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 –

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…