Category Archives: PJC decisions

The PC(USA) General Assembly — Monday Committee Meetings and Some Polity Musings

Leave a reply

I can’t remember if I said that I’ll resume live blogging when the plenary reconvenes on Wednesday afternoon.  Today, and probably tomorrow, I spent moving between committee meetings.  I did not see very much through from start to finish but did spend larger chunks of time in Committee 8 – Mission Coordination and Budget and Committee 5 – Church Orders.  I’ll talk about Committee 8, and a couple of others, in briefer detail in a following post, but let me make some comments on Church Orders here.

First, Church Orders is our polity wonk name that is mainly ordination standards so they are dealing with, among other things, PUP report issues and G-6.0106b “fidelity and chastity” issues.

I came in during the overture advocates presentations on 05-03 and 05-18 which were linked together.  Both of these deal with examinations under PUP, commending presbyteries for working on their examination procedures and asking the stated clerk to compile best practices.  And both overtures cite that acknowledgment of sexual orientation must be self acknowledged and the examining body must be consistent in questioning.  And interestingly, in the Standing Rules each overture gets three minutes to speak to the overture, but for 05-03 there were nine concurring presbyteries who also get time.  Lumped together that was eleven speakers total so they had 33 minutes.  The pooled their presentations, it was scripted, choreographed, and with a great PowerPoint presentation.  And it was loaded with scriptural and polity arguments.

Of those polity arguments, two struck me as “interesting.”

The first was their take on the GAPJC “Bush v. Pittsburgh Presbytery” decision last February.  Their claim was that in the Bush decision the GAPJC lifted “fidelity and chastity” to a higher standard since an exception could not be declared for it.

Specifically the Bush decision 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.

So in a technical sense the GAPJC did set this higher, but as they say it was not really themselves that set it higher, but rather “The church has decided…”, it is the whole church by including it in the constitution.  A little later they generalize this with:

Although G-1.0301 permits broad freedom of conscience for members of the church, “in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds” (G-6.0108b). G-6.0108a defines the limits of this freedom of conscience for ordained church officers.

One of the interesting arguments made by the overture advocates was that we don’t need to over legislate this but to trust the presbyteries and correct this in the review process inherent in our connectional system.  This is almost exactly the same argument made, and exhibited, at the Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly just concluded when they decided that they did not need a study committee to consider the ordination of women to the diaconate since changes to polity should come from the presbyteries and then later the same day in the review of presbytery records considered an “unsatisfactory exception” when a presbytery’s examination of a teaching elder for membership did not fully examine and classify his views in favor of women elders.  For more on this check out the comment by Scott to my discussion of the debate at the PCA GA.

The other polity item that struck me was the reference to the previous GAPJC decisions and the commissioners’ comments about not being able to ask but that the sexual orientation must be self-acknowledged.  For the most part that is correct, but I would like to clarify from the headnotes of Weir v. Second Presbyterian Church, case 214-5:

Self-acknowledgment: The plain language of the Constitution clearly states that disqualified persons must have self-acknowledged the proscribed sin. Self-acknowledgment may come in many forms. In whatever form it may take, self-acknowledgment must be plain, palpable, and obvious and details of this must be alleged in the complaint.

Examination of Candidates for Ordination and/or Installation: The ordaining and installing governing body is in the best position to determine whether self-acknowledgment is plain, palpable, and obvious, based on its knowledge of the life and character of the candidate. If the governing body has reasonable cause for inquiry based on its knowledge of the life and character of the candidate, it has the positive obligation to make due inquiry and uphold all the standards for ordination and installation.

While the self-acknowledgment need not be verbal, reasonable cause is necessary to investigate further.

As I noted, the overture advocates for these overtures received a significant amount of time due to the number of concurring presbyteries.  After a question from a commissioner, a short conversation with the Stated Clerk, and then praying about it over dinner, the chair of the committee agreed that in fairness the overture advocates for overtures recinding the PUP report should have additional time.

The nature of all these presentations up to this point, filled with scriptural and polity arguments, differed markedly from the presentations that followed regarding the removal or modification of G-6.0106b, the fidelity and chastity section.  These appealed to love, justice, fairness, gifts, call, and pain with very little discussion of scripture or polity.  Needless to say, the theme passage for the General Assembly, Micah 6:8, was regularly cited.

Well, that was the most polity intensive and nuanced discussion I heard today.  Not even the Revised form of Government comments were that good.  So that wraps up Church Orders.  Next I’ll prepare some discussion of the other committees I checked in on.

Nothing Has Changed! Reaction to the PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions

4 Replies

I quite intentionally used “Nothing has changed!” as a double entendre in the title because watching the reaction to last week’s General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission’s decisions about ordination standards it seems that neither PC(USA) polity nor the various interest groups’ rhetoric has changed.  As far as I can tell, the PC(USA) is pretty close to where it was two years ago on this controversy.

I first want to highlight, acknowledge, and thank two other bloggers for their thoughtful and detailed analyses on the decisions.  Even though Rev. David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor and Mr. Mark Smith over at Mark Time approach these decisions from different theological perspectives they come to basically the same conclusions about these decisions and where it puts us.  And that they both came to a similar conclusion as I did encourages me that I was not off-base on my reading.  Both of these are wonderful blogs in their own right, and part of my regular reading, but you can check out the specific posts from Rev. Fischler and Mr. Smith on the GAPJC decisions.  In a few moments I’ll be turning to the reaction to the decisions of various interest  groups, but you can check through The Reformed Pastor for Rev. Fischler’s reactions to those as well.

There has been little “official” reaction to these decisions.  The Office of the General Assembly Department of Constitutional Services has issued Advisory Opinion 21 which contains only a summary of the GAPJC decisions and nothing new beyond that.  It appears that the Presbyterian News Service is not issuing a news article of their own, but rather they carry the article that Leslie Scanlon of the Presbyterian Outlook wrote for that publication. 

The Outlook also has another article by Scanlon about GA Moderator Joan Gray’s reaction to the decisions that she shared with the General Assembly Council at their just concluded meeting.  Rev. Gray is reported as sharing her theme from her moderator campaign that “I do not think polity is the way to the resolution of our issues in the Presbyterian church.  Polity will not fix our problems.”  The Moderator goes on to encourage three things: 1) Humble ourselves, “get off our high horses.”  2) Ask forgiveness of one another. 3) Accept unconditional love to reach out.  She also called this a kairos moment for the PC(USA).  Are we going to miss it?

Reaction from affinity and interest groups has started rolling in and I guess I would call it “predictable.”  Presbyterians for Renewal had one of the early statements (On their GA2008 web site).  To simplify their statement down to one line:  The rulings promote the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the church by affirming what has been in place and clarifying the confusing Authoritative Interpretation passed by the last GA.

On the other side of things there is reaction on the web sites of the More Light Presbyterians, That All May Freely Serve, Witherspoon Society, and the Covenant Network.  In addition, More Light Presbyterians has issued a more general reaction to the whole PC(USA) situation titled “It’s about time!”  I won’t quote and comment on them one-by-one since they all say about the same thing in varying degrees.  As a whole, they feel the GAPJC at best set things back and at worst made a serious error.  There is concern that the GAPJC is not interpreting the whole of the Confessions and the Book of Order but focusing on one line or section.  And that the GAPJC did not understand what the last GA wanted to accomplish.  They do agree with the GAPJC on one point:  As things stand now the only way to change things is to change the Book of Order.  As That All May Freely Serve puts it: “The decision, however, puts in stark relief the necessity for swiftly and finally removing the homophobic and heterosexist policies from the Presbyterian constitution.”  I think that pretty clearly states their position.

And the two individuals who have declared exceptions have indicated their disappointment in the decisions, Paul Capetz on the Witherspoon Society web site and Lisa Larges in an Alameda Times-Star article.

A couple of my own comments:

First, the three decisions were decided by the GAPJC with out a dissenting opinion.  All the GAPJC members were apparently in agreement.  Whether these were unanimous or consensus decisions, or all adopted the majority position so that they could present a united front in deference to the unity called for in the PUP report I don’t know.  But I find it difficult to say the GAPJC erred in light of this wide agreement.

Second, back in 1996-1997 when the “fidelity and chastity” section was being debated and ultimately adopted there was a report that one of the reasons that the amendment was needed for polity reasons was because the GAPJC was beginning to have concerns about upholding the Definitive Guidance of 1978 and similar interpretive statements without any clear corresponding constitutional language.  These current decisions, now from the situation of having the constitutional language but an additional AI interpreting it, seem compatible with the 1997 reports.  It is consistent that the GAPJC places more weight on the presbytery adopted language of the constitution then the interpretive language adopted by a General Assembly alone.  From a polity point of view that makes sense.

With the apparent return to status quo in the PC(USA) it does raise the question of whether there will be a slowing or suspension of congregations looking to leave.  I personally think that most of the churches looking to depart are trains that have “left the station” and there will be no discernible slow-down in requests for dismissal.  But if you want an interesting imaginary debate on the issue you can check out Toby Brown’s post today (and the real debate in the comments) o
n his blog Classical Presbyterian.

So in the realm of polity it does look like “Nothing has changed.”  From what I can tell in a strict polity sense the PC(USA) is now at almost the same point as about two years ago before the PUP report.  And having been one of the voices to express skepticism that “Nothing has changed” I acknowledge my haste and will try to be better at what I preach, to be patient and trust the system.

But as I thought about this more, I realized that the GAPJC decisions mean something has changed and that threatens That All May Freely Serve and More Light Presbyterians among others.  For a couple of decades churches that are part of these organizations have been effectively scrupling behavior.  There is now an explicit GAPJC ruling that you can not do that so the implicit permission (or lack of explicit prohibition) is gone.  And I suspect that with the 2008 GA approaching progressive advocacy groups are now reformulating strategy.  It seems everyone now agrees that the only way to reliably change the ordination standards is to change the constitution.  Looking at the proposed overtures concerning ordination standards there seems to be some that in the perceived success of the AI last time are proposing new AI’s.  I suspect that a bunch of those are now going to be off the table with this new GAPJC ruling that weakens the reach of AI’s.  We are back to needing to make a change that must be sent down to the presbyteries.  Don’t expect a resolution to this at the conclusion of General Assembly.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Walking a Center Line?

8 Replies

First, I need to clarify my previous post now that I have had a chance to more carefully review the three decisions.  While all three General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decisions went against the presbyteries, I read too hastily and it now appears to me that these three unanimous decisions should be seen as a decision against “restating” the Book of Order, not as a decision in favor of declaring scruples and granting exemptions.

Executive Summary:  The three decisions can probably be best summed up with this quote from 218-10: Bush and Others v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh.

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.

My reading of this is that the GAPJC is waking a center line:  You can’t adapt the Book of Order in any special way, whether that be declaring provisions as mandatory or by granting an exemption.  It is what it is.

Full Discussion
With that summary out of the way, let me turn to a more detailed discussion of the cases.  Late last week the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC(USA)) heard arguments on three cases that involved Presbyteries passing resolutions about Book of Order requirements, especially G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” requirement, being mandatory or “essential.”  For the sake of completeness I will list the cases here with full title and in the rest of the post will refer to them by number and presbytery.

218-09:
Barlow J. Buescher, Dave R. Brown, Mary D. McGonigal, Jeanne Howell,
Serena Sullivan, Eileen Dunn, Wayne H. Keller, Don E. Keller, Dwight W.
Whipple, David R. Kegley, F. Mark Dowdy, Brian Heath, R. Sidney Cloud,
Isaac H. Jung, Irene Van Arnam, Michael Baugh, Chuck Jenson, Donna Lee,
and the Session of Lakewood Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Olympia (218-09 Olympia)

218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh (218-10 Pittsburgh)

218-15:
Session of First Presbyterian Church of Washington, 1793, Session of
First Presbyterian Church of Charleroi, Jeffrey A. Kisner, Frances
Lane-Lawrence, D. Jay Losher, Robert Miller, Kenneth E. Nolin, Charles
Puff, John Rankin, Susan Vande Kappelle, Robert Vande Kappelle, Betty
Voigt, Robert Randolph, and Linda Mankey v Washington Presbytery (218-15 Washington)

It should also be noted that 218-10 Pittsburgh was the lead decision and the other two reference it.  Also, while none of the decisions contain a dissent, 218-15 Washington contains two concurring decisions that comment on some details but not on the final decision.  However, 218-15 Washington did arrive at the GAPJC to have some procedural issues decided and the decision states that the other two decisions should stand as the answer to the validity of the Presbytery resolutions that are at the heart of the case.  Other than to say that reading the history of the case is a good lesson in why we keep detailed minutes, I’ll leave the discussion of 218-15 Washington at that and for the constitutional questions focus on the other two cases.

In all three cases the Presbyteries, in the wake of the report as adopted of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity and the associated Authoritative Interpretation, adopted a resolution that basically said that mandates in the Book of Order are binding, the implication being that they are not up for negotiation as “scruples” or “exceptions.”  One part of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh resolution reads:

Adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination approved by the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Therefore, any departure from the standards of ordination expressed in the Book of Order will bar a candidate from ordination and/or installation by this governing body. Provisions of the Book of Order are signified as being standards by use of the term “shall,” “is/are to be,” “requirement” or equivalent expression

The Washington resolution is very similar and Olympia has the same sentiments in briefer form.

Well each was appealed to the respective Synod PJC  The PJC of the Synod of the Trinity heard 218-10 Pittsburgh and 218-15 Washington and overturned the presbytery resolutions in both cases.  The PJC of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest ruled on 218-09 Olympia and upheld the presbytery’s resolution.

The GAPJC ruled against the Presbyteries resolutions.  However, in the written decisions for Pittsburgh and Olympia the GAPJC appears to be saying “Nothing has changed so you don’t need to change anything.”  In addition to the lead quote above, the GAPJC also writes in 218-10 Pittsburgh:

As finally adopted by the General Assembly, the Authoritative Interpretation does not equate “polity” with “behavior.” Nevertheless, the church has required those who aspire to ordained office to conform their actions, though not necessarily their beliefs or opinions, to certain standards, in those contexts in which the church has deemed conformity to be necessary or essential… The candidate and examining body must follow G-6.0108 in reaching a determination as to whether the candidate for office has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, but that determination does not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and does not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.

And later on they write:

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.

And finally:

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.

So the decision is:

For these reasons, the Resolution is unconstitutional and in error. It is not permissible for a presbytery or a session to define “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” outside of the examination of any candidate for office. Such a determination must be made only in the context of a specific examination of an individual candidate.

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.

The GAPJC decides 218-09 Olympia by quoting long sections of 218-10 Pittsburgh, overturning that Presbytery’s resolution and overturning the Synod PJC decision that upheld it.

So what do these decisions mean?  It looks to me that the GA PJC is setting itself up to hear the Larges and Capetz case. If they hold to the reasoning in these decisions, as I read it, they look to overturn those presbytery actions as well.  Or, this could be viewed as setting the case law so that if the Synod PJC’s refer to this case and decide against the ordinations the GAPJC may have no reason to hear the cases.   But in the big picture, it looks like the GAPJC really is trying to walk a center line on this and to really show that “Nothing has changed.”  And I think the unanimity of the decisions may be a signal of this as well.

The issue of course is that those other two cases will take some time to work through the system and the Assembly meeting this June could change the constitutional and polity landscape, or the membership of the GAPJC for that matter.  However, in my opinion, the GAPJC has written reasonable decisions that set a precedent upholding the current PC(USA) constitution’s balance between conscience and standards that will be reviewed by upcoming cases.  Stay tuned for the next cases, and for other people’s views of these decisions.

Breaking News: GAPJC Decisions that Presbyteries Must Consider Exceptions to Ordination Standards

Leave a reply

UPDATE:  After reading the decisions in detail, while the presbyteries’ actions were all overturned, it appears that it is more to maintain a “status quo” rather than supporting the declaring of scruples.

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the PC(USA) has just posted decisions in three similar cases where Presbyteries (Olympia, Pittsburgh, Washington) passed resolutions declaring the “fidelity and chastity” requirement among the essential tenets.  In a quick read it appears that the PJC ruled against the presbyteries.  The central decision appears to be 218-10 dealing with the Presbytery of Pittsburgh resolution.

Three decisions will take some time to digest.  Back with more analysis when I can find time to deal with them.

PCA SJC Federal Vision decisions: Update and Correction

Leave a reply

After doing some more reading and seeing some developments on this topic, I need to bring a correction and update.

But first, the story so far…
As I talked about in my last post on the Federal Vision controversy, in October the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America delivered two rulings concerning Louisiana Presbytery and their examination of the Rev. Steve Wilkins concerning his adherence to the Westminster Standards.  Specifically, they found that while they conducted the required examination by the correct procedure, they did not judge Rev. Wilkins by the right standard.  Both rulings can be found in posts on Puritan Board.

In my last post I had left it there and said that I did not find in the decisions what the next step would be.  Well, I did not read carefully enough and was looking too closely at the second decision and should have been looking at the first.  There it is, after a reference to the second case that threw me off:

Amends – Pursuant to BCO
40-5 the Standing Judicial Commission hereby cites Louisiana Presbytery
to appear “to show what it has done or failed to do in the case in
question.” To implement this process, RE Samuel J. Duncan is hereby
appointed to: a) serve as prosecutor in this matter and conduct the
case, which is designated as Case 2007-14;…

And additional notes about the case including preparing an indictment, Louisiana Presbytery entering a plea by February 1, 2008, and going to trial March 5, 2008 if they plead “not guilty.”  It is important to note here that it is Louisiana Presbytery that is on trial here not Rev. Wilkins directly.

So that is my new findings and update there, but I also wanted to point out that one great source of information on the Federal Vision controversy, particularly thoughtful criticism, is the Rev. Lane Keister and his blog Green Baggins.  Well, Rev. Keister has been asked to be an assistant prosecutor on the case and therefore must now recuse himself from the discussion of the Federal Vision controversy.  So he has brought on board a set of equally eloquent interim bloggers and changed the name of the blog to Green Bagginses.  Because of the focus on Lane as an assistant prosecutor this is now a great source for information on the polity and procedure of the PCA SJC which might be of interest to other GA Junkies, whether or not you are following the Federal Vision controversy.  I would highlight Lane’s last post “ Major change to Green Baggins” where he announces he will be an assistant prosecutor and others will be filling in.  I would also recommend two posts on the process, “ Lane as assistant prosecutor: Good, Bad or Ugly?” and “ The PCA SJC Process in Brief.”  Happy reading.

Breaking news: Synod PJC reversals acquittal on Spahr case

Leave a reply

Three days later than expected, the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific has just issued its decision in the review of the Presbytery of the Redwood’s acquittal of the Rev. Jane Spahr where she was charged with preforming lesbian weddings.  According to an Associated Press story now posted as a news article from the San Jose Mercury News the synod pjc ruled 6-2 that the Rev. Spahr had acted with “conscience and conviction” in preforming the weddings reversing the presbytery decision.

The article also says that the decision was delivered to the parties yesterday evening by certified mail.

I expect: 1) A lot more details to be released shortly and 2) the decision to be appealed to the GA PJC.

I’ll post again in a couple of hours.

GA PJC Decision: I stand corrected

Leave a reply

Well, I wasn’t trusting the Associated Press report or some of the other media reports out there to get the details right, but if the PC(USA) News Service says so, than I guess I must be wrong.

I previously stated that in the case of Stewart v. Mission that since the case was moot because no remedy could be applied (see my earlier post for the details) that the GA PJC had not established the case law.  Specifically, they mentioned the Sheldon case where they ruled that celibate homosexuals may be advanced to candidacy.  There was extra wording in that case that: “However, if the [Presbytery] should determine the Candidate to be ineligible for candidacy at some point in the future, the [Presbytery] should remove the Candidate’s name from the roll of candidates, as provided by G-14.0312.”

Well, the PC News Service Article indicates that this is case law from the Sheldon case and was simply highlighted in this decision.

I stand corrected.

The Three other PJC Decisions Just Reported

Leave a reply

Besides the closely watched case of Stewart v. Mission, there were three other GAPJC decisions reported this week, each with its own points of interest.

218-3 Consent Order — The Session of the Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church v. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution:  This was the recording of an agreement between the two parties reached by mediation.  The complainant filed the remedial case accusing the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) of not properly addressing questions filed with it and of violating the open meeting policy.  The agreement provides the ability for the ACC to respond to multiple questions in one collective response but they need to make it clear that they are answering multiple questions and that the questions have been answered.  In addition the ACC will be more careful of going into executive session at its meetings.

218-5 — Douglas J. Essinger-Hileman and Sandra D. Essinger-Hileman v. The Presbytery of Miami:  In this case the complainants brought a remedial case against the presbytery because of the manner in which their pastoral relationship with a church was dissolved by the presbytery rather than the congregation or administrative commission.  Read the decision for the full chronology.  The case is a matter of fundamental fairness and due process.  Getting right to the heart of the problem the GAPJC decision says:

The Book of Order, G-14.0602 and G-14.0603, addresses procedures for the dissolution of a pastoral relationship when requested by the pastor and/or the congregation. Similarly, G-9.0505b(1) and (2) address dissolutions through an administrative commission. In this case, none of these procedures applied. The Book of Order does not set forth a specific procedure to be followed when neither the congregation nor the pastor has requested dissolution, and no administrative commission has recommended or is empowered to act to dissolve the relationship.

Interesting question and problem in the Book of Order.  In this case the COM brought a motion to the presbytery meeting to call the congregational meeting.  A substitute motion from the floor from an elder commissioner from the church involved was approved dissolving the relationship at the meeting.  It was in the presbytery’s power, G-11.0103o, but was it fair?  The GAPJC writes:

Under the unique circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that it was fundamentally unfair for the Presbytery to proceed with the substitute motion. It would have been a better practice, however, to provide for a fuller hearing of the issues before voting on the substitute motion, particularly when the motion at hand involved so serious a matter as the dissolution of pastoral relationships. Some means should have been devised by which the Pastors and the congregation were given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the final vote to dissolve was taken.

However, as for a remedy?  No remedy would be applicable.  The decision says:

The SPJC was unanimous in finding that the pastoral relationships in this instance were irretrievably broken and that the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demanded dissolution in accordance with G-11.0103o. No remedial action or relief by any judicatory body will restore those relationships, and, therefore, the decision to dissolve the pastoral relationships should not be reversed.

218-7 — Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Through the Presbytery of the Redwoods Prosecuting Committee v. Jane Adams Spahr:  This is another high profile case but this is a procedural decision.

A brief recap:  A disciplinary case was filed against Rev. Spahr for conducting ceremonies that were essentially same-sex marriages (PC News Service article).  The PJC of the Presbytery of the Redwoods decided on March 3, 2006, that the ceremonies were conducted within her “right of conscience” and she was acquitted (PC News Service article).  The case was appealed to the Synod of the Pacific PJC but the Synod PJC basically said “whatever we decide the case will be appealed again to the GAPJC and we’ll just send it there now and not waste our time.”

The GAPJC, in this decision, responded with what can be summarized as “we have a process that we need to go through and don’t try to read our minds.”  More specifically:

1. A Matter of First Impression. While this may be a case of first impression as to an appeal by a prosecuting committee, now permitted under D-13.0102, it is not a matter of first impression as to the substance of the complaint. See, for example, Benton et al., v. Presbytery of Hudson River, Minutes, 2000, p. 586. The complexity of the issues invites consideration through the full judicial structure of the PC(USA).
2. An Appeal Inevitable. Despite an assertion by SPJC that an appeal is inevitable, it is not for GAPJC to speculate whether a non-prevailing party at the SPJC level will appeal a decision of SPJC. Further, the judicial framework established by the Book of Order provides an intermediate level of appellate review at the synod level. Acceptance of this reference would deny the parties one level of review.
3. Undue Expense and Delay. The expense and delay, if any, that may result from this refusal of reference is not likely to be extraordinary, as SPJC claims.

The GAPJC sent it back to the Synod PJC.

GAPCJ Decision: Stewart vs. Mission Presbytery – Ordination Standards probably apply to candidates

Leave a reply

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) issued four decisions this past week, all of them interesting.  I will begin with one of the more complex and important decisions and one that discussed last July when the presbytery took their action and again in October following the Synod PJC tie vote on the case that was filed:

George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery:  This case was shaping up to be a test case on at what stage of the PC(USA) process for ordination as minister of word and sacrament the Book of Order ordination standards would apply.  Specifically in this case, Mission Presbytery voted to advance to candidacy a women who was an acknowledged lesbian involved in an active relationship.

The Rev. Stewart filed a remedial case with the PJC of the Synod of the Sun and the trial was held September 8, 2006.  The trial resulted in a tie vote of the voting member of the Synod PJC.  On October 11, 2006, the case was filed for appeal with the GAPJC and accepted on October 20.

On November 17, 2006, the candidate requested of her Committee on Preparation for Ministry to be removed from the process.  At the March 3, 2007 presbytery meeting the presbytery approved the request. The Presbytery moved to have the case dismissed, on grounds of mootness, on March 6 and the Executive Committee of the GAPJC concurred on March 23.  On March 28, Rev. Stewart requested a full hearing which the GAPJC granted.

I give this full chronology because in the course of these events, the focus of the case changed significantly.  What the GAPJC ended up deciding on was whether the case was now moot by the withdrawal from candidacy.  In effect, Rev. Stewart had gotten, through the candidate’s action, the relief he had requested.

Well, the majority of the GAPJC ruled that no relief could be granted so that the case was indeed moot.  There was a dissent that this was about presbytery process not the individual and it should go forward in amended form. But I would not have spent all of this time if there wasn’t something interesting.

On one point that Stewart requested, the “need for guidance” the GAPJC did have something to say:

Stewart further argues that there is a “need for guidance” because the statements to the Presbytery and the SPJC cast doubt on the Book of Order requirements for candidates. This Commission is not an advisory body for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding matters relating to the Constitution, but is charged with deciding cases or controversies. However, this Commission notes with concern that the record shows that both the Presbytery and the SPJC appear to have relied on the Book of Order: Annotated Edition entry for the Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey, Minutes, 2000, p. 589, case, rather than the language of the case itself. Such reliance was misplaced.

It turns out that there were significant differences in Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey and to only read the entry in the Annotated Edition of the Book of Order did not give the full context and application of the case.  The GAPJC concludes that section with the statement:

Annotations found in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition can be helpful to the Church as it seeks to be faithful in its life and service; however, they are not authoritative. The assistance that annotations offer to the church is as a guide to the deliverances of the bodies that have been accorded authority in our Constitution. To the extent that the misstatement in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition was relied upon by the Committee on Preparation of Ministry, the Presbytery, and the SPJC, it misled each body.

In the decision section it was the expected, that the case is moot and that the appropriate parties be notified of the decision.

Fifteen of the sixteen members of the GAPJC were present and four filed a dissent that effectively said that the complaint was not against the individual being advanced to candidacy but against the presbytery for its process and an amended complaint should be allowed since relief could still be granted there.

So, where does that leave us?  This did not turn out to be the test case that it could have been but by the reminder of the GAPJC about the Sheldon case being different, it has clearly left the door open for another case of this type if it were to make it this far.  To claim that this was a victory for those supporting the current ordination standards is going a bit far.  In the same way the GAPJC reminds us to do our homework, not just look at the “Cliff notes” (pun intended), it would be too early to see this as prohibiting advancement to candidacy without the case law being written.

As for reaction, Toby Brown of Classical Presbyterian is in Mission Presbytery and was part of this case and has posted his take on this, especially the part about reading the full decision, not just the annotation.  There is nothing on the PC(USA) News Service, and I don’t expect any for a dismissed GAPJC case.  It has been picked up by the Louisville Courier-Journal but they, in my opinion, slightly mis-state the decision.  They refer back to the Commission’s reference to the Sheldon case and report this as a ban on advancing to candidacy those whose lives are not in accord the PC(USA) ordination standards.  As I say above, I see it as still an open question but there seems to be an implication that this GAPJC would, given the correct case, decide that they can not be advanced.  So, at the present time there appears to be a ban by implication, or extrapolation, of the existing case law.