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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GAPJC decision says:

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

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

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

This section of the decision closes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were two other decisions also reported:

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

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

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