Besides the closely watched case of Stewart v. Mission, there were three other GAPJC decisions reported this week, each with its own points of interest.

218-3 Consent Order — The Session of the Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church v. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution:  This was the recording of an agreement between the two parties reached by mediation.  The complainant filed the remedial case accusing the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) of not properly addressing questions filed with it and of violating the open meeting policy.  The agreement provides the ability for the ACC to respond to multiple questions in one collective response but they need to make it clear that they are answering multiple questions and that the questions have been answered.  In addition the ACC will be more careful of going into executive session at its meetings.

218-5 — Douglas J. Essinger-Hileman and Sandra D. Essinger-Hileman v. The Presbytery of Miami:  In this case the complainants brought a remedial case against the presbytery because of the manner in which their pastoral relationship with a church was dissolved by the presbytery rather than the congregation or administrative commission.  Read the decision for the full chronology.  The case is a matter of fundamental fairness and due process.  Getting right to the heart of the problem the GAPJC decision says:

The Book of Order, G-14.0602 and G-14.0603, addresses procedures for the dissolution of a pastoral relationship when requested by the pastor and/or the congregation. Similarly, G-9.0505b(1) and (2) address dissolutions through an administrative commission. In this case, none of these procedures applied. The Book of Order does not set forth a specific procedure to be followed when neither the congregation nor the pastor has requested dissolution, and no administrative commission has recommended or is empowered to act to dissolve the relationship.

Interesting question and problem in the Book of Order.  In this case the COM brought a motion to the presbytery meeting to call the congregational meeting.  A substitute motion from the floor from an elder commissioner from the church involved was approved dissolving the relationship at the meeting.  It was in the presbytery’s power, G-11.0103o, but was it fair?  The GAPJC writes:

Under the unique circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that it was fundamentally unfair for the Presbytery to proceed with the substitute motion. It would have been a better practice, however, to provide for a fuller hearing of the issues before voting on the substitute motion, particularly when the motion at hand involved so serious a matter as the dissolution of pastoral relationships. Some means should have been devised by which the Pastors and the congregation were given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the final vote to dissolve was taken.

However, as for a remedy?  No remedy would be applicable.  The decision says:

The SPJC was unanimous in finding that the pastoral relationships in this instance were irretrievably broken and that the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demanded dissolution in accordance with G-11.0103o. No remedial action or relief by any judicatory body will restore those relationships, and, therefore, the decision to dissolve the pastoral relationships should not be reversed.

218-7 — Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Through the Presbytery of the Redwoods Prosecuting Committee v. Jane Adams Spahr:  This is another high profile case but this is a procedural decision.

A brief recap:  A disciplinary case was filed against Rev. Spahr for conducting ceremonies that were essentially same-sex marriages (PC News Service article).  The PJC of the Presbytery of the Redwoods decided on March 3, 2006, that the ceremonies were conducted within her “right of conscience” and she was acquitted (PC News Service article).  The case was appealed to the Synod of the Pacific PJC but the Synod PJC basically said “whatever we decide the case will be appealed again to the GAPJC and we’ll just send it there now and not waste our time.”

The GAPJC, in this decision, responded with what can be summarized as “we have a process that we need to go through and don’t try to read our minds.”  More specifically:

1. A Matter of First Impression. While this may be a case of first impression as to an appeal by a prosecuting committee, now permitted under D-13.0102, it is not a matter of first impression as to the substance of the complaint. See, for example, Benton et al., v. Presbytery of Hudson River, Minutes, 2000, p. 586. The complexity of the issues invites consideration through the full judicial structure of the PC(USA).
2. An Appeal Inevitable. Despite an assertion by SPJC that an appeal is inevitable, it is not for GAPJC to speculate whether a non-prevailing party at the SPJC level will appeal a decision of SPJC. Further, the judicial framework established by the Book of Order provides an intermediate level of appellate review at the synod level. Acceptance of this reference would deny the parties one level of review.
3. Undue Expense and Delay. The expense and delay, if any, that may result from this refusal of reference is not likely to be extraordinary, as SPJC claims.

The GAPJC sent it back to the Synod PJC.