 Panel votes to repeal rule on enforcing constitution The Layman Online Wednesday, May 28, 2003
The General Assembly Committee on Church Polity, citing what some called language inconsistent with the Book of Order, voted 46-10 on May 27 to recommend that commissioners delete a provision in the standing rules on the enforcement of judicial commission orders. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution provided a 1,425-word "Authoritative Interpretation" stating that, "because Standing Rule G.2.g. does not provide due process and conflicts with the role of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the Standing Rule violates the Book of Order. Therefore, the last sentence of Standing Rule G.2.g. is hereby null and void." "If there is a concern that a decision of the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission is not being obeyed, there are mechanisms for assuring compliance," the statement says. "They include administrative review, remedial action or assumption of original jurisdiction by a presbytery over a session, by a synod over a presbytery or by the General Assembly over a synod." The Committee on the Office of the General Assembly, which requested the authoritative interpretation, recommended that the committee adopt that interpretation. Kirkpatrick criticized Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, whose duties require him to "preserve and defend" the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), has been heavily criticized for repeatedly asserting that he is not responsible for enforcing church laws, including those that prohibit the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the "marriage" of same-gender couples. Dr. Alexander F. Metherell of Laguna Beach, Calif., an elder-commissioner to the 214th General Assembly, used Standing Rule G.2.g as the gateway for a petition that would have required Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel to reconvene the 214th General Assembly to deal with growing constitutional defiance. The petition sought to bring commissioners back into session to decide whether they should become the court of last resort with authority to order compliance. Even though the petition gained more than enough signatures, Abu-Akel and COGA asked them to vote again. After Kirkpatrick's office declared that a number of commissioners had changed their minds, Abu-Akel officially invalidated the petition. The denomination's highest court reprimanded the moderator for lobbying against the meeting, but ruled that commissioners had the right to change their minds and ask that their names be removed from the petition. The Metherell petition envisioned a scenario in which the General Assembly would examine church court decisions and consider measures to enforce the constitution. Kirkpatrick would have been called upon to implement the decisions of the reconvened General Assembly. But the authoritative interpretation being sent to the full General Assembly, and which would be definitive unless the court rules otherwise, contends that Kirkpatrick cannot be required to enforce the constitution and that Standing Rule G.2.g is misleading. The existing Standing Rule G.2.g says in part: "If the General Assembly deems such compliance [with an order of the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission] inadequate, the assembly may make such further order or orders as it deems necessary to ensure compliance, and may consult with the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission before issuing further orders." The Advisory Committee on the Constitution said that, "although this sentence concludes a paragraph specifying the responsibility of the Stated Clerk to report statements of compliance, it does not give the Stated Clerk any authority to enforce orders of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission," adding: If the General Assembly approves the interpretation, constitutional enforcement will continue to be muddled, leaving enforcement to the jurisdiction of lower governing bodies. Already, presbyteries have refused to enforce church laws in spite of clear-cut violations. The Presbytery of Baltimore refused to try a minister – Don Stroud – who publicly acknowledged that he was in a homosexual relationship. And the Presbytery of Cincinnati simply reprimanded the Rev. A. Stephen Van Kuiken, who admitted performing same-sex "marriages." Futhermore, Van Kuiken was exonerated on a technicality on a disciplinary charge that he participated in the ordination of homosexuals as elders and deacons. Since his trial, Van Kuiken has announced that he will continue those practices. |
||
Respond to this article |
||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||