seminaries:

For polity professors and administrators handling placement, help your seminarians study the exact wording of G-2.0104. Help them become as familiar as possible with the theological contours of their own presbyteries, other potential presbyteries where they might come under care and the presbyteries where they might seek a call. Prepare them to be ready to ground their responses to questions from Committees on Preparation or [sic] Ministry and from Pastor Nominating Committees in Scripture, the confessions and the constitutional questions.

Depending on your perspective, this advice could be seen a either practical advice about discerning and living into their call or as “teaching the test” and making sure the candidate knows the right thing to say when the time comes to improve their chances in a presbytery with some differences of opinion.

From the opposite perspective there is an equally interesting document now posted. With the change in the ordination standards language the PC(USA) has removed their “mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard.” Now that the mandatory standard has been removed, what will become of judicial cases that are in the pipeline?

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission is scheduled to hear two of those cases three weeks from today on July 29th. In an effort to argue that their case is still relevant even with the new language, Parnell and others have submitted a Supplemental Brief in their case against the Presbytery of San Francisco. (And thanks to the Presbyterian Coalition for making it available on their web site.) The brief begins with this:

The question is posed whether this case is still at issue, given the recent ratification of Amendment 10-A, and if so, whether any of the specifications of error are mooted by that revision to Book of Order section G-6.0106b. The basis of Appellants’ case from the beginning has been the clear and univocal mandate of Scripture. Scripture has not changed, so the case is not moot.

The suggestion of mootness implies that when 10-A deleted fidelity/chastity from the text of G-6.0106, something new was achieved, either a new standard or a new procedure. Neither is the case. Changing the sexual ethic standard requires changing Scripture, while the procedures described in 10-A merely restate current ordination process (G-14.0452 and G-14.0480). Since 10-A presents nothing new, the case is not moot.

I applaud the writers of this brief for taking on the issue as it now stands and not under the previous language. In response to a motion by the Presbytery they argue:

The Presbytery has suggested that this case should be decided with reference solely to the former language of G-6.0106b and without regard to the subsequently certified Amendment 10-A, that is, by applying only the text that appeared at the time. If a new rule had superseded an old one because it contradicts the former, this suggestion would be debatable. But this is not the situation before us. Simply, 10-A is neither a new rule nor a new procedure. Thus, nothing is gained by this Commission excluding 10-A from its consideration. In any case, there is no authority that mandates that a matter must be decided using only the rule that existed at the time.

With appreciation for their efforts and respect for their argument, it is my opinion that this effort will not be successful. While the GAPJC regularly decides cases regarding procedures and interpretation of the Book of Order, with the removal of the mandatory standard I am not seeing a lot that the GAPJC would feel obliged to weigh in on. GAPJC decisions seldom address doctrinal questions that have been interpreted on the presbytery level generally showing deference to the presbytery’s decision. They have been clear in the past that beyond the mandatory standard the presbytery is the body to decide fitness for ordination as a teaching elder. It will be interesting to see how the GAPJC addresses the argument that scripture and the confessions still provide a mandatory standard and that nothing has changed.

Speaking of standards, I want to finish up with some thoughts about the definition and application of standards for ordination in the PC(USA) today.

First, the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision (218-10) set the bar for what presbyteries can do, or more generally can not do, in the way of standards and ordination examinations. Some of the more relevant sections:

3. Statements of “Essentials of Reformed Faith and Polity”: Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a. [Headnotes, p. 1]

The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. 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]

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church. These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions. Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions. [p. 6]

The Presbytery’s resolution would define the “essentials” of Reformed faith and polity by restating the Presbytery’s intention to enforce mandatory provisions of the Book of Order, when it has no authority to do otherwise. At the same time, declaring “essentials” outside of the context of the examination of a candidate for ordained office is inappropriate. As was stated in the 1927 Report of the Special Commission of 1925 (Swearingen Commission Report) Presbyterian Church in the United States of Am
erica Minutes, 1927, pp. 78-79:

One fact often overlooked is that by the act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases. It was no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without distinction. It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance. . . . It was clearly the intention that this decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be made after the candidate had been presented and had declared his [or her] beliefs and stated his [or her] motives personally, and after the examining body…had full opportunity to judge the man himself [or woman herself] as well as abstract questions of doctrine.

[ p. 6 ]

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-6.0108(a) with respect to freedom of conscience. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate’s fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process. [p. 7]

There is a lot there, but let me boil it down to the probably over-simplistic summary that “ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates individually and can not set blanket standards for those candidates.” (And any polity wonk has to appreciate a decision that works in the report of the 1925 Special Commission which in turn refers to the Adopting Act of 1729. Sorry, its a polity wonk thing.)

So, if a presbytery has an issue of conscience regarding ordination standards and wants to be on record with a particular theological stance but can not officially declare standards what might be some options? A few that I see:

1) Prominently maintain the status quo. If you have that stance, under the Bush decision you can not declare it as a standard. But if your stance is clearly stated and advertised then candidates not in agreement are more than likely to find a more obliging presbytery.

2) Declare your standards anyway. While it might not be in agreement with the Bush decision, a presbytery could try this and wait and see if anybody complains, particularly in a judicial sense by filing a remedial case. At the present time there is a lot of talk of mutual forbearance and not making further waves so a presbytery might be allowed to continue with this approach for a while.

3) Set it as a requirement for membership. The Bush decision has a suggestive footnote — “2. Governing bodies may impose other requirements on church officers, after ordination and installation, such as requirements to abide by ethics or sexual misconduct policies.” So what if these requirements were set outside of the examination process? What if fidelity and chastity were part of a presbytery’s ethics and sexual misconduct policies?

4) Sub-presbyteries. While flexible presbyteries are not a reality at the present time, what if we were to administer this on a smaller scale? What if a presbytery were to become more of a “super-presbytery” with two administrative sub-groups? Clearly certain constitutionally required functions, such as the moderator and the clerk, could not be sub-divided, but I think that the new Form of Government might just provide enough flexibility for some creative polity to make this happen.

There is another possibility that while not presently sanctioned by the PC(USA) does have a model in the new changes to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church‘s constitution that just became effective with the conclusion of their General Assembly last month. In their case they needed a system to allow for differing understandings of ordination standards regarding women so they have modified their system to permit what I call “fuzzy presbytery boundaries.” It is set up so that a church with one stance that finds itself in a presbytery with the opposite stance can move to an adjoining presbytery that has a stance agreeable to them. This preserves a geographic component to presbytery membership as well as a respect for theological affinity. It is not a fully flexible presbytery but an alignment based on both geography and ordination standards.

How the new language is implemented by each ordaining body is an issue that is just starting to develop and it will be interesting to see how this develops and what creative solutions may arise. Or maybe we will find out that creative solutions are not necessary but that the new language provides the flexibility for each presbytery to examine candidates regarding their own understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the candidates gifts and talents. Stay tuned as this has a long way to go.

PC(USA) Polity Implications Of Amendment 10-A Passage

7 Replies

Since the voting in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Amendment 10-A swung towards the affirmative I have had a number of people asking me, in one way or another, “So what will it mean?” Well let me tackle that question with what I understand to be the knowns and the unknowns of the polity implications.

And as the voting gets down to just a few more votes required for approval there appears to be enough of this uncertainty circulating that the Office of the General Assembly has issued a Frequently Asked Questions paper. The interesting thing is that I have not found it on the OGA web site yet, but it is being posted by presbyteries.

Now, this will become very polity wonkish very fast so if all you want is my opinion, and that is all that this discussion is, I do think that the new wording of the section we currently know as G-6.0106b shifts the responsibility back to the presbyteries and in doing so opens up the denomination for more local interpretation of ordination standards. I also think that the moment there is more local interpretation there will follow the need for new GA Authoritative Interpretation, whether it comes from the Assembly or the Permanent Judicial Commission.

Let me first set out my presumptions that are going into the discussion leading to this conclusion: 1) Amendment 10-A becomes part of the Book of Order replacing the current G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” section. 2) The New Form of Government passes (currently leading 69-59 in the official tally and 72-65 on an unofficial one. 3) The Belhar Confession is not affirmed by 2/3 of the presbyteries. 4) The Authoritative Interpretation associated with the Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity is still in affect. 5) That procedural aspects of GAPJC decisions related to the PUP AI are still in place. 6) That other GAPJC decisions regarding (i) ordination standards (with the one exception noted below) and (ii) marriage are still valid.

The best place to begin is probably with the wording of the proposed G-6.0106b:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

First, some clean-up – Since the New Form of Government is being used for this exercise this is no longer G-6.0106b but is now G-2.0104b. The reference to G-1.000 is now a little tricky since it refers to a whole chapter which exists in a new form. The reference could be pointed to the beginning of the material that is in the old form which would now be at F-1.0200. In general the wording has not changed but the change in position means the “Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” has been pushed down in priority and the missional nature of the Church now gets top billing.

Section G-14.0240 is now G-2.0402 and for this analysis appears to contain identical material regarding the examination for ordered ministry as a ruling elder or deacon. The reference to G-14.0450 is regarding the final assessment for teaching elder and has been substantially reduced to remove the procedural items. However, I don’t see that these changes resulting in the new section G-2.0607 have substantial consequences relative to this amendment. And the reference to the directory for worship (W-4.4003) remains the same.

Let me make just a couple of brief observations about the actual wording of the amendment. The first is that it does explicitly make reference to installation, as well as ordination, of officers. The second point is the inclusion of the phrase “shall examine.” The old language was about the standards and the examination was left to other parts of the Book of Order, but always with the “shall” condition. Having said that, this adds a bit of required territory to the examination. For ruling elders and deacons the Book of Order says in G-2.0402

…the session shall examine them as to their personal faith; knowledge of the doctrine, government, and discipline contained in the Constitution of the church; and the duties of the ministry.

And this section now adds

…shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and
suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall
include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s
ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the
constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).

(Anybody want to submit an overture either consolidating this or adding the cross-reference to G-2.0402?)

The final point I want to make here is what I see as the awkwardness of the final sentence relative to our ordination language. The new language says “Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions…” while the ordination questions in W-4.4003 uses slightly different language:

d. Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?

These may or may not be at odds with each other, but it will clearly be a point of discussion for some polity wonks.

The stated objective of this change, as expressed by the advice from the Assembly Committee on the Constitution is:

This overture seeks to restore the ordination practice and principles
affirmed in the Adopting Act of 1729, the paradigm through which the
tension between the differing points of view and the unity of the church
have been maintained through much of our denomination’s history.

And what is the Adopting Act of 1729? This was an agreement by the members of the Synod of Philadelphia (at the time the highest governing body) about ordained officers agreeing to the Westminster Standards or being examined on their departures. The preliminary notes to the Act include this:

And we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall
always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise
of the sacred function, but what declares his agreement in opinion with
all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by
subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal
declaration of their assent thereto, as such Minister or candidate for
the Ministry shall think best. And in case any Minister of this Synod,
or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect
to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall
at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the
Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise
of the ministry within our bounds and to ministerial communion if the
Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about
articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government.
But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such Ministers or candidates
erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery
shall declare them uncapable of Communion with them.

Having that as a historical basis the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity which said:

a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.

b.
These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful
study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of
approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries.
These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its
Permanent Judicial Commission.

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.

Whether
the examination and ordination and installation
decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the
ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably,
responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a
candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing
bodies.

e. All parties
should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s
decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing
bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with
presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.

At the present time this AI is still in effect, with certain modifications as noted below.

As presbyteries began working through this some of their procedures were challenged and several resulting remedial cases were summarized in the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision. While this decision gave us several polity points, there are four relevant points, only the first of which will be nullified by the passage of 10-A.

Candidates and examining bodies must follow G-6.0108 in reaching determinations as to whether the candidates for ordination and/or installation have departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity. Such determinations do not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and do not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.
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. (quoted from the SJPC decision)
Ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates for ordination and/or installation individually.
Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a.

With the modification of G-6.0106b the part of the Bush decision which says “The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require church wide conformity to it for all ordained church officers” will be out of date and irrelevant.

Regarding point 2 above, this has been a point of, shall we say “discussion,” between GA entities as the 218th GA affirmed, in response to the Bush decision, that a departure can be in belief or practice. And clearly point 3 from Bush is still applicable, as evidenced by the fact that the OGA FAQ makes repeated reference to needing to do examinations on a case-by-case basis.

There are several other relevant decisions on which the GAPJC mostly delivered procedural decisions that clarified that the examination regarding a declared exception must come at the same time as the final examination for ordination. It would seem that this provision must still hold if a candidate sees a need to declare a departure in a particular presbytery.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision may still be relevant. This decision pre-dates the Book of Order “fidelity and chastity” language and was argued on the basis of the Interpretations of 1978 and 1979. While the “fidelity and chastity” language appears to be gone, and the General Assembly has eliminated the earlier Interpretations, for a presbytery that finds that an active same-sex lifestyle does not reflect “…the desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life,” the GAPJC’s finding may still be applicable: “Therefore, 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.” On the other hand, since this decision is based on Interpretations which are no longer in effect it may need to be completely relitigated. The other polity aspect that could make this decision irrelevant is the fact that it addresses call and 10-A is about membership. While these two parts are closely linked, in our polity they are different steps in the process.

So, at this point the general agreement seems to be that there is no longer any specific prohibitions in the Book of Order to ordination and installation but that each ordaining body, Session or Presbytery, “…shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

In that light I think we are all well aware that a particular governing body could come down on either side of the question as to whether a self-affirmed practicing homosexual would meet the church’s “standards.” The arguments from Scripture are well rehearsed at this time and attendance at your presbytery meeting where Amendment 10-A was voted upon is probably all that is necessary if you want to get an introduction to them. The confessions are a bit quieter on the question. The Heidelberg Catechism revision is not completed yet so the controversial wording is still present there, but with the knowledge that the new translation will probably temper that language. It appears we do not yet have the Belhar Confession officially adopted to provide a model of broader inclusion of individuals as an extension of the racial inclusivity it speaks of. And when the confessions speak of marriage it is usually in the context of “one man and one woman,” (e.g. 5.246, 6.131 & 6.133 ) or as an eschatological image.

While the Book of Order is not cited as a source of guidance here, the argument for “fidelity and chastity” as a standard could be made by extension of the definition of marriage in W-4.9001. On the other hand, those who are arguing for inclusion can appeal to new language in section F-1.0403 where it says:

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.

So, if an explicit reason for exclusion has now been removed from the Constitution and no specific reason is listed, an argument could be made that now there must not be a barrier to ordination.

(For reference, this section is based on the old section G-4.0403 which said:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life. Persons of all racial ethnic groups, different ages, both sexes, various disabilities, diverse geographical areas, different theological positions consistent with the Reformed tradition, as well as different marital conditions (married, single, widowed, or divorced) shall be guaranteed full participation and access to representation in the decision making of the church. (G-9.0104) )

I could go on, but suffice it to say that governing bodies will now have to wrestle with the ambiguity and different interpretations and understandings that the theological breadth of the PC(USA) embraces. But lets tackle one more question…

What happens when a presbytery says “No!”?

I think that this is really the question that is on everyone’s minds and I think that over-all this will be an uncommon occurrence. Most of the individuals and governing bodies are politick enough to try to defuse this before it becomes an issue. However, I think that it is almost certain that there will be a case in the next few years that will be brought to a synod PJC as a remedial case.

It should be noted that the OGA FAQ is clear about this point:

6. What practical changes will we see?< br>

If pastors, elders, and deacons who are ordained in one area move to another location, they shall be examined by that ordaining body before being able to take up their office. That body may choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body.

7. Is the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians mandated?

No, it is not required, but it is no longer prohibited by specific Constitutional language.

12. May a presbytery continue to function with the standard of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” when examining candidates for ordination?

Yes, as long as the application is on a case by case basis. The new language calls the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying ordination standards to each candidate.

13. Is a presbytery required to receive, by transfer of membership, an ordained sexually active gay or lesbian minister?

No, each presbytery determines which ministers to receive into its membership.

But, this would be just an opinion expressed by the OGA. This is not a binding interpretation since that can only come from the Assembly or the GAPJC and they could decide differently on these questions. (In fact, the two entities have been issuing different Interpretations on declared exceptions relative to practice as well as belief.) To resolve the uncertainty will require a test case to go through the judicial system, an Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly, or more definitive language added to the Book of Order.

As I indicate above, I think that there are enough Interpretations currently in place that a presbytery’s decision against a candidate, provided that the presbytery actually followed the detailed procedures the GAPJC has laid down so far, would withstand the challenge. I think that this is particularly true of a candidate for ordination. There is a “wildcard” regarding the decision most likely to arise in regards to an ordained teaching elder who is a candidate for an installed position in a different presbytery. The issue that the American Presbyterian Church has always had with presbyteries deciding standards going all the way back to the Adopting Act is what we now have as F-3.0203.

These presbyters shall come together in councils in regular gradation. These councils are sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly. All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate council. The larger part of the church, or a representation thereof, shall govern the smaller. (emphasis added)

So if ordination is an “act of the whole church” can a differently governing body “choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body” as it says in question 6 of the FAQ.

There are other unknowns here are well. One is what the nature and authority of the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) will be in the next few years. Another, is the inclusivity statement in F-1.0403 mentioned above and whether this new wording, combined with the removal of an explicit requirement, will provide the basis for a new Interpretation.

As I wrap this up let me move on to the item that half of you are probably saying “when is he going to get to it” and the other half are saying “don’t go there, don’t go there, don’t go there…” As much as we would like to think of this as ancient history, in many of the discussions I have been in this has been hovering like a ghost in the background and I think no discussion of the topic can really avoid it. SO…

One word – “Kenyon.”

Yup, I went there.

Now for those who have not picked up on this it refers to a GAPJC remedial case in the United Presbyterian Church in the USA branch back in 1975. The case is officially known as Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery. It involves Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon, a candidate for ordination as a teaching elder who declared an exception to the church’s stand that women should be ordained as teaching and ruling elders. He stated his Scriptural basis for this matter of conscience, said that he would not participate in the ordination of a woman, and that he would let others know the basis for his belief. However, he also said that beyond that he would work with elders who were women and would not interfere with their ordination if it were done by others. (For reference, the mainline Presbyterian church had been ordaining women as ruling elders for 44 years and as teaching elders for 18 years.) The presbytery accepted his departure as non-essential and sustained his examination but the Synod PJC found that the presbytery had erred and on appeal the GAPJC concurred.

The GAPJC wrote:

The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and guided by its confessions, has now developed its understanding of the equality of all people (both male and female) before God. It has expressed this understanding in the Book of Order with such clarity as to make the candidate’s stated position a rejection of its government and discipline.

This is pretty much the same conclusion that the GAPJC came to in the Bush decision – that you can depart in belief but not in practice. (It is argued whether or not Mr. Kenyon was departing in practice as well as belief, but the GAPJC decision rejects his argument that it is only in belief and provides their reasoning for that conclusion.) But I find the language of the recent decisions an echo of this decision. Consider one of the concluding paragraphs which makes no mention of the nature of the standard in question:

Nevertheless, to permit ordination of a candidate who has announced that he cannot subscribe to the cited constitutional provisions has implications for the Church far beyond that one instance. The precedent, if applied generally, would affect every session, presbytery, synod, and the General Assembly, and more than one-half of our Church’s members. The challenged decision of Presbytery was not unique or of but minimal significance. The issue of equal treatment and leadership opportunity for all (particularly without regard to considerations of race and sex) is a paramount concern of our Church. Neither a synod nor the General Assembly has any power to allow a presbytery to grant an exception to an explicit constitutional provision.

The implications of the Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly permitting declaring departures in belief and practice is left as an exercise for the reader.

No, a Kenyon-like decision in the current debate regarding ordination standards is not very likely in the near or intermediate-term. Before we get to that point additional Interpretations or explicit constitutional language will have to be in place. But it is interesting the number of people on both sides of this issue that expect a similar decision sometime in the future.

Well, as you can see from the length of this article there is probably not a simple answer to what the polity landscape will look like in next few years. It is why I am cautious in accepting the OGA FAQ as “the answer.” There is plenty of room for new interpretations in the next few years even if no new language is added to the Book of Order. It will be interesting to see from whence the next refinement of this polity question comes.

Stay tuned…

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — The Power Of Interpretation

2 Replies

It is beginning to look like G-13.0103r is going to be a big deal at the PC(USA) GA this year…

This short item in the Book of Order currently says that the General Assembly has the responsibility and power:

to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding;

Now, I am about to launch into a very polity wonkish review of this section and the role and nature of the Permanent Judicial Commission. If you are just looking for the bottom line you can skip on down to the discussion of the individual overtures.

Probably the place to begin is considering the judicial process and judicial implications in Presbyterian government. I am not a specialist on the history of judicial process but a bit of what I have found out is helpful to pass on here.

First, it should be kept in mind that most Presbyterian branches do not have Standing or Permanent Judicial Commissions. As we saw last spring the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was presented a complaint and protest from members of a presbytery. To consider the appeal in a timely manner the Commission of Assembly, not a judicial commission, reviewed it and while they had the power to hear the case and render a decision they decided by a close vote to have the appeal heard by the next General Assembly. That full Assembly then took an evening and sat as the appellate court for the Kirk. Likewise, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has a time on their docket when they sit as the highest judicial court in their church. This is the norm for Presbyterian branches. Back in 2001 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia (the other PCA) changed their procedures to not have a judicial commission and now the full Assembly hears the appeals, dissents and complaints. (Thanks to The Rev. Dr. Paul Logan, Clerk of Assembly, for helping me straighten that history out.)

How the Judicial Commission developed in American Presbyterianism I would be very interested in knowing more about. I give you a few parts to the story that I am aware of which will be useful as we consider the current news. First, we know from Charles Hodge’s Constitutional History of the United States of America Volume II that while the highest governing body was the Synod, up to 1786, that body heard the judicial cases from the presbyteries. However, in 1869, shortly after the north/south split in 1861, the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. described synod and the General Assembly being able to refer judicial cases to a commission whose purpose it was to hear the case. The suggestion of the wording is that these were not permanent or standing but I don’t know what happened in practice. (As an interesting note, the 1867 wording said that “the cases of ministers on trial for error or heresy” could not be referred to a commission meaning that they had to be tried by the full Assembly.)

I am not aware of a resource to research on-line the constitutional history of the United Presbyterian Church USA/NA so I’ll have to go to the oldest resource I have close at hand and that is the 1970 Book of Order of the UPCUSA. That Book makes clear reference to a Permanent Judicial Commission but the PJC could only render preliminary decisions and the decision did not become permanent until affirmed by a vote at the next Assembly. It is interesting that the Presbyterian Church in America , which traces its polity to the Presbyterian Church in the United States, has the provision that its Standing Judicial Commission can file a final decision unless a large enough minority of the members of the Commission file a minority report and then it goes to the full Assembly for their consideration and final ruling.

What we can probably safely draw from this is that judicial commissions developed as a feature of American Presbyterianism between 1786 and 1867 and in the merger of 1983 that formed the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) they ended up with the power to render their own decisions in that branch.

Now if the polity wonks will excuse me let me also mention that a “commission” has a very specific usage in Presbyterian polity. A commission is not a fancy name for a committee, or is that a name for a fancy committee, but rather is an entity created by a governing body to act with the full authority of that governing body to the extent that the governing body authorizes it. That is why the PC(USA) GAPJC can interpret the constitution, because it is given that power by the General Assembly to do so on its behalf. And in the UPCUSA that power was not unilaterally given to the PJC but rather all decisions needed to be reviewed and affirmed by the full Assembly.

Now, let me get very specific to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Checking section G-13.0103r in the Annotated Book of Order we learn a few interesting and relevant things about its history:

First, this section has more annotations than any other of the paragraphs in the responsibilities of the General Assembly section (G-13.0103) indicating that it has been regularly involved in Assembly discussion and GAPJC decisions. We also find that this paragraph was added in 1987 to clarify the intent of G-13.0112, which this section references. The other proposed modifications to this section run the spectrum from limiting PJC interpretation authority (1996 ) to making the GAPJC the only body to provide interpretation (1997 ). That latter one seems to me to deny the inherent connection between the GAPJC and the full Assembly. And there was a 1993 amendment rejected which would have returned to the UPCUSA system of the Assembly reviewing and affirming GAPJC decisions as well as rejected requests in 1992 and 2006 for GA interpretations to be ratified by the Presbyteries. Bottom line as we look at this year’s overtures — We have been here before.

It is also important to keep in mind the recent history of back-and-forth interpretations from GA and the GAPJC. In 2006 the 217th GA adopted the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the the Church . That action included an authoritative interpretation that presbyteries needed to consider candidates’ declared departures from the standards of the church. Some presbyteries developed their local standards and procedures and when challenged the GAPJC ruled that while each candidate must be considered on a case-by-case basis candidates were free to declare exceptions in belief but not practice. The 218th GA clarified this AI in 2008 explicitly saying that candidates could declare exceptions in both belief and practice. Since that GA there have been a couple more GAPJC cases that have clarified the procedures in these cases. I have often referred to this as a game of ecclesiastical ping-pong.

Having outlined the background detail of this section let us turn now to what is on the docket for the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA)?

As a reminder paragraph G-13.0103r now reads:

r. to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.

Overture 6 from Mid-South Presbytery would add to this a new last line that says “No authoritative interpretation shall be issued by a General Assembly which amends or alters a clear mandate contained in any provision of the Book of Order.” Their rational for this is brief (one sentence) and states that the intent is to be sure the Assembly has “proper limits to the use of authoritative interpretations.” The implication in here is that G-6.0106b is a “clear mandate” and Assemblies should not be using a non-amending method to get around it.

On the other hand we have Overture 16 from Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area titled “On Amending G-13.0103r to Reduce Vexatious and Improper Litigation in the Church.” With a title like that you could probably guess that this amendment asks to eliminate the GAPJC ability to interpret the Book of Order by striking the phrase “or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case.” Part of the rational for this overture says:

Judicial cases are extremely burdensome and costly to governing bodies of the church. When brought improvidently, they violate our biblical obligation to avoid vexatious or unnecessary litigation (D-1.0103) and are inconsistent with our fundamental theological conviction that we are most likely to discern the true movement of the Holy Spirit when we gather together in General Assembly (G-1.0400). Moreover, the GAPJC is woefully unprepared to do the work of the General Assembly, since it hears only from the parties to the case; does not have the wider perspective afforded by all of the persons and resources that inform deliberations by the General Assembly; and must prepare its decisions within very tight time constraints (a number of cases usually must be decided, immediately after hearings, in only one or two days).

The proposed amendment would affirm our historic polity of collective discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and put an end to the “culture of litigation” that is growing in the church. It would do so by removing the incentive to pursue fundamental changes in church law through individual court cases. The judicial commissions of the church still could decide particular cases brought before them, as they do now. However, the authority to interpret the Constitution so as to bind the whole church would rest exclusively with the General Assembly.

I could write a whole polity discourse on these two paragraphs (and that might have something to do with why the Bills and Overtures Committee of the Presbytery recommended its disapproval ) but let me note one point here and some more later. Yes, the litigation is costly not just to the governing bodies but to both sides in the judicial process. At the present time governing bodies are on both the complainant and respondent (or prosecution and defendant) sides of high profile cases. I could not agree more that it would be good to minimize costs — but if you want to reduce the cost work on the judicial process in the Rules of Discipline. At the present time our polity permits, and always has, those that dissent on conscience to have their complaint heard.

Overture 77 from the Presbytery of Arkansas seeks to return the GAPJC interpretations to the process of the UPCUSA polity. There are multiple changes so permit me to reproduce the proposed language in its entirety (proposed new language in italics):

r. to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case,which is approved as an authoritative interpretation by the next plenary session of the General Assembly. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order approved by a plenary session of the General Assembly shall be binding; …

Overture 55 from the Presbytery of San Diego does not deal directly with G-13.0103r but is related in a couple of ways. It seeks to have the General Assembly get out of the business of dealing with controversy by striking G-13.0103q which says that one of the responsibilities of the General Assembly is:

q. to decide controversies brought before it and to give advice and instruction in cases submitted to it, in conformity with the Constitution.

Let me say this… Nice idea – I think many of us would appreciate it if the Assembly did not have to deal with controversy. However, as the highest governing body in the Presbyterian church the Assembly has been dealing with controversies, with varying degrees of success, for practically the whole 300 year history of American Presbyterianism. If the GA did not handle the various controversies the issues won’t go away. We will either become frustrated in trying to deal with them at lower levels or connectionalism would break down and the controversies would have to be dealt with by middle governing bodies. As much as everyone finds the time spent on these frustrating, our Reformed background says that controversies will arise because of our sinful human nature and it is the historic role of the highest governing body to collectively decide these through discernment of the community.

This overture is also relevant because if successful in the Assembly and the presbyteries concur the sections following will be re-lettered and paragraph r will become q.

Now having laid out the overtures let me make a few comments about the current situation in the PC(USA). I have to agree that we, as a denomination, have a lot of ecclesiastical judicial cases to be reviewed. Most Presbyterian branches have two to four a year that have to be heard by the highest governing body and these can be handled by the governing body. Since the last meeting of the General Assembly the GAPJC has issued decisions in 13 cases. So the first question is whether a full Assembly could handle that case load and further whether some of those cases could wait the two years between assemblies.

I realize that none of these overtures ask for the elimination of the GAPJC but two of them would modify its authority. I must admit that taking all interpretation authority away from the GAPJC does not make sense to me. In rendering some decisions it must interpret the Book of Order, especially if the new Form of Government is adopted and the “operations manual” elements are removed. Judicial boards, be they civil or ecclesiastical, have the responsibility to “fill in the blanks” when the general nature of legislation must be made specific. If the Assembly finds it desirable to have better congruence between the PJC and the full Assembly then Overture 77 is the way to go.

On the other hand, just as the PJC, as an extension of the Assembly, must be able to interpret so must the Assembly itself. It is there to, among other things, resolve controversies so it needs interpretation authority too. Overture 6 does not take away that power but there could be questions about what is a “clear mandate.” At face value I have to agree with Overture 6 but have to ask if this needs to be specified and if the idea of a “clear mandate” is clear itself. The important thing here is that the Assembly must only interpret and not use the power of interpretation as a substitute for the process of seeking presbytery concurrence in matters of faith and doctrine.

But there is a bigger picture here: In looking at this issue we must not fall into the trap of viewing these entities as independent branches of Presbyterian government as there are sperate branches of civil government. While the U.S. Government finds its system of checks and balances in three co-equal branches with individual responsibilities a Presbyterian government finds its accountability in its connectional nature as “…presbyters shall come together in governing bodies… in regular gradation” (G-4.0300c) The horizontal structure of the church is to equip it for mission and it must be remembered that the OGA, GAMC, PJC, and standing committees are nothing more than parts of the General Assembly itself that the Assembly has seen fit to create to help it do its work. Our accountability is of a vertical nature, as it should be with Jesus Christ as Head of the Church at the top. And while Jesus is the Head the Book of Order tells us (G-9.0103) that the foundation is the presbyteries – “The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body.”

The bottom line here is that we should not view the GA/GAPJC relationship as adversarial for the GAPJC is merely a commission of the GA to help it do its work. Likewise, the GA/Presbytery relationship is one of mutual support in our connectional system and just as the rational for Overture 16 suggests that GA is a larger body and there are greater numbers to discern the will of God than the smaller GAPJC, the same can be said of the GA sending items to the presbyteries for concurrence, not because we are democratic but because it provides an even greater group of elders, ruling and teaching, to discern together what God would have us do.

Post Script:
In this first footnote let me return to the probable cause of these overtures, the on-going ecclesiastical ping-pong game:
1) In the back and forth over Authoritative Interpretations and declared exceptions to the standards and belief and practice it is important to note that the GAPJC has not ruled on exceptions declared by any specific individual. All of the legal decisions have so far dealt with procedures and timing in the ordination process, not with any candidate’s specific scruple.

2) If the GAPJC were to be denied the ability to provide interpretation, what about previous interpretations? I presume they would be explicitly adopted or somehow grandfathered in. But if previous interpretations are no longer binding does this mean that an officer can object to and not participate in, but not hinder, the ordination of women?

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

Two Sign Posts On The Journey With Standards For Ordained Office: 1 – PC(USA) and the Synod of the Pacific

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.

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism