 Presbytery council to recommend secret ballot in Williamson's case By John H. Adams The Layman Online Wednesday, January 14, 2004 MORGANTON, N.C. – The Coordinating Council of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina moved the issue of the validation of Parker T. Williamson's ministry with the Presbyterian Lay Committee closer to a showdown Wednesday by approving a number of recommendations for the presbytery commissioners who will decide the issue. The council's recommendations included calling for a final vote by secret ballot on Williamson's status at the Jan. 31 meeting of the presbytery in Asheville, N.C. Williamson had proposed a roll-call vote. Williamson addressed the council for about 45 minutes to explain a number of requests he had previously spelled out in a Dec. 22, 2003, letter to the presbytery. Some council members asked questions, then they dismissed Williamson, presbytery staff members and a reporter for The Layman Online to discuss his proposals in closed session. J.D. Waldrop of Denver, an elder and chairman of the council, announced the council's decisions in an open session 2½ hours later. The following are the requests made by Williamson and the council's recommendations to presbytery:
Several times during his presentation to the council, Williamson said that a vote against his ministry could lead to action being filed in ecclesiastical court and, therefore, the process should be open, fair and transparent. Any commissioner who votes in favor of the proposal to invalidate his ministry with the Lay Committee, Williamson told the council, "will be voting to terminate my ministry. Therefore, they are in fact my accusers. I would like to face my accusers. Were this matter in court, where it ought to be, I would be able to face my accusers. A roll call vote will make that possible." He also noted that the move to invalidate his ministry – after 32 years as a member of presbytery – has attracted national attention and is expected to draw a large crowd when the presbytery meets in Asheville on Jan. 31. "I suspect you are going to have quite a few visitors," he told the council, citing hundreds of letters that the Lay Committee has received and e-mail messages "about ministers coming from many states." He argued that the expected turnout makes a roll-call vote even more essential. "It's going to be important to see who has the right to vote," he said. "Only persons certified are the commissioners to the presbytery." A roll-call vote would ensure that non-commissioners did not vote. In requesting that the council include the Presbyterian Lay Committee material in the presbytery packet, Williamson said, "That is the very same material that we presented to the Validated Ministries Task Force when it was presumably doing its due diligence. To the best of my knowledge, the task force paid no attention to that material. There seemed to be little interest in it. But we want you to know what the Presbyterian Lay Committee is and what it does." In arguing for voice by Hedden and Howard – and his own right to address the presbytery at the end of the debate – Williamson said that the Validated Task Force had "impugned the character" of the Lay Committee leaders and himself. The Committee on Ministry has given little reason for calling for the invalidation of Williamson's ministry with the Presbyterian Lay Committee – other than to cite the "character and conduct" of the evangelical organization, without stating any specifics. The Committee on Ministry met in closed session Tuesday to prepare its final report for the presbytery. A committee member said no votes were taken during that meeting and that the final report will mainly cite Presbyterian polity as the authority for demoting Williamson to inactive status – a process that could lead to his being defrocked in three years unless he accepts a call to another validated ministry. On his request for a certified court reporter and a court videographer, Williamson also told the council, "It is very important to me personally and to the Lay Committee – and to all of us – that there be no question about the record of that proceeding. To the best of my knowledge, you have no rules" that would prohibit a certified transcript and video. He noted that on a "number of occasions you have had video cameras." He said it was important to have independent and certified records of the meeting. "Depending on how this matter is adjudicated and settled, there could well be a case before the court," he said. "Obviously, an official record that is made by the defendant [the presbytery], would not be the best, most certifiable record. I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, but in the event it does go further into judicial proceedings, what we all want is a full and fair and transparent record." But Williamson said he wanted to assure the council that he was strongly opposed to any circus-like atmosphere at the presbytery meeting. He referred to a widely copied e-mail in which one minister said he was about to send out a press release calling for a demonstration at the presbytery meeting. Williamson said he sent a response to all the addresses on that minister's e-mail and made it clear that is "something I don't want any part of. My letter back to them asked them, please don't do that." "I want to give you this assurance," Williamson told the council. "I'm not interested in demonstrations and a circus. I recognize it is a national issue. But to the best of my ability to do so, wherever I have heard of such possibilities, I have personally taken it upon myself to ask them not to do such things." One member of the council asked Williamson if the validation of his ministry with the Lay Committee had ever been questioned before by the presbytery. "Not to my knowledge," he said. "I have filled out the form each year requesting the validation and I have received word from the presbytery saying you're validated." While challenging the move to invalidate his ministry, Williamson also praised the presbytery for taking a more serious look at validated ministries. "I understand the presbytery is engaged in greater care in checking out validated ministries. I applaud that." He was also asked if he had received financial support from the presbytery. "No sir, when I was called here in 1971, that church [First Presbyterian Church in Lenoir, N.C.] paid the bills; since I was called to the Lay Committee in 1989, the Lay Committee has paid my salary." |
|
Respond to this article |
|
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|