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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a reminder paragraph G-13.0103r now reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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