Category Archives: PJC

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.

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

1 Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GAPJC decision says:

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

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

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

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

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

This section of the decision closes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were two other decisions also reported:

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

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

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

Watching the Pittsburgh PJC Trial and Inaccurate Media Headlines

Leave a reply

There is way too much to watch at the moment with the GA of the PCANZ and Presbyfest in the news at the moment, but the Pittsburgh Presbytery trial, or re-trial, of the Rev. Janet Edwards got underway yesterday and it is reasonable to expect a decision today.  (If you want background on this you can check out my previous post on the case.)

I’ll keep watching for a decision, but while watching I noticed that several news outlets have gotten good stories out, such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and KDKA, among others.  But I must take issue with the news story, particularly the headline, in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  The headline is:

State Court Backs Presbyterian Minister

If you read the article you find that this is not even close to the truth.  The real story is that a former State Superior Court judge, Justin M. Johnson, testified in the Rev. Edwards’ defense that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Constitution does not prohibit same-sex weddings.  That, to me, is a far cry from a state court intervening in a church trial.  To the article’s credit it does quote PC(USA) Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons as saying that the constitution does prohibit ministers from preforming same-sex weddings.

Anyway, just watching and waiting to see how the Presbytery PJC rules.

Appeal of Rev. Jane Spahr’s PJC decision

Leave a reply

Last Friday, August 17, the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission heard the appeal of the acquittal of the Rev. Jane Spahr by the PJC of the Presbytery of the Redwoods.  Back in March, 2006, the Rev. Spahr was acquitted of having violated the PC(USA) prohibition on ministers preforming same-sex weddings. As a recent PC(USA) New Service article summarizes the decision at that time:

But since the section of the PC(USA)’s constitution that reserves
marriage for a man and a woman “is a definition, not a directive,”
Spahr “was acting within her right of conscience in performing marriage
ceremonies for same-sex couples,” the presbytery tribunal of ministers
and elders said in a written ruling.

The decision was appealed to the synod PJC by the Presbytery of the Redwoods.  The decision is expected today or tomorrow.  Whichever way the synod PJC goes and appeal to the GA PJC is expected.

The Rev. Spahr is set to retire at the end of this month from her position as the Founding Minister Director of That All May Freely Serve.  The weekend of August 11-12 there was a series of events honoring her and her service at the Downtown United Presbyterian Church of Rochester, NY.

And now a comment:  I found a quote from the Rev. Robert Conover, the stated clerk of the Presbytery of the Redwoods interesting.  The PC(USA) news articles quotes him as saying

“My sense is that our presbytery more or less
reflects the denomination as a whole in that we’re relatively evenly
divided in our perspective. A significant portion of the presbytery is
very supportive of Janie and her actions and a significant portion of
the presbytery is not. So regardless of how the case is ruled on, at
whatever level, there will be those who are disappointed.”

From the south end of the state of California the Presbytery of the Redwoods carries a very distinct reputation as a liberal, not a divided presbytery.  In addition to the Jane Spahr case, the evidence from down here includes an acknowledged lesbian candidate for ministry who transfered her presbytery of care from the Presbytery of San Gabriel to the Presbytery of the Redwoods when it looked like she would not be approved for ordination by San Gabriel.  She was ordained by Redwoods in the Fall of 2001.  As a story from the Presbyterian News Service at that time describes it the approval hinged on what is meant by “chaste.”  Maybe the Rev. Conover is right, I know that some of the presbyteries around here are not as conservative as we are sometimes made out to be, but because of evidence like these two stories this is the reputation Redwoods has.

Complaint re-filed against Rev. Janet Edwards in Pittsburgh Presbytery

Leave a reply

This past fall I was following a case in the PJC of Pittsburgh Presbytery where the Rev. Janet Edwards was accused of conducting a wedding for two women.  (My previous posts of  Sept. 18, Nov. 15, Dec. 11)  The charges again the Rev. Edwards were dismissed because the investigating committee filed the charges four days late.

It was announced and expected that the complaint would be re-filed and late last week the Rev. James Yearsley did so.  The original complaint was by Rev. Yearsley alone; the new complaint is also signed by seven additional ministers and six elders.  It is interesting to note that of the fourteen individuals signing the complaint, only Elder Robert Gagnon is currently in Pittsburgh Presbytery.  And of the signers of the complaint two are recognizable names in the Presbyterian commentator community:  Professor Gagnon and the Rev. Toby Brown (A Classical Presbyterian).

The PC(USA) New Service has issued a press release on the developments as well as some coverage in the popular media, including the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

A new investigating committee will be formed.

Pittsburgh Presbytery same-sex marriage case trying to be re-filed

1 Reply

Upset with the PJC case against the Rev. Janet Edwards being dismissed on a technicality, there are press reports that a group is trying to get the charges refiled.  Just to review, Rev. Edwards was initially charged with conducting a marriage ceremony for two women on June 25, 2005, and went to trial with the Pittsburgh Presbytery PJC on November 15.  After deliberation the PJC unanimously decided to dismiss the case because the investigating committee filed the charges four days after their deadline.

Now it is reported (such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) that the Rev. James Yearsley, who filed the original charges, is collecting signatures to file the charges again.  He says that this is not double jeopardy since there was no decision in the first case.  While the Rev. Yearsley was formerly a member of Pittsburgh Presbytery he is now pastor of Village Presbyterian Church, Tampa, Florida, in the Presbytery of Tampa Bay.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article says:

Mr. Yearsley said he had considered filing a complaint against
Pittsburgh Presbytery for mishandling the case but concluded he did not
have evidence of deliberate misbehavior. “Suspicions are not a
sufficient reason to paint with such a large brush,” he said.

New developments in Mission Presbytery over controversial church membership

Leave a reply

In a follow-up to a situation in Mission Presbytery that I commented on back in September, Toby Brown, in his excellent blog “A Classical Presbyterian,” updates the situation where a declared atheist was admitted to membership in St. Andrews Church in Austin.  The membership was challenged and Mission Presbytery voted to instruct St. Andrews about the standards for membership and to invalidate the specific membership.  St. Andrews appealed to the Synod of the Sun PJC.

Rev. Brown, in his recent update, details new developments.  The pivotal event is the decision by the PJC to deny the complaint and not issue an injunction.  This clears the way for the presbytery, through the Committee on Ministry, to dialog and instruct the St. Andrews’ session on these matters.  Check out Toby’s blog for all the details.

I would also add that the pastor at St. Andrews holds a non-traditional (he might say a non-western) view of the Greek word “kurios” and that it would not be properly translated as “Lord” as we would in saying “Jesus is Lord.”  If this is of interest to you check the discussion in the comments below Toby’s blog post.

Decision in the Pittsburgh Presbytery Same-sex marriage PJC case: Dismissed on technicality

2 Replies

The Permanent Judicial Commission of Pittsburgh Presbytery heard the disciplinary case of the Rev. Janet Edwards today.  This evening’s news stories report that in a unanimous decision the charges were dismissed because the investigating committee filed the charges four days after the one year deadline.  The vote by the commission came after 1 1/2 hours of deliberation.  The Rev. Edwards had been promoting the trial and sending out invitations to attend the trial and a celebration worship service afterwards.  The dismissial means that while Rev. Edwards is not guilty, the issue is still open.

You can see my original discussion of the case earlier in my blog.

Early news reports on the decision come from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the PC(USA) news service.

Summary of three PC(USA) Decisions

Leave a reply

As I take my morning coffee break I bring you three items from other Presbyterian Blogs that I have not seen in news sources or Presbyterian documents yet:

1)  Toby Brown reports in his blog classicalpresbyterian that the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission has agreed to hear the case of George Stewart vs. Mission Presbytery that he has been involved in.  In addition the GAPJC has issued a stay of enforcement.  The case involves an inquirer in Mission Presbytery whose lifestyle is not in accord with G-6.0106b and whether they can be advanced to candidacy as the Presbytery voted.  The Synod PJC had a tie vote so the Presbytery action would have stood had the GAPJC not taken the case.  You can also read Toby’s original article about it and his post on the Synod PJC (non-)decision.

And two items from Tom Gray’s blog: tomgrayofthekirk
2)  The first is a comment to his blog that he posts about the decision of Western North Carolina Presbytery at their Presbytery meeting on October 19 to pass, by a wide margin, the document “Guidelines for Congregations Considering A Request to Presbytery to be Dismissed.”  The description of the meeting comes from a reader of his blog who was at the Presbytery meeting.  The Layman has posted a copy of the original proposal that went out in the commissioner packets as well as their own account of the Presbytery meeting.

3)  The second from Tom is an update that arguments in their property case have been heard in Oklahoma court and the judge has promised a decision at 4:30 pm on Thursday October 26.

PJC Decision: Colonial PC vs. Grace PC

Leave a reply

A much anticipated ruling by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial
Commission of the PC(USA) was released today.  In ruling on Session
of Colonial Presbyterian Church, Kansas City, Missouri v. Session of
Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church, Overland Park, Kansas, the GAPJC overturned the rulings of the PJC’s of Heartland Presbytery and the Synod of Mid-America PJC’s.

The case originated from the Session of Colonial Presbyterian Church’s
claim that in examining individuals for ordination as deacons and
elders they did not properly inquire into whether their lifestyle was
in compliance with section G-6.0106b of the Book of Order as guided by
the GAPJC case of Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Ft.
Lauderdale, FL.

The Presbytery PJC dismissed the complaint for “failure to state a
claim upon which a relief can be granted” and the Synod PJC
agreed.  They ruled that Colonial had not provided substantial
grounds for filing a complaint beyond the initial allegation.

The GAPJC found that for the purpose of going forward to trial a PJC must accept allegations as true.  Specifically:

There are sufficient allegations presented in this
Complaint, that, if assumed true, would state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. The assumption of truth of alleged facts is only for
the purpose of determining this preliminary jurisdictional question.
The ultimate determination of whether or not those facts alleged are
indeed true is properly left to the trier of fact. If it is determined
that the session’s examination of elders-elect was not sufficient, then
the presbytery has the authority to require that future examinations be
conducted in compliance with the Constitution.

The case has been sent back to the presbytery PJC for trial before July 1, 2007.

The PC(USA) news service has issued a press release on the story.

Comment:  While this is a procedural ruling and the Presbytery PJC will be rehearing the case, it strikes me that this decision lowers the bar, or clarifies where it is, and will have wider application in cases that will get heard by PJC’s.  It is too early to see how much this will raise the case load for PJC’s.