The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) issued four decisions this past week, all of them interesting.  I will begin with one of the more complex and important decisions and one that discussed last July when the presbytery took their action and again in October following the Synod PJC tie vote on the case that was filed:

George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery:  This case was shaping up to be a test case on at what stage of the PC(USA) process for ordination as minister of word and sacrament the Book of Order ordination standards would apply.  Specifically in this case, Mission Presbytery voted to advance to candidacy a women who was an acknowledged lesbian involved in an active relationship.

The Rev. Stewart filed a remedial case with the PJC of the Synod of the Sun and the trial was held September 8, 2006.  The trial resulted in a tie vote of the voting member of the Synod PJC.  On October 11, 2006, the case was filed for appeal with the GAPJC and accepted on October 20.

On November 17, 2006, the candidate requested of her Committee on Preparation for Ministry to be removed from the process.  At the March 3, 2007 presbytery meeting the presbytery approved the request. The Presbytery moved to have the case dismissed, on grounds of mootness, on March 6 and the Executive Committee of the GAPJC concurred on March 23.  On March 28, Rev. Stewart requested a full hearing which the GAPJC granted.

I give this full chronology because in the course of these events, the focus of the case changed significantly.  What the GAPJC ended up deciding on was whether the case was now moot by the withdrawal from candidacy.  In effect, Rev. Stewart had gotten, through the candidate’s action, the relief he had requested.

Well, the majority of the GAPJC ruled that no relief could be granted so that the case was indeed moot.  There was a dissent that this was about presbytery process not the individual and it should go forward in amended form. But I would not have spent all of this time if there wasn’t something interesting.

On one point that Stewart requested, the “need for guidance” the GAPJC did have something to say:

Stewart further argues that there is a “need for guidance” because the statements to the Presbytery and the SPJC cast doubt on the Book of Order requirements for candidates. This Commission is not an advisory body for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding matters relating to the Constitution, but is charged with deciding cases or controversies. However, this Commission notes with concern that the record shows that both the Presbytery and the SPJC appear to have relied on the Book of Order: Annotated Edition entry for the Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey, Minutes, 2000, p. 589, case, rather than the language of the case itself. Such reliance was misplaced.

It turns out that there were significant differences in Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey and to only read the entry in the Annotated Edition of the Book of Order did not give the full context and application of the case.  The GAPJC concludes that section with the statement:

Annotations found in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition can be helpful to the Church as it seeks to be faithful in its life and service; however, they are not authoritative. The assistance that annotations offer to the church is as a guide to the deliverances of the bodies that have been accorded authority in our Constitution. To the extent that the misstatement in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition was relied upon by the Committee on Preparation of Ministry, the Presbytery, and the SPJC, it misled each body.

In the decision section it was the expected, that the case is moot and that the appropriate parties be notified of the decision.

Fifteen of the sixteen members of the GAPJC were present and four filed a dissent that effectively said that the complaint was not against the individual being advanced to candidacy but against the presbytery for its process and an amended complaint should be allowed since relief could still be granted there.

So, where does that leave us?  This did not turn out to be the test case that it could have been but by the reminder of the GAPJC about the Sheldon case being different, it has clearly left the door open for another case of this type if it were to make it this far.  To claim that this was a victory for those supporting the current ordination standards is going a bit far.  In the same way the GAPJC reminds us to do our homework, not just look at the “Cliff notes” (pun intended), it would be too early to see this as prohibiting advancement to candidacy without the case law being written.

As for reaction, Toby Brown of Classical Presbyterian is in Mission Presbytery and was part of this case and has posted his take on this, especially the part about reading the full decision, not just the annotation.  There is nothing on the PC(USA) News Service, and I don’t expect any for a dismissed GAPJC case.  It has been picked up by the Louisville Courier-Journal but they, in my opinion, slightly mis-state the decision.  They refer back to the Commission’s reference to the Sheldon case and report this as a ban on advancing to candidacy those whose lives are not in accord the PC(USA) ordination standards.  As I say above, I see it as still an open question but there seems to be an implication that this GAPJC would, given the correct case, decide that they can not be advanced.  So, at the present time there appears to be a ban by implication, or extrapolation, of the existing case law.