Category Archives: polity

2012 General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland

Leave a reply
  After a two day break we now turn our attention to the other side of the North Channel and the activities in Belfast. At 7:00 PM tomorrow evening, Monday 28 May, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland will convene in the Assembly Hall. If you are interested, here is some helpful information:
  • The Church has produced an excellent narrative of their docket as well as the more standard programme of the meeting on the same page.
  • The narrative contains links to the reports in order of discussion and you can also get them in alphabetical order on the reports page. I don’t see a link to the complete Blue Book although some reports have been issued after publication of the Blue Book. At some point it should appear on the Archives page.
  • The Assembly meeting is typically livestreamed. I don’t see a link yet but will update as appropriate – UPDATE: Live Streaming
  • Likewise, there are usually news reports from The Press Office. There is the news page or I will update if a separate page is used.
  • If you need a polity refresher you should check out their unified document, The Code
  • In the past the PCI has done a wonderful and prolific job of tweeting the Assembly at @pciassembly. For the meeting the hashtag is #pciga12
  • Other Twitter accounts related to the church that could be interesting are @PCIYAC from the Youth and Children department and @pciSPUD from the Youth Assembly
  • Other observers of the GA to keep an eye on include Alan in Belfast (Twitter @AlanInBelfast, blog Alan in Belfast) and the local news site Slugger O’Toole with their Twitter @sluggerotoole

The preview of the Assembly acknowledges that this year’s meeting will be a bit quieter than several past meetings as restructurings are implemented. One of the interesting reports should be the Financial Crisis Panel formed in response to the Presbyterian Mutual Society issue. They will report under the General Board report and be highlighting lessons learned and recommendations for the future.

One of the other interesting items under the General Board report is the Doctrine Panel which will be presenting a report on marriage. This has definitely been a consistant theme across General Assemblies this year and like the others this has its own particular nuances.  Consider the remit from the 2009 GA:

The terms of the 2009 General Assembly remit to the Doctrine Committee were as follows: ‘That the Westminster Confession, chapter 24, paragraph 3, states: “It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgement to give their consent; yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord”. Within the Church, there is a variety of interpretations held concerning what is meant by “to marry only in the Lord”. Such confusion arising from a variety of interpretations is unhelpful and is giving rise to pastoral difficulties and clarification is therefore required’.

A draft was presented last year and has been commented upon by the presbyteries and in response to that significant rewriting and restructuring occurred. In particular at the end of the introductory material the Panel says

In the present report, we have altered the order in which we present the material. The report presented in 2009 was divided into three sections: (a) the Confession; (b) Scripture and (c) pastoral issues. It began with the Confession not because we regarded it as having priority over Scripture, but because the remit referred specifically to the Confession. However, Presbytery responses revealed that perceived deviation from the Confession was a cause of concern only to the extent and on the assumption that this was also a deviation from Scripture, a principle which, we assume, is shared by both the Doctrine Committee and the General Assembly. We have therefore judged it advisable to begin this revised report with biblical materials and proceed to make brief remarks on the Confession after that.

After considering these issues the Panel states a general principle based on the Apostle Paul’s writings that “those who truly seek to follow Jesus Christ should marry only those who also truly seek to follow Jesus Christ.” In their conclusion they state three things:

  • It is important to uphold marriage, understood as a relationship between man and woman, in the third millennium…
  • It follows that teaching about marriage and relationships is important in the churches. When this is done to the exclusion of wider teaching on a range of social issues, ministry becomes unbalanced, but we believe that it cannot be neglected in any congregation.
  • The imperfection of the church, like that of the people of Israel, for all the differences between them, results in a situation with which we are bound to wrestle: God’s requirement, on the one hand, that we should be holy and blameless; the reality, on the other, that we are not like that. We find Paul, in particular, wrestling with this in his epistles and instructing the churches with both things in mind – the need to be holy and the necessity of being realistic.

Each of these are only excerpts of the conclusion so check the report if you want the full discussion. And much more detail and discussion is available in the full report which begins on page 38 of the General Board report. The General Board reports on Wednesday.

So we look forward to another GA and our prayers are with the Assembly and the incoming Moderator, the Rev. Roy Patton. May the Holy Spirit indeed be moving among you.

Where Did The GA Go?

6 Replies


I arrived at work this morning, fired up my computer and sat down to livestream the General Assembly the Church of Scotland in the background as I got ready to read my email. But there was nothing there! Oh no… This GA Junkie is going to go through withdraw having expected a hit of polity this morning.

It turns out that the Assembly finished its docketed work early today and took most of the afternoon off. At least a few of the young adults took the opportunity to toss recreational objects around in the park and I suspect that a few commissioners might have caught a nap.

(And don’t worry about me – The General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland was online and they have an evening session on missions and worship with Psalm singing that I am listening to as I write this.)

Now, I can fully appreciate the frustration of at least one commissioner who wishes the down time was better placed as he tweeted “how annoying when Sat session went on till 9PM so missed Scottish & Champions League Finals.” But this break in the action got me thinking about a couple of things.

The first is the difference in workloads between different Assemblies. In looking through the reports and docket for the Church of Scotland Assembly it did strike me that this year was a bit lighter and had fewer controversial items. Checking over the GA reports page you can see that this year there were 26 councils, committees and other entities reporting to the Assembly and a total of two petitions and one overture from presbyteries.

In comparison, at the present time the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has about 115 overtures, reports from about five special committees and a commission, about 10 reports from General Assembly entities and an as yet unknown number of commissioner resolutions. The Committee to Review Biennial Assemblies has made recommendations to streamline overtures and commissioner resolutions by requiring greater collaboration and support across presbyteries for each of these to be considered by the Assembly. In addition they recommend processes to make greater use of consent agendas. Will this pare down the PC(USA) GA business to the streamlined version of the Church of Scotland Assembly? Probably not, but it will be interesting to see if it does introduce some breathing room.

One of the other interesting things this year is how little contentiousness there is at the Church of Scotland General Assembly. It seems that today’s session wrapped up early because time was allotted for debate on various topics and the debate was short and generally harmonious. It struck me earlier in the week how both the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland considered their respective marriage reports and each was adopted smoothly with no changes. At their last GA the PC(USA) debated their marriage report for some time and through a series of interesting, to say the least, parliamentary actions the minority report was added to the distributed report along with the main report. I was struck by the difference in how the PC(USA) and Kirk reports were handled. (I will have a bit more to say about the Kirk and Free Church marriage reports in a day or two.)

The PC(USA) has a reputation for several late night sessions during it’s GA while every day this week the Church of Scotland has done all its work without an evening session and they are on track to adjourn tomorrow afternoon. While one afternoon recreation time would be nice at the PC(USA) GA I am not holding my breath. In the PC(USA) there is a particular ethos about the Assembly part of which encourages these long debates and tremendous work loads.  I don’t know how much the recommendations from the Review Committee will help, but they might help. In a couple cases I am not sure I agree with the recommendation, but that is a topic for another time.

The bottom line is that if your only exposure to a Presbyterian general assembly is the General Assembly of the PC(USA) I want you to know that it is an anomaly in the amount of business and strength and length of debate compared with the wide diversity of other general assemblies and general synods around the world. It is not that these other meetings are just an excuse to get together – most years they all deal with very important issues. And sometimes they do deal with an overwhelming amount of work, like a couple of years ago when the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was working on a new Directory for Worship and had to send it back to the committee to return the next year. But that is the exception and not the rule and usually a GA has a good balance of routine and celebratory work with a limited number of controversial items of business.

Your experience my be different and in spite of all this I am still looking forward to the 220th General Assembly of the PC(USA). But for the moment, my lunch hour is up and I think we are on the last report on international mission at the Free Church GA. And to all the Church of Scotland commissioners and delegates I hope you enjoyed your unexpected sunny afternoon in Edinburgh.

“A Vast Diversity Of Interpretation” — Redwoods Presbytery Expresses Their Disagreement With The Spahr II Decision

4 Replies


The biggest news in the Presbyverse right now is the motion passed by the Presbytery of the Redwoods objecting to the decision and punishment and failure to overturn those on appeal in the most recent disciplinary case against the Rev. Jane Spahr (the Spahr II decision).

In case you have missed it, this past Tuesday was the first stated presbytery meeting of Redwoods Presbytery since the PC(USA) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission heard the appeal in this case and upheld the decision from the Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission trial. Teaching Elder Spahr was found to have committed “the offense of representing that a same-sex ceremony was a marriage by performing a ceremony in which two women were married under the laws of the State of California and thereafter signing their Certificate of Marriage as the person solemnizing the marriage.” In addition, she was accused of persisting in this since the first disciplinary action (Spahr I decision) and of violating her ordination vows by failing to be subject to the authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order.

At the Presbytery meeting, in the Stated Clerk’s report of the GAPJC decision, a motion was introduced that laid out a series of reasons the judicial decisions were wrong and concluded with this resolution:

Be it RESOLVED that the Presbytery of the Redwoods opposes imposition of
the rebuke set forth in the decision dated August 27, 2010, as
inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Constitution of the
Presbyterian Church (USA), and the faithful life of ministry lived out
in this Presbytery.

The full text of the resolution is available from the Presbytery (with a follow-up letter from the Stated Clerk), MLP web site or Mary Holder Naegeli’s blog.

Let me begin with some polity observations.  We need to be clear at the onset that the Presbytery resolution is an objection or protest. The rebuke has been made and registered.  The Presbyterian News Service article about the resolution says this from the Presbytery Stated Clerk:

“Perhaps the majority, perhaps all of them, thought they had removed the
rebuke but I don’t see how it is in the power of the presbytery to do
that,” Conover said, adding that he had about 30 minutes notice on the
Clark motion before the beginning of the meeting.

The article goes on to say that Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the Office of the General Assembly affirms this as well with the article saying that “The rebuke stands, whether Redwoods Presbytery reads it publicly or not.”

Let’s drill down on this for a moment. In Book of Order section D-11.0403e about the degree of censure it ends with this line: “Following such determination and in an open meeting, the moderator of
the session or permanent judicial commission shall then pronounce the
censure.” In the decision Charlotte v. Jacobs (GAPJC decision 215-09) the Commission clarifies that “Unless there is a stay of enforcement in place, censure takes effect immediately upon the pronouncement of the decision at trial…” The Presbytery PJC decision did specify a stay in the event of appeals so with the exhaustion of the appeals the rebuke pronounced at the conclusion of trial on August 27, 2010 would go into effect with the decision by the GAPJC on February 20th, 2012.

Bottom line – they can express opposition to the rebuke, but under our polity the rebuke decided upon and initially imposed 21 months ago by the Presbytery through their own judicial commission became effective earlier this year.

What have they done? First and foremost, the Presbytery by a 74-18 vote has effectively registered a protest to the current authoritative interpretation of the PC(USA) Constitution. And, if I understand the news reports correctly (and I would welcome someone who was there to provide more accurate information in the comments) the resolution did not stop the Stated Clerk from reporting and distributing the decision, but it stopped the decision, including the rebuke from being read. Based on usual practice the rebuke has been read at lease once and probably twice before after the PPJC trial and the SPJC appeal.

I have spent a good deal of time in the last 36 hours working through GAPJC decisions and the Annotated Book of Order to see if I can find a precedent. I am not aware of one but I invite anyone to comment if they are aware of a previous similar presbytery action. From reports on-line it appears that others are not aware of a precedent either. The Louisville Courier-Journal has this in Peter Smith’s column: “Jerry Van Marter, director of Presbyterian News Service, said he knows
of no other case where a presbytery has refused to carry out a court
directive.” And in her blog Mary Holder Naegeli, an experienced watcher of these things, says “I cannot recall in almost 25 years as an ordained minister ever witnessing open defiance of a direct PJC order.”

What next?  The PNS article says:

Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the
Office of the General Assembly said there “are two possible options for
redress if anyone wanted to raise the issue” of the presbytery’s
refusal.

“Each presbytery submits a ‘compliance report’ to
the GAPJC, which is reported for information to each General Assembly,”
she told the Presbyterian News Service, but it’s always been just pro
forma.”

The other option, Griffith said, “could be a
remedial complaint against the presbytery, but remedial complaints are
not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes.”

My only comments on the remedial complaint is that 1) while they are not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes this resolution appears to be without precedent so “usually” is the operative word and 2) it strikes me that this is not so much an issue with the disciplinary process itself as with the Presbytery’s response to it and enforcement of it.

[Please see update at the end of this] Now, I want to mention one non-polity issue that – if correct – I do find disturbing. Reports have mentioned a significant media presence at the presbytery meeting for this item.  If the media were there just expecting the reading of the decision, that is one thing.  There seems to be a feeling, and I have no independent confirmation of this, that the media was made aware of the counter-motion in advance and were there for a sensational story. In itself that is still OK, we have open meetings… except note what the Stated Clerk said above – that he “only had about 30 minutes notice [of the motion] before the beginning of the meeting.” Presumably the same goes for the Presbytery Moderator who had to handle this business. (If the Moderator had notice but the Clerk did not then the Moderator and the Clerk need to talk more.) It strikes me as a break with our much-valued “mutual forbearance” and “peace, unity and purity” if the mainstream media was given notice to be there but those charged with the decently and orderly conduct of the meeting were not.
[Important update: Did get information from someone who was there and it was their impression that the media was there for the reading of the censure. In fact, they observed one reporter grumbling because they had already written the story and now had to rewrite it.  I stand down from my concerns expressed above.]

I might have a lot more to say about this later, but there are more pressing events for a GA junkie upon us now and I will postpone any further thoughts on this, possibly indefinitely. If you want more coverage you can get it from all the usual suspects including…

Enough for now — This will have reverberations for a while to come in many forms and on many levels. We will see where this leads.  Stay tuned…

Threading The Needle — SPJC Approves Standards Statement

2 Replies


No sooner do I get done reflecting on the tension between a presbytery having full authority to determine if candidates hold the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith and the requirement that presbyteries don’t actually try to enumerate them in advance then we have a Synod Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) decision that confirms that a presbytery has appropriately threaded this needle.

This case goes back to last September when the Presbytery of Los Ranchos adopted a statement on “behavioral expectations” of officers. This statement reads

Affirming that ‘The gospel leads members to extend the fellowship of Christ to all persons.’ (G-1.0302) The Presbytery of Los Ranchos, meeting on September 15, 2011, affirms that the Bible, The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order (including G-2.0104b and G- 2.0105.1 & 2) set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation. Los Ranchos Presbytery believes the manner of life of ordained Ministers should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world, including living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness and will so notify candidates for ordination/installation and/or membership in the presbytery. In obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and guided by our confessions, this presbytery will prayerfully and pastorally examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office, including a commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions of ordination and installation.

A remedial complaint was filed with the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii PJC – Gerald J . Larson, Gary L. Collins, Rebecca B. Prichard , R. Winston Presnall, Margery Mcintosh, Michal Vaughn, Lucy Stafford-Lewis, July Richwine, Jerry Elliott, Sara McCurdy, Gregory Vacca, Gail Stearns, Steve Wirth, Suzanne Darweesh, Jane Parker , Darlene Elliott, Frances Bucklin, Deborah Mayhew, James McCurdy, Judith Anderson, and Susan Currie, Complainants, vs . Presbytery of Los Ranchos, Respondent (with thanks to the Layman for making the decision available on-line). The complainants had three Specifications of Error which the SPJC wrote “can be disposed of by the following specification: Whether a presbytery has the right to pass a resolution concerning the manner of life for its teaching elders as part of the proper exercise of the presbytery’s authority within the powers reserved to presbyteries . (F-3.0209)” And the decision says – “This specification is answered in the affirmative.”

In stating that the resolution is proper the key line in the decision section says

It does not restate the Constitution in that it explicitly affirms the various documents without offering an interpretation of those documents.

They go on to first note that prior GAPJC decisions are based upon a prior Book of Order, although it is worth mentioning that the Report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order is recommending that all the cited Interpretations be retained. The decision then discusses these standards in light of the Bush and Buescher GAPJC decisions. Relative to Bush v Pittsburgh (218-10) they note that the Los Ranchos statement is in compliance with that decision as the “Resolution does not seek to offer an interpretation, paraphrase or restatement of any constitutional provisions.” Regarding the Buescher v Olympia decision (218-09) the Los Ranchos resolution specifically says that each candidate will be individually examined and so it does not have essentials that are mandated in advance.

Then, in what strikes me as an interesting use of this section of the Book of Order, the decision cites F-3.0102 where it says “[E]very Christian church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members…” I have usually read this in the context of affirming denominational differences not standards for individual presbyteries or particular churches so its use here struck me as out of place. Just my reading of it and I’ve grasped at thinner straws myself.

The decision section concludes with this:

The Resolution does not obstruct any on-going interpretation or implementation of the constitution. It does not alter or interpret the standards for ordination and installation. The Resolution does not seek to define any tenet as an ‘essential’ doctrine of the P.C. (U.S.A.).

But the SPJC has more to say in the order, and while lifting the Stay of Enforcement the Presbytery was also, under order, admonished for the language that they chose:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Presbytery of Los Ranchos be admonished that while this PJC considers the resolution constitutional, the use of specific language known to be divisive and inflammatory flies in the face of the responsibility to seek the peace, unity, and purity of the church.

Now, the polity wonks probably picked up two items in the decision that seem a bit of an issue, one being the use of F-3.0102 that I just mentioned. Two commissioners dissented from the decision and highlighted these two items in their opinion. Their first point is this:

1. In using the statement, “living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in singleness” the Presbytery is using a direct restating of the previous Book of Order requirement which was replaced by the General Assembly action and the presbyteries’ vote. Therefore, it has no constitutional standing and cannot be used to determine a candidate’s ordination eligibility. Such a policy preempts the vote of presbyters meeting in the future for the examination of candidates who have met the current constitutional requirements.

They later write:

This language is purposefully taken out of the standards for ordained service (G-2.0l04b) by the action of the General Assembly and vote of the presbyteries. This renders the statement of the Presbytery of Los Ranchos unconstitutional in form and intent.

Their second point is what they consider the misapplication of F-3.0102 by the majority. Expressing the same understanding of the section I mention above they write, in part:

In F-3.0102 the Book of Order continues to speak of the Christian church [in all its denominations] by saying, “Every Christian Church or union or association of particular churches”[referring to denominations, not presbyteries] is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members. [Again, referring Reformed Tradition churches, not presbyteries.]

In fact, the Presbyterian Church (USA) specifically stresses in diversity as it states in the Book of Order: (F-1.0403)

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership…

Let me make two brief points in conclusion:

First, the Presbytery of Los Ranchos is trying to walk a very fine polity line here and in the opinion of the majority of the SPJC they have successfully done so.  However, the decision I expected from this case was much, much closer to the dissenting opinion. I have to think that the verbatim inclusion of now-removed language from the Book of Order is a problem in light of the Bush decision. If appealed to the GAPJC I would think this decision has a high likelihood of being overturned. However…

Before the GAPJC will be able to hear this case, if appealed, the 220th General Assembly will be meeting and who knows what polity landscape will come out of that.  One possibility is that an Overture from South Alabama Presbytery (Item 07-08) will be sent to the presbyteries for concurrence providing for presbytery-specific behavioral expectations to be included in the presbytery’s operational manuals. Or maybe officers-elect who are being examined will be explicitly prohibited from being asked to commit on how they would view the fitness of future officers-elect they might be examining. This request for an AI comes from similar overtures from Genesee Valley and Albany.

Finally, just a reminder and in full disclosure that I am, and have been, active in the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii and know a good number of the people on both sides of this issue. The opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect any sort of official disagreement or agreement with the faithful members of the SPJC. These are purely personal conclusions and remarks.

So, like much in the PC(USA) at the moment the future developments in this case will be interesting to see and heavily influenced by the moving target that is PC(USA) polity at the moment. Stay tuned and we will see what happens.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decision — Parnell v. Presbytery of San Francisco

1 Reply


The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has heard the final installment in a series of cases concerning San Francisco Presbytery’s decision to ordain Lisa Larges as a teaching elder. This has been a long journey which has finally reached its conclusion — this decision lifts the stay of enforcement and clears the way for the Presbytery’s decision to ordain Lisa to be carried out. In the larger context with the passage of Amendment 10-A we have probably seen the last of this type of cases.

I am not going to go through the full, complicated history of this case and the other remedial cases revolving around this ordination process – you can read about it in the GAPJC decision and my previous summaries. Briefly, where we stand with this case is that in the previous hearing before the GAPJC the Commission agreed with the Synod PJC that for the most part the procedure followed by the Presbytery was correct but that in their decision the Synod PJC had not properly dealt with the issue of doctrine. It was remanded back to the Synod for further consideration and now following that consideration, and an SPJC decision that there was no problem, it was appealed back to the GAPJC.

Now, in the case of Eric Parnell, Bruce McIntosh, Cordelia Shieh, Margaret Gelini, Greg Roth, Marsha Roth, Randy Young, and the Session of Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church, Appellants (Complainants), v. Presbytery of San Francisco, Appellee (Respondent):  Remedial Case 220-10 the GAPJC in a unanimous decision did not sustain any of the eight specifications of error.  As I indicated above every one dealt with doctrine and all begin “The SPJC committed an error of constitutional interpretation when it…” These specifications of error are:

  • “…when it failed to act according to its constitutional responsibility to warn and bear witness against error in doctrine within its bounds.”
  • “…when it presumed that it was the presbytery’s prerogative to determine the essentials of Reformed faith and polity, when they are expressed in the Constitution.”
  • “…when it failed to properly reconcile the Historic Principles of Church Order by giving effect only to F-3.0101 (Freedom of Conscience) at the expense of all the others.”
  • “…when it applied the concept of mutual forbearance (F-3.0105) to permit the candidate’s conscientious objection to a scriptural and confessional standard to infringe upon the rights and views of others (G-2.0105).”
  • “…when it failed to apply and enforce the interpretation of Scripture found in the Confessions (G-2.0105) with regard to sexual conduct.”
  • “…when it failed to discipline and rebuke the Presbytery for its failure to admonish and instruct the candidate in correct doctrine (G-3.0301c).”
  • “…when it permitted the Presbytery to accept a candidate for ordination who could not, by her rejection of sound doctrine, provide an affirmative answer to each of the constitutional questions for ordination (W-4.4003, 4005b, 4006b).”
  • “…when it permitted mere authoritative interpretations – in this case, the PUP and Knox AI – to override constitutional provisions, including those found in the Book of Confessions.”

As polity wonks know, every one of these has been an important polity question in the Presbyterian understanding of church government. In this present case some of these are rendered moot by the change in the Book of Order removing the specific restrictive language. But others are more general, such as how free a presbytery is to decide essentials of Reformed Faith and polity or the interplay of mutual forbearance, conscientious objection and confessional standards.  I’ll make a couple of observations in a minute, but first some quotes from the decision itself.

In the opening paragraph of the decision section the GAPJC writes:

[The] alleged errors can be subsumed under two categories: (1) doctrinal error by errant interpretation of Scripture and Confessions, and (2) the authority of the Presbytery in the examination of the Candidate for ordination. The Commission agrees with the SPJC Decision that the Presbytery properly exercised its prerogative in determining that the Candidate did not depart from the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.

They note the “diversity of opinions” in the PC(USA) and that historically “presbyteries have had full authority to determine whether a candidate for ordination adheres to the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith.” The decision section concludes by talking about the Book of Confessions:

The Book of Confessions reflects that the Church listens to a multitude of voices in shaping its beliefs. The Book of Confessions is hardly univocal, containing as it does eleven different creeds, catechisms, and confessions of faith written over millennia of Christian witness. … Therefore, the confessional tradition is, itself, an instrument of reform. The Book of Confessions, much like Scripture itself, requires discernment and interpretation when its standards are to be applied in the life and mission of the church.

The decision of the SPJC is therefore affirmed and the stay of enforcement vacated.

This decision comes with two concurring opinions from two different viewpoints.  The first, signed by four commissioners, is an interesting historical commentary. It begins by noting that the original examination of the candidate involved declaring a scruple which they “believe to have then been unconstitutional.” With the change in the constitutional language this is no longer relevant.

But they go on to note, using language from the SPJC decision, the “vast diversity of interpretation of scripture and the confessions regarding human sexuality” across members of the denomination. They then write:

While we concur with this assessment of where the PC(USA) is as a denomination, we lament that it is in this place – where differences over matters of human sexuality have become so diverse and divisive, where slim majority votes create huge shifts in the communal life of the denomination, and where every decision the church makes in this area is a sweet victory for one side, and a bitter defeat for the other, ultimately causing entire congregations to determine that they can no longer remain in fellowship with the denomination. As Joe Small described in a recent article in First Things, our denomination has relied on polity instead of scriptural and theological discernment to decide particular manifestations of the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

In many respects the denomination has been transformed by a culture of sexual fixation rather than being transformative of that culture. What difference does it make to be “Christian” when it comes to our lifestyles? Have we spoken truth to power on issues such as promiscuity, premarital, extramarital and postmarital sex and the “soft” pornography that is rampant in our television shows and advertisements? Have we been willing to teach our children and each other on these matters? Or have we succumbed to the tyranny of cultural peer pressure? How can we discipline officers for sexual misconduct when we are unwilling to discipline ourselves generally? Have we been blinded by the “trees” of the homosexual issue, while overlooking the “forest” of the larger issues of sexual gluttony generally?

They continue with an interesting comparison of the situation today with the circumstances in the 1920’s that gave rise to the Swearingen Commission. They quote from the Commission’s first report that discussed the lack of interest in changing the Constitution but rather that “They are agreed that the remedies for our troubles are within the Constitution itself.” The opinion then goes on to say:

The same assessment could not be given today, and it is precisely our arguments over the constitution – including acts of outright defiance of constitutional provisions by those on both “sides” in our various debates – that we believe threaten our continued existence and future vitality as a faith tradition. There was a time when our covenantal commitment to each other was strong, and when “mutual forbearance” meant a willingness to abide by our constitution even as we worked to change it. Because of our increasing differences regarding what the constitution ought to say, those days are gone – and we are therefore in the position described by the Swearingen Commission in which our difficulties are “multiplied greatly.”

There is a second concurring opinion by two commissioners that makes an argument about the place of interpretation. They begin by noting that “the matter of interpretation is central because in large part it is inevitable within scriptural and confessional authority.” They go on to write:

The necessary act of interpretation has been at the heart of the Reformed tradition from its inception. One may, in fact, claim that the Reformation in itself was an event of radical reinterpretation, i.e., a corrected interpretation of the Bible in a recovery of the priority of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the means of grace.

They continue:

In this case, the parties agree on the necessity of continuing interpretation in understanding the meaning of Scripture and Confession through the application of modern textual analysis. The record exhibits testimony and general agreement in a number of interpretive conflicts in the church’s more recent history dealing with issues such as the role of women in the church, or in the matter of divorce and remarriage. The use of textual-critical methods, especially in the last century, has altered the range of interpretation to such an extent that scriptural and confessional texts in the arena of social and sexual relations areas have become open to alternate understandings.

Only in the matter of homosexuality do the Appellants claim an exception, i.e., pressing a univocal meaning and interpretation across vastly different historical periods and socio-cultural contexts. Although in other areas of contention there is an acceptance of the conditioning nature of radically altered historical-cultural situations, including differing social and scientific assessments, that may lead to the legitimacy of variant interpretation, in the argument of this Appeal homosexuality is an exception. It alone is held to be exempt from such interpretive analysis. The Appellants do not offer a convincing rationale in support of this exception. There is extended reference to a simple preponderance of pre-modern and early modern testimonies, but the argument remains rooted in an assumption of univocal constancy, with little reference to contemporary critical analysis or contextual differentiation. Absent such substantiation, the Appellants present no basis for rejecting the truth claim in variant interpretations.

The opinion concludes with how the Swearingen Commission described an essential tenet in their second report:

That which is “essential and necessary” is that which must be present in the doctrinal system of the church in order to uphold its central witness and maintain its distinctive character. Absent such doctrine, the system collapses. The test then becomes whether a particular doctrine or practice is necessary for the integrity of the system of doctrine as a whole.

They conclude that the doctrinal issue in this matter does not rise to the level of “essential and necessary.”

Now, while each of these is an interesting commentary and provides insights into the historical context, they are only concurring opinions and are not authoritative. In addition, they are essentially comments on the larger situation in the PC(USA) and how they see that it got into the current circumstances. It is left as an exercise for the reader as to the strengths of each of their arguments.

So, in that vain here are a couple of observations from me that I hope address the implications of this decision…

One of the things that I am on the lookout for when reading PJC or SJC decisions is to what extent they may be setting precedent. Because Amendment 10-A has gone into effect Specification of Error 8 is moot and was not individually addressed so this decision does not help enlighten us on the extent to which a General Assembly may use an Authoritative Interpretation to, shall we say, smooth constitutional language.  The first concurring opinion gave us their belief on the matter. I am concerned that the 220th General Assembly could issue AI’s that will be bouncing back and forth between the GA and the GAPJC much as the PUP and Knox AI did.

One thing this opinion does reinforce is that “presbyteries have had full authority to determine whether a candidate for ordination adheres to the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith.” In doing so the GAPJC again declines to give specific guidance on what those are and leaves it up to the presbyteries. Is the logical extension of this that presbyteries, in discerning the necessary and essential tenets, are empowered to formally establish what necessary and essential tenets are? (exempli gratia) We know from the 2008 Buescher v. Olympia decision:

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.

Candidates must be evaluated individually but if the presbytery has “full authority,” to what extent can the necessary and essential tenets be determined as a matter of presbytery policy?

But while this decision speaks of the full authority of a presbytery and listening to a “multitude of voices,” the polity wonks are well aware of the tension and limits expressed in the Maxwell v. Pittsburgh decision where the GAPJC said that “presbytery’s power is not absolute. It must be exercised in conformity with the Constitution.” They went on to say

It is evident from our Church’s confessional standards that the Church believes the Spirit of God has led us into new understandings of this equality before God, Thus the Confession of 1967 proclaims, “Congregations, individuals, or groups of Christians who exclude, dominate, or patronize their fellowmen, however subtly, resist the Spirit of God and bring contempt on the faith which they profess.” (9.44.)

So a tension is present and over time the confessions may be understood to be more univocal on particular points.

And just a note about how these decisions focus on the church Constitution in general and the confessions in particular.  Yes, it is the charge of the GAPJC to interpret the Constitution, but while the specifications of error made reference to scripture, only passing reference to this is made in this decision to the authority of scripture. The focus instead is on how it is filtered and viewed through the confessions.  Compare this to the charges against Charles A. Briggs in 1893, admittedly a bit apples and oranges since this is remedial and that was disciplinary, which are very specific in regards to scripture references and doctrinal errors. As the Maxwell decision says, the authority of a presbytery is judged in relation to the Constitution, not in direct relation to scripture.

Another point that jumped out at me was the decision’s discussion of the nature of The Book of Confessions.  I don’t think it surprised anyone who has looked at the history of American Presbyterianism to read the line in the decision that says “The Book of Confessions reflects that the Church listens to a multitude of voices in shaping its beliefs. The Book of Confessions is hardly univocal, containing as it does eleven different creeds, catechisms, and confessions of faith written over millennia of Christian witness.” Even with only the Westminster Standards American Presbyterians have had trouble agreeing on what they mean — how much more when you have eight other documents thrown in? In light of the fact that ECO has expressed their desire to be specific about necessary and essential tenets I, and I suspect a number of others, were surprised to see that they propose adopting all eleven of the documents as their subsidiary standards, at least as an opening position.  Recognizing that this variety of statements is not univocal on many doctrinal issues, at the West Coast Fellowship of Presbyterians gathering in March it was interesting to hear TE Jim Singleton, in response to a question about this, commented that there will probably be doctrinal issues to be worked out “once we are all in the boat together” as the new ECO body.

OK, I have rambled on enough here so let me get to the bottom line.  As I read this decision I don’t see that it breaks any new ground but is a confirmation of the current status in the PC(USA). It is significant in two respects: 1) From my tracking all pre-10-A judicial cases have now been concluded. 2) The reinforcing of the status quo comes at a pivotal time with the establishment of ECO and a number of contentious issues coming to the General Assembly in two months. Another milepost on the journey — let us see what happens next.  Stay tuned…

PC(USA) GAPJC Decision — Hwang v. Synod Of Southern California And Hawaii

2 Replies


Last fall there was an interesting case decided by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission that seems to have gotten relatively little notice. One of the interesting features is listed right up front in the decision in the first few words of the Arrival Statement –

This is a remedial case of original jurisdiction…

For those not up to speed on their PJC lingo this is one of those rare instances when the GAPJC is the trial court for a remedial complaint. (And thanks to our Synod EP/Stated Clerk Doska Ross for some history on these cases and they are a roughly once per decade occurrence. It is also useful to note that two similar cases were recently denied by the GAPJC because the claimant did not have standing – 220-06 and 220-07 )

Before we dive into the background of the complaint and the details of the decision I need to give full disclosure and clarification — As many of you know I have been active in the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii (the Synod) for a number of years and as a recent officer of the Synod I have a strong connection to the Respondent in this case and know many of the individuals involved.  However, in my time working with the Synod, while I am familiar with the events that led up to the complaint, I have not been a member of the Administrative Commission that is at the heart of this case and I have not been involved with the day-to-day events the Commission has dealt with. Now, having said that let’s move onward…

At the center of this case is the Hanmi Korean language non-geographic Presbytery. The presbytery was first authorized for ten years by the 195th General Assembly (1983) and organized on January 28, 1984. The 204th General Assembly (1992) granted the request for a fifteen year extension with the instructions for the presbytery and the synod to
“prepare an intentional plan for the transfer of congregations, as they
are ready, to the proper geographic presbytery … .” As the fifteen years were winding down another request for reauthorization was made and the 218th General Assembly (2008) granted the request that Hanmi Presbytery be “continued without term limit.” This was in contrast to the 219th General Assembly (2010) that declined to create a new non-geographic Korean language presbytery elsewhere in the country.

Back in February 1999 the Synod created an Administrative Commission (AC) to take jurisdiction of Hanmi Presbytery and help it work through various problems. The AC is still in place today – that would be 12 of the 28 years the presbytery has been active – and through its history the Synod has modified the AC’s powers and in general has over time reduced its authority with responsibility being transferred back to the Presbytery. In addition, at this time Hanmi has four administrative commissions of its own working with different churches. At a called Synod Assembly meeting on 18 December 2010 the Synod granted the AC some additional authority which became the basis on which this remedial complaint was filed.

The case is Remedial Case 220-05: Steve S. Hwang, Complainant v. Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, Respondent. The GAPJC heard the case almost one year later in October 2011. (The case was tried under the Book of Order in effect at the time of the alleged irregularities but some portions of the decision drift into using current Book of Order citations.)

At the December 2010 meeting the Synod added to the jurisdiction of the AC by:

(i) adding the responsibilities of the Presbytery’s Committee on Ministry (COM) outlined in G-11.0502 a, b, c, and j of the Book of Order, (ii) adding jurisdiction over the administrative commissions previously created by Presbytery, specifically including the Administrative Commission for Torrance First Presbyterian Church (TAC), and (iii) prohibiting the Presbytery and its COM from taking any actions from those designated responsibilities without the prior consent of the SAC.

Through the pre-trial conferences the trial was limited to two specific issues:

(i) Whether on December 18, 2010, the Synod committed an irregularity under G-11.0502 when it added to the jurisdiction of the pre-existing Synod Hanmi Presbytery Administrative Commission by giving the Commission full jurisdiction over the responsibilities of the Presbytery’s Committee on Ministry as outlined in G-11.0502 a, b, c, and j, without giving the Commission complete jurisdiction over the Presbytery itself; and

(ii) Whether on December 18, 2010, the Synod committed an irregularity under G-9.0502 when it gave the pre-existing Synod Hanmi Presbytery Administrative Commission complete jurisdiction over administrative commissions previously constituted by Hanmi Presbytery, including specifically the Administrative Commission for Torrance First Presbyterian Church.

In their decision a majority of the GAPJC did not sustain these complaints and the reasoning was fairly brief and direct. Regarding the first alleged irregularity they write “while it may be questioned whether the Synod wisely allocated G-11.0502 responsibilities between the SAC and the Presbytery, this Commission declines to substitute its judgment for that of the Synod.” They then go on to cite the sections of the Book of Order that as “currently interpreted” permit a synod to take original jurisdiction.

Concerning the second irregularity they say:

As to the second alleged irregularity, it may be questioned whether the Synod should have included the TAC as one of the administrative commissions over which it was taking jurisdiction, since the record is unclear as to whether the TAC existed on December 18, 2010. However, the Synod’s action did not rise to the level of an irregularity since, if the TAC did then exist, the Synod would have had authority to assume jurisdiction over it under G-9.0503…; if it did not then exist, the assertion of authority would have been of no effect.

So there is the core of the decision, but there is a lot more here for us polity wonks to chew on. Let me begin with a bit more of the decision. The GAPJC does note that “the authority to assume original jurisdiction over a lower governing body is not a specifically delegated authority in the Book of Order, except in the case of a presbytery assuming original jurisdiction of a session.” But in rendering their decision they defer to a General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation from 2003 “which listed the assumption of original jurisdiction over a presbytery by a synod as one of the remedies available to the synod if a presbytery within its jurisdiction is not obeying decisions of the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission.”

But they go on to point out the tension in the Presbyterian system with the presbytery as the basic unit of the system and say

This
Commission lifts up to the church for its consideration the question of whether the 2003
Authoritative Interpretation adequately embodies the principle of F-3.0209 (formerly G-9.0103)
that “the jurisdiction of each council is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with
powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries.” While the provision of former G-9.0503a(4) (now G-3.0109b(5)) makes it clear that councils may appoint administrative
commissions to “inquire into and settle the difficulties” in bodies within their jurisdiction, this
Commission suggests that assuming original jurisdiction of a lower body is a matter of such a
serious nature that the authority to do so should be explicitly prescribed in the Book of Order.

But wait, there’s more… This decision also has a concurring opinion, a dissenting opinion and two opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Lot’s of stuff here for polity wonks to chew on.

Two commissioners signed the concurring opinion noting that they concur reluctantly because the issues on trial were so narrowly defined. They go on to say “this case demonstrates the difficulties that can arise when a synod administrative commission assumes original jurisdiction over a troubled presbytery.” For synods working with presbyteries, particularly language-specific ones, they argue that original jurisdiction is an “inadequate and confusing response” and note that with the AC in place the inalienable right of members to chose their leaders has been restricted for a dozen years. They conclude

If a presbytery is so fragile or so conflicted that it cannot govern itself then it should be asked if
the presbytery is viable. If not, the presbytery should be dissolved and its congregations
transferred to other presbyteries. However, a presbytery, having been established, should first be
given a fair opportunity to succeed or fail by its own efforts. The current situation, where a
presbytery is deemed viable but denied self-government, is unworkable. The congregations and
ministers of Hanmi Presbytery deserve better.

The next opinion is concurring in part and dissenting in part and signed by two commissioners with a third agreeing with most of it. Their point is that the Torrance Administrative Commission was properly concluded before the Synod took the action and they conclude “Neither a declaration by the Synod nor a Decision of this Commission can call back into existence an AC which no longer exists.” But along with this they are critical of the AC and the Synod for not being transparent about the facts and possibly even being obstructive. As they write, “it was inappropriate and even misleading for the SAC’s recommendation to have given specific emphasis to the Torrance AC.”

The dissenting opinion was signed by two commissioners and three more signed on to all but the concluding paragraph.  This is a good read for polity wonks as the dissent talks about the nature of Presbyterian government and the relationship of governing bodies. They note that while there is the right of review and control of a higher governing body over a lower one, they argue that “such a reviewing authority does not provide authority for a pro-active taking over of the jurisdiction of a lower governing body.” Combined with the provision that “with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries” (G-9.0103, now F-3.0208-.0209)” they write in conclusion:

Our constitution has no explicit provision whether a synod can appoint an Administrative Commission to assume the original jurisdiction over a Presbytery. Applying a provision for
Presbytery to Synod is over-reaching interpretation of the Constitution and may not be well
reflected the principle of Presbyterian governing (F-3.0208, F-3.0209). We believe the
empowering of the SAC by the Synod to intervene in the existing Presbytery’s power to govern
its congregations through its committee on ministry and administrative commissions is un-Presbyterian and an erroneous decision and, therefore, the complaints must be sustained.

The final concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion takes issue with the Synod granting to the AC only four of the ten responsibilities of the Committee on Ministry. They argue that to fragment a committee’s responsibilities is disruptive and even if legal with “its threat of disorder it rises to the level of irregularity.” The commissioners argue that the granting the AC the powers of the COM should be all or nothing:

The functions of a Committee on Ministry as outlined in G-11.0502, a-j, are not to be pastorally
or operationally fragmented because its processes and procedures are holistic by nature. The
segregation of selected functions or divided authorization between a committee and a
commission is unwieldy and unnecessary. It fractures the operations of work that is often
pastorally delicate and operationally intricate.

So there you have a run-down of the decision. Several great polity questions in there which the GAPJC had to deal with. Probably the one with the widest future applicability is whether a synod can take original jurisdiction of a troubled presbytery. While the dissenting opinion argued “no” the majority gave a “yes, but…” It is interesting though that while they said it would be helpful to have it explicitly stated in the constitution and they stated that they would not overturn the previous interpretation, to some degree they seem to have expanded that previous interpretation. The AI on 03-04 by the 215th General Assembly dealt specifically with the powers of enforcement when a GAPJC decision was not being complied with. In this case the rational is extended to a synod stepping in to work with a troubled presbytery. (And there have been enough judicial cases in all this to argue that it is in response to one although the decision does not specifically cite any.) (You can see if this link to the AI works. And the report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretation recommends retaining this AI.)

This decision, while reinforcing the status quo, should also cause us to think about the nature of a presbytery and the current expectations for it. Our presbyteries are much more institutional than they were about a century ago and when they don’t function as the institution they are expected to be the question is not what are the legal ways to help them out but what are the best ways to support them. The other side of the coin to this, of course, is asking the question the decision does as to whether presbyteries are being created that are not viable in our current institutional structure.

So the GAPJC decision enhances the strength of connectionalism and higher governing bodies’ powers of review and control. While it would be interesting to see if future cases are helpful in further defining these powers between the rarity of these cases to begin with and the prospect of the re-purposing of synods would seem to make this unlikely.  However, this decision could be relevant to some of the “reflective experimentation” that could come out of the Mid-Councils Commission recommendations if a higher council felt that a presbytery experiment was getting out of hand.  It will be interesting to see if this decision has future implications.  Stay tuned…

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending April 14, 2012

Leave a reply


Some interesting news items that crossed my screen this past week

Synod of Livingstonia Pledges to Support JB

Nyasa Times, April 10, 2012
In a continuation of the story last week about criticism from the Nkhoma Synod of the President of Malawi – who died of a sudden heart attack at the end of the week – another CCAP synod has spoken up in support of his successor Joyce Banda ( JB ).

Mizo church body issues dress code

Times of India, April 9, 2012
The Synod Executive Committee
of the Presbyterian Church of Mizoram, India, issued guidelines for modest dress for attending worship services and church gatherings. Another, probably updated, Times of India story about it is titled “No revealing, tight clothes in Mizo church“

Her Calling, Now With Ordination

The Herald-Sun, April 12, 2012
One of several stories about the ordination of Katie Ricks as a teaching elder, the first open homosexual woman to be ordained since the passage of PC(USA) Amendment 10-A.

Pitt cuts off some grad applications

Pittsburgh Tribune-Reivew, April 13, 2012
This article is about the University of Pittsburgh cutting applications to certain graduate programs as a potential first step to eliminating programs due to budget considerations. While the article does not mention it there is a Presbyterian connection in that one of the impacted departments, the Department of Religious Studies, has a Ph.D. Cooperative Program in Religion with Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

104-year-old preacher gave up driving, golf, but not the pulpit

wistv.com, April 14, 2012
And the feel-good story of the week about retired professor Dr. Joe Gettys who is about to turn 105 and still ministering at his Presbyterian Home and at the church he attends. The best quote from him is “The Lord left me here for a reason so I try to do something with it.”

PC(USA) Synod PJC Decisions — Per Capita And Property

Leave a reply

For us Presbyterian Polity Wonks this past weekend was a good weekend for interesting PJC decisions. I will say at the onset that both were decided as I expected, but that does not make them any less interesting. And of course the interest and importance is enhanced by the fact that they deal with two of the hot-topics in the PC(USA) today — per capita and property. And the obvious reminder, these are synod PJC decisions so there is no broad application at this stage and as I will discuss I think they both rely on and reinforce current precedent.

If you want an executive summary of these two remedial cases here you go:  The SPJC of the Synod of the Trinity found that changes to the new Form of Government were not substantial in the area of per capita and that Pittsburgh Presbytery could not make a new policy to avoid paying per capita it did not collect. In the second case, the SPJC of the Synod of the Pacific found that San Francisco Presbytery did have the authority under the Book of Order and acted in good faith when it dismissed a church with its property.

Now the details…

Last December Pittsburgh Presbytery
adopted as part of its Manual of Presbytery the line “Presbytery shall only remit to the General Assembly the per capita assessment it receives from the particular churches that is designated by those councils.” In their decision in the trial of this remedial case – David C. Green, Complainant, vs. The Presbytery of Pittsburgh, Respondent – the SPJC of the Synod of the Trinity boils down the argument of the Presbytery and the SPJC’s disagreement with that argument nicely into two paragraphs:

Pittsburgh Presbytery argues that the adoption of the New Form of Government by the 219th (2010) General Assembly set aside the applicable previous decisions of General Assembly, Permanent Judicial Commission and Authoritative Interpretations since the General Assembly “chose not to include the strict construction language from the 1999 Authoritative Interpretation (Request 99-1)”.

We disagree with this argument. The substance of the previous relevant language, now found in G-3.0106, was adopted except for the addition of the clause, “but in no case shall the authority of the Session to direct its benevolences be compromised.” We do not believe the addition of this clause has changed the obligation of presbyteries to remit per capita to synods and General Assembly.

So, at this point the opinion is that the language in the Book of Order has not changed to a substantial degree and previous General Assembly Interpretations still stand. This decision is in agreement with the Report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order, released a few days after the SPJC decision, which recommends that Authoritative Interpretation 99-1 be retained. The SPJC decision also discusses GAPJC cases where the same conclusion was reached. They wrap this up by saying “We fully agree with the previous authoritative interpretations.” They then conclude the formal decision itself by noting that not passing on per capita is a “serious breach of trust and love” (Minihan v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley, 216-01) and then applying it to themselves:

If this form of congregational protest were to be passed on to synod and General Assembly by our judicial action, then we would be unconstitutionally encouraging a form of protest that is outside of our understanding of how change can and should be effected within our denomination.

The decision concludes with a Comment that first points out that the constitutional obligation to pay per capita can only be changed by the General Assembly and that for the realities of the current circumstances “The time has come for the General Assembly to provide more guidance on this point.” They then take this a step further and conclude the narrative with this observation:

The loss of per capita funds from financially strapped congregations is another issue altogether, and is addressed, in our opinion inadequately, by the vague standards relating to whether funds are available within presbyteries. Further, we would be remiss in not noting that reality of declining funding is a symptom, not the disease. The underlying causes must be prayerfully addressed at local, presbytery, synod and General Assembly levels, not in the denominational courts or in unconstitutional actions.

The second decision comes in a remedial case filed against San Francisco Presbytery related to its process in dismissing Community Presbyterian Church of Danville, California. In September of 2009 the Presbytery adopted a Gracious Dismissal Policy (version from Summer 2010 with corrections). In November 2010, after a ten month process that included a special informational presbytery meeting, the Presbytery dismissed the church with an agreement for payments to help offset the loss of per capita and mission funding, but no payments required for the congregation to keep the property. Three presbyters filed the remedial complaint charging that the Presbytery had not properly handled the case considering that property was involved. In their unanimous decision – Rev. Wilbert Tom, HR, Rev. David Hawbecker, HR, and Thomas Conrad, Complainants, v. The Presbytery of San Francisco, Respondent – the SPJC of the Synod of the Pacific did not sustain any of the charges, but for a variety of reasons.

As we delve into this we first need to pull that previous version of the Book of Order off the shelf since that was the constitution in effect at the time of the contested process and all citations are to that version.  Two sections were front and center in this case and I am sure that you know what they are.

G-8.0201  Al l property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or
trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the
property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more
inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income,
is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

and one of the responsibilities and powers of a presbytery

G-11.0103i . to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members;

I want to add two more notes at this point which were not in the forefront of this case but which were kept in mind. The first is the continuation of the section on property:

G-8.0301 Whenever property of, or held for, a particular church of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ceases to be used by that church as a particular church of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in accordance with this Constitution, such property shall be held, used, applied, transferred, or sold as provided by the presbytery.

The second is a paragraph from the 1993 Nature of the Church Report to General Assembly (pg. 16)

The American tradition was being formed. In the Scottish church, all ultimate authority rested in and came from the assembly. But in the American church, the presbytery was the originating authority, relating particular churches into a larger whole. The 1788 Form of Government declared that “. ..no act of a General Assembly could become a standing rule without first being referred to the presbyteries, and securing the consent of at least a majority of them.” The presbytery is the very heart of the Presbyterian system.

The core thesis of the charges in the remedial case were that at worst the presbytery did not have the authority to dismiss a church with property because property “is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” [i.e. the whole church must be involved]. At best, the case charged that the presbytery did not fulfill its duties as the trustee for the wider church by letting the property go without payment.

In the amended charges there were 13 specifications of error two of which were withdrawn by the Complainants during trial. I won’t go through all of them since most were not sustained either because no relief could be granted or Complainants failed to meet the burden of proof. Three charges form the core of the complaint and the rational of the decision:

Specification of Error No. 1. Complainants contend that the Presbytery’s vote of November 9, 2010, to approve dismissal of the CPCD under terms which included Presbytery’s relinquishment of any and all interests of the PCUSA in the Property without compensation in favor of the EPC is an action which is based on an error in Constitutional interpretation, in that the Presbytery does not own the Property but holds the Property in trust for the use and benefit of the PCUSA (G-8.0201).

Specification of Error No. 2. The Presbytery failed to meet its Constitutional responsibility as trustee in accordance with the Form of Government Part G, Chapter VIII of the Book of Order. As trustee, the Presbytery is obligated to act on behalf of the greater church, to ensure that all property held or used by its particular churches and their respective congregations is held, used and applied in a manner that faithfully advances and serves the ministry and witness of the PCUSA.

Specification of Error No. 4. The Presbytery acted against the Constitution of the PCUSA in that it failed to hold, use, apply, transfer or sell the Property for the benefit of the PCUSA. G-8.0301 provides:
[quoted above]

…Taken together, the provisions of Part G Chapter VIII require the Presbytery to act as a faithful trustee on behalf of the PCUSA in exercising its responsibility and power under the above-referenced Chapter and at Part G Chapter XI, to “divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i). By its vote on November 9, 2010, the Presbytery failed to act as a faithful trustee under the Constitution.

The rational from the SPJC is remarkably brief in not sustaining these charges. They note that all parties agree the Trust Clause means the property is held for the benefit of the wider church. They then reiterate “Under G-11.0103i, Presbytery has the authority to dismiss a church in consultation with its members to another reformed body” and note that the Presbytery had a process in place and that process was faithfully followed. Having followed the process and in consistency with its policy, they note that the Presbytery exercised its discretion granted under G-8.0301. They then conclude:

In good faith, Presbytery determined that acceptance of the PET [Presbytery Engagement Team] recommendations for dismissal would best serve the overall witness and ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ, thus benefitting [sic] the PC(USA).

Other charges not sustained because no admissible evidence was supplied or the burden of proof was not met include a couple financial ones – the small ratio of payments to Presbytery versus the value of the property and the cost of starting new ministries in the Presbytery. There were charges concerning the flawed nature of the Gracious Dismissal Policy and consideration of state law in the process which were not sustained because no relief could be granted. And two charges, one withdrawn and one not meeting the burden of proof/could not grant relief, questioned the qualifications of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church as a Reformed body a church could be dismissed to.

In summary, the Presbytery did have the authority and did act faithfully and in good faith in dismissing the congregation with their property.

And now, the rest of the story…

This decision also contains a comment which notes the limited applicability of this decision not just because it was decided at the Synod level but because the Gracious Dismissal Policy has been suspended. In light of this first application of the policy the Presbytery decided to suspend the policy and review it and you can read the review team’s September 2011 report. Regarding revisions specific to property and the Trust Clause, here is the relevant portion of the report’s rational (edited slightly for length):

Moreover, San Francisco Presbytery’s original dismissal policy has been challenged in our church courts because of Presbytery’s responsibility for enforcing the property trust clause. It is simply not an option for a presbytery to opt out of a required constitutional responsibility for its enforcement.

We believe that the revised dismissal policy needs to address not only the requirements of the property trust clause, but also the importance of every church in fulfilling Presbytery’s mission (as it becomes clearly defined) within our geographic area. When a congregation seeks to withdraw, Presbytery should consider whether it needs to establish a replacement church in that community and the cost of such action. If a congregation walks away from our denomination without consideration for the injury suffered by the whole, by that departure, it will remind us of every congregation’s sinful tendency to be separate and self-sufficient. We all belong to one another and together constitute the risen Body of Christ.

We have therefore proposed that, ordinarily, a departing church will pay to Presbytery a minimum 10% of the value of the church property. This guidance is based, in part, on the Biblical concept of tithing. However, our policy provides flexibility for the teams negotiating on behalf of Presbytery and the congregation to adjust the recommended amount of compensation depending upon the particular circumstances of the congregation in question… In addition to the property issues, Presbytery will also have to discern in each situation its past, present and future mission with respect to the number of members withdrawing and those wishing to remain with PCUSA, the presence of other Presbyterian congregations in that vicinity, and ongoing mission and outreach efforts in the area.

This revised policy, and proposed amendments to it, are still under discussion by the Presbytery and will probably be influenced by this SPJC decision.

So we have one decision that affirms presbytery obligations under our connectionalism, admittedly as interpreted as by the GA and its PJC. And we have another decision that affirms the presbytery as the basic unit to deal with congregational and presbytery property under the Trust Clause.

What next? Good question. Both decisions strike me as sound and consistent with current constitutional interpretations so I would be skeptical of the success of an appeal to the GAPJC. That does not mean that there won’t be one. For the San Francisco case in particular, with the revision of the policy underway and the limited number of specifications of error that were considered to be in order and could be dealt with, I could see an appeal not being accepted because the case would be considered moot. We will see if any of the parties in these cases consider it beneficial to appeal.

Stay tuned…

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending March 24, 2012

Leave a reply

[Editor’s note: I have decided to start a weekly rundown of news stories related to, or that have implications for, the various Presbyterian branches. My blogging time has been restricted lately and while I would love to comment at length on a few of these I probably will not get to them in a timely manner.  I do however reserve the right to do so if I get around to it.]

Maryland bill would help congregations in fight over control of church assets

from The Washington Post on March 18, 2012
This proposal in Maryland to repeal a 1976 state law regarding implied trust on property specifically relates to two Methodist Congregations that desire to separate from their denomination.  However, the broader implications for all hierarchical denominations are interesting.

Self acclaimed prophets cautioned against predicting winner in elections

from Ghana Broadcasting Corporation
Here is the core of the article

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church Synod Moderator for the West Volta
Presbytery, Reverend Joce Kofi Kodade, has called on Ghanaians to ignore
public pronouncements by self acclaimed prophets who predict winners
ahead of the conduct of this year’s general elections.

He said such proclamations may cause tension, adding that it is rather
necessary for religious leaders as unifiers to uphold and demonstrate
ethical virtues of neutrality and integrity during political campaigns.

National Council of Churches releases their 2012 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches

from National Council of Churches on March 20, 2012
In which we learn that overall giving to churches dropped $1.2 billion last year, that six of the 25 largest denominations that reported data saw an increase in membership (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, National Baptist Convention, Seventh-Day Adventists, Assemblies of God, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the Jehovah’s Witnesses), and the largest decline in membership was in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (down 5.90%). The PC(USA) reported a decline of 3.42%.

Minister calls for Presbyterians to include gays

from gaynz.com on March 21, 2012
In a funeral sermon preached for his gay colleague The Rev. David Clark, the Rev. Dr. Allan
Davidson ONZM called on the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand to rescind their 2004 General Assembly action prohibiting active homosexuals from holding ordained office.

Stated Clerk Nomination Committee selects Parsons for a second term

from PC(USA) on March 21, 2012
The Stated Clerk Nominating Committee of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has endorsed the Rev. Gradye Parsons for a second term as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly. There were no other nominations submitted to the committee.

PC(USA) Synod of the Trinity Permenant Judicial Commission rules that the new Form of Government still requires payment of per capita

SPJC Decison on March 23, 2012
The Synod PJC found that the language in the new Form of Government is not less restrictive regarding the payment of per capita and the change in language is not significant enough to render a previous Authoritative Interpretation as no longer in force.
[Ed. note: I will revisit this in more detail, hopefully later this week.]

PC(USA) GAPJC Decision In The Spahr 2012 Case: 1. The Decision

7 Replies


As you may have heard the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) published four decisions yesterday. Wait, let me rephrase that – You may have heard about a GAPJC decision that hit the news yesterday. (For the polity wonks I actually think one of the other decisions is more interesting so I will try to comment on that in the next couple of days.)

The case is Disciplinary Case 220-08: Jane Adams Spahr, Appellant (Accused), v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of the Redwoods, Appellee (Complainant). Of the 15 GAPJC commissioners who heard the case, six of them signed one or both dissenting opinions.

This disciplinary case results from an accusation that was filed after the Rev. Spahr conducted same-sex marriages during the window when these marriages were permissible under civil law in the state of California. Among other things, this case became a test of whether a PC(USA) minister (teaching elder) could preform a ceremony presented as a marriage when permitted by the state.

At the present time the precedent for the interpretation of the PC(USA) constitution on this matter is the previous decision regarding Rev. Spahr (the Spahr 2008 decision 218-12) which now-famously stated (pg. 4):

The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order. It is not improper for ministers of the Word and Sacrament to perform same sex ceremonies. At least four times, the larger church has rejected overtures that would prohibit blessing the unions of same sex couples. By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage. The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.

As that paragraph implies, the GAPJC overturned her earlier conviction on appeal because under the PC(USA) Constitution’s definition there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage.

Having now been charged and found guilty by the Presbytery PJC of new similar offenses in this regard the court had to decide on appeal whether her conviction on grounds of representing a same-sex ceremony as a marriage was correct.

In the decision nine specifications of error were regrouped into three different specifications of error, none of which was sustained. The first dealt with all the constitutional issues, the second that the various PJC’s have erred by “usurping the legislative power of the General Assembly,” and the third that there was a procedural error with the Synod PJC rephrasing the charges.

Regarding the constitutional issues the GAPJC decision says:

In Spahr 2008, Spahr was directed to refrain from implying, stating, or representing that a same-sex ceremony is a marriage. Within months of that order, Spahr performed marriage ceremonies for approximately sixteen same-sex couples. Although counsel for both parties confirmed that state law recognizes the legality of these marriages, the change in state law did not and could not change what is permissible for marriages to be authorized by the PC(USA).

and

The issue is not simply the same-sex ceremony. It is the misrepresentation that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recognizes the ceremony and the resulting relationship to be a marriage in the eyes of the church. By the definition of W-4.9001, such a result cannot be. So the critical question is not whether the definitional language creates proscribed conduct, it is whether it is permissible to represent that one is doing something which one cannot constitutionally do.

and

This Commission agrees with the SPJC regarding Specification of Error No. 1 d and e (Appellant’s Specifications of Error Nos. 6, 7, and 8). The SPJC correctly found that “being faithful to Scripture and the Constitution on other matters does not provide a defense for the actions charged in this case,” and “the constitutional interpretations of Spahr (2008) and Southard by the PPJC are not inconsistent with the Book of Order when read as a whole.” Both the PPJC and SPJC found that Spahr’s conduct violated the Constitution.

The Decision portion where all this is laid out is relatively short, encompassing just over one page. Pretty short for nine specifications of error.

One commissioner, Barbara Bundick, wrote a concurring opinion which brings out a couple of interesting points. The first is that in some jurisdictions even if same-sex marriage is recognized by the state if it is not recognized by the clergy’s denomination that can invalidate the marriage. That is not an issue in this case since California does not have that provision but the point is made that those preforming marriages must be cautious about this in some jurisdictions.

Secondly, this concurrence takes issue with the GAPJC decision for not addressing liturgical forms.  It says:

While I affirm the majority opinion, I have serious concerns that the majority, in affirming the SPJC’s decision, is also affirming the SPJC’s criticism of the content of the ceremonies and the counseling Spahr conducted. In drawing a distinction between same-sex blessings, which are permissible, and same-sex marriages, which are not, the authoritative interpretations have gone beyond the definition of marriage to dictate the nature of the liturgy that can be used in same-sex blessings. […] In Spahr 2008, this Commission stated “the liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services.” This aspect of the precedent has created a difficult situation for those who minister to the GLBT community.

There is an inevitable and legitimate overlap between a same-sex blessing ceremony and a mixed-sex marriage ceremony. Both ceremonies involve a couple making promises to each other in the presence of God, their families and their community. As oft noted, “Form follows function.” Moreover, many, if not most of the trappings surrounding such ceremonies reflect popular culture rather than Biblical command. Given the overlap and the input from popular culture, how the two liturgies can be “kept distinct” is a mystery.

Requiring different liturgies has led to judicial micromanagement of the liturgy.

and concludes

The best solution is for the General Assembly to amend the definition of marriage to authorize teaching elders and commissioned ruling elders to preside at the marriages of same-sex couples in civil jurisdictions that recognize such marriages as legal. The definition now found in W-4.9001 was never designed for these circumstances. It was adopted in a world where same-sex marriages were inconceivable. By retaining that definition despite the increasing number of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex marriage, the church creates a form of second class citizenship for faithful Christians despite all the other places in the Book of Order where the full equality of persons regardless of sexual orientation is affirmed. I encourage the General Assembly to so act.

The second concurrence was signed by three commissioners and begins by looking at the Appellant’s arguments and suggesting “The Appellant asks this Commission to substitute her own interpretation for that made by this Commission in Spahr 2008.” It continues to discuss the fact that pastoral care and marriage are two different things in the Book of Order and they are to be considered separately. They say “Descriptions of pastoral care found in the Directory of Worship do not reach to the question of marriage.” It concludes by pointing out:

The appropriate way to redefine marriage and permissible practice within the PC(USA) is not through individual reinterpretation of the advice of the larger church, but by means of an amendment to the Constitution approved by the
General Assembly and ratified by the presbyteries of the church.

The first of the two dissents, signed by six commissioners, begins by saying that the majority decision is at odds with the PC(USA) constitution talking about the “equality and rights of all people.” It then talks about how we got here:

Both parties agree that before the 2008 Spahr decision there was no limitation on the conduct of teaching elders (clergy) regarding how they approached the matter of gay marriage, although most of the denomination hesitated to perform same gender marriages.

It goes on to say:

The larger church has repeatedly declined to amend W-4.9001 with regard to same-sex ceremonies. The church needs a sharper degree of clarification and guidance that precisely defines how it understands marriage, especially in light of the high financial and personal burden involved. Given the contention regarding the nature and practice of Christian marriage in our time, it would be important and valuable for the Church, through its General Assembly, to state its definition in clearer and more precise legislation.

and concludes with

Since the Directory for Worship is part of our constitution and the majority has found that it may give rise to disciplinary cases, then it should be immediately amended to clearly state that we fully welcome the LGBT community into their rightful place in our church, including allowing them to marry.

Overall, this is the one section that argues most strongly that the strict definition of marriage in W-4.9001 is wrong on equality and justice grounds. Some may see this as the natural linkage of the church’s stand for equality and justice while others will see it as advocacy beyond the the prevue of a PJC decision and possibly even judicial activism.

In reading this I do have trouble with their argument in the second section I quoted.  I think many in the church would argue that when the larger church has “repeatedly declined to amend W-4.9001 with regard to same-sex ceremonies” that does indeed provide a sharp “degree of clarification and guidance.” As for the GA stating its definition in clearer and more precise language, I refer you to the report to the 219th GA of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Unions and Christian Marriage where it says (p. 13):

What is the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community? The members of the PC(USA) cannot agree.

However, having said that, I will agree that while we will have trouble agreeing on a definition of marriage in an ecclesiastical sense, the PC(USA) Constitutional definition would be enhanced by a recognition that in a civil sense that reality is no longer always “one man and one woman.”

Five of those six commissioners on the first dissent continue on in the second dissent concerning the interpretation of the Directory for Worship. They begin:

The majority judges this case primarily in relation to the decisions in Spahr (2008) and Southard (2011) in a conviction that, behind its judicial interpretation, there is in the Constitution an explicit basis against officiating in a same-sex marriage. In fact, this conviction rests upon an assumption rather than explicit constitutional rule. It is grounded principally upon one section, even one sentence, in the Directory of Worship, that is claimed to have clear and obvious legal status. The Commission assumes here and in earlier cases that W-4.9001 presents a legal basis for denying the permissibility and validity of same-sex marriage because it presents a “definition” of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. This assumption is flawed. This provision in the Directory of Worship cannot serve effectively as a judicial criterion.

They then argue that W-4.9001 reflects a different point in time when “The exclusive conventional norm was heterosexual marriage, when same-sex marriage, either civil or ecclesiastical, was unimaginable.”  They go on to argue that this section is introductory and narrative and that “To claim that this paragraph is primarily and intentionally legal in nature forces an artificial warp upon its evident narrative purpose.” Finally, they point out that grammatically the primary emphasis of the one sentence is the covenant nature of marriage and not the “one man and one woman.” The dissent concludes:

In this case and the other recent decisions, my principal concern is that this Commission has forged a standard upon an extremely fragile provision, employing a strained interpretation that does not provide the necessary legal foundation for resolution of our dilemma or foster pastoral guidance in the life of the church. By relying so heavily on W-4.9001, the Commission has ruled upon convention rather than law.

I enjoyed reading this dissent and even if you don’t agree with their conclusion if you want to read a well presented argument against the prescriptive nature of this section of the Directory for Worship have a look at it.

So, at this point the Rev. Spahr has reached her final appeal and will be subject to Rebuke by the Presbytery of the Redwoods. However, according to the L.A. Times article she has said that she will continue preforming same-sex marriages. (Although, at the moment they are not permitted in California.)

But getting back to polity questions, what does all this mean? Considering the number of statements that have been made and the wide variety of overtures that are headed to the 220th General Assembly this decision could have significant implications. And that my fellow polity wonks I will take up in Part 2.