 Session determines Kirkpatrick refusing to carry out responsibilities of his office By Craig M. Kibler The Layman Online Thursday, February 19, 2004 A session in New Jersey has determined that the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA), "has been refusing to carry out the stated responsibilities of his office." The session of Grace Presbyterian Church in Montclair, after more than a year of correspondence with Kirkpatrick, said in a statement that the stated clerk "maintains he has no authority to intervene in church cases 'before, during or after their adjudication.'" After noting its growing concern over what it called the "defiance of Biblical and confessional standards regarding ordination and sexuality," the session said, "The PCUSA desperately needs a more creative approach, lest the brazen disrespect for church law that has marked Rev. Kirkpatrick's tenure as Clerk to date become even worse." A year ago, the sessions of 44 congregations in 18 states approved resolutions proclaiming "a constitutional crisis" in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and called on church leaders to uphold the denomination's constitution and to exercise the Rules of Discipline against those who defy it. The resolutions referred to a growing number of individuals, churches and some presbyteries that publicly defied the constitutional standards regarding ordination standards, same-sex marriages, open communion, including prayers and teachings from other religions in worship services and other issues. Public declarations of defiance increased after the 214th General Assembly met in 2002 in Columbus, Ohio, with defiant Presbyterians saying they have a right to violate the denomination's constitution. The language of defiance has become bolder, with unbending assertions that breaking church law is protected by one's conscience and that the law – though anchored in Scripture and the church's confessions – is immoral. Some of the declarations of defiance have led to charges being filed in church courts. But, so far, none of the courts has issued a ruling that affirms the constitutional standard. The constitutional crisis rose to greater intensity with the news that Baltimore Presbytery has proposed not enforcing the constitution if it is presented with either disciplinary or remedial cases involving the denomination's ordination standards. In its proposal, the Baltimore Presbytery also would instruct its sessions not to entertain such cases. Many evangelicals have declared that there is a "constitutional crisis" because local church sessions and presbyteries – the ordaining bodies in the PCUSA – are either ignoring the constitution or flagrantly violating its requirements. Despite all the reports to the contrary, Kirkpatrick claims there is no constitutional crisis. Kirkpatrick, whose job is "to preserve and defend the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA)" (G-11.0112e), repeatedly has said that it is not his job to enforce the constitution, but he also has said ministers and elders have no right to defy the requirements of G-6.0106b. Despite widespread criticism of his actions during the last few years, the General Assembly's Stated Clerk Review/Nomination Committee recently nominated Kirkpatrick for a third four-year term as stated clerk. At the time, the Rev. Sandra Peirce of Placerville, Calif., moderator of the committee, told the Presbyterian News Service that "we believe the PCUSA will be well-served by his continuing leadership." In its recent detailed statement, the session of Grace Presbyterian Church said it has "become increasingly concerned that defiance of Biblical and confessional standards regarding ordination and sexuality is having a measurable effect on our pastoral ministry. Our experience parallels reports from across the country – we are regularly encountering persons who tell us they are reluctant even to visit a PCUSA church, let alone join, because of their perception of our lack of obedience to Scripture and its call to holy living." "Located a scant dozen miles from mid-town Manhattan, we minister in an area strongly influenced by the New York City media, which regularly follow the PCUSA's struggles, both nationally and locally," the session wrote. "One neighboring presbytery (Hudson River) has become especially notorious. There was extensive coverage of a prominent minister and leader of the pro-gay ordination faction in Hudson River who renounced jurisdiction to avoid disciplinary proceedings over alleged sexual abuse of minors. Numerous churches in that Presbytery continue to maintain statements of defiance of the Book of Order regarding same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian persons. The GAPJC has ruled such statements impermissible." Hudson River long has been a center of defiance in the denomination, with 16 congregations publicly saying that they will not comply with the ordination standard. On the eve of the 215th General Assembly in Denver, just before commissioners were to consider an overture from the Presbytery of Redstone dealing with constitutional defiance, Hudson River released a statement saying that it "pledges to abide" by the denomination's constitution. That statement also said, however, that it rejects G-6.0106b, the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard, and that these two opposing stances are "true at the very same time." Commissioners, instead of voting on the overture, directed Kirkpatrick to send another kinder/gentler pastoral letter, which said, in part: "Though the assembly itself is not in a position to make substantive judgment about these concerns, many of which are or have been the focus of judicial cases or administrative proceedings, the assembly is eager to do all it can to create a climate of trust, order and fair treatment for all parties …" Despite Hudson River's opposition to the ordination standard, which it voted to repeal by a margin of nearly 80 percent in the most recent balloting, three denomination-wide referendums have affirmed the standard:
Since then, some of its congregations have made public declarations that they conduct same-sex unions and recognize them as marriages, as well as practicing open communion, both in defiance of the constitution. In another case, the presbytery promoted by e-mail to its ministers a "Universal Worship Service" in which the participants offered prayers to a smorgasbord of gods – including those who, "whether known or unknown to the world, have held aloft the light of truth through the darkness of human ignorance." The service included readings from Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, the tradition of the "Divine Female," Native Peoples and Judaism. Christianity got scant mention. After an invocation to the "Only Being, united with all the illuminated souls who form the embodiment of the master, the Spirit of Guidance," the service had a ritual of candle lighting for various religions – plus the unknown. Christianity was next to last on the list. Jesus was mentioned as a peer of prophets, but not as the Son of God, when the congregation read from the Salat: "Allow us to recognize Thee in all Thy Holy Names and Forms, as Rama, as Krishna, as Shiva, as Buddha. Let us know Thee as Abraham, as Solomon, as Zarathustra, as Moses, as Jesus, as Muhammed." After the 16 congregations in the Hudson River declared that they would not obey the standard, the presbytery formed a committee to discuss the matter with those sessions. To date, the presbytery has initiated no disciplinary or remedial actions to require these congregations to comply with the constitution. Kirkpatrick also has declined to take any administrative action that would require the presbytery to ensure compliance. According to the standing rules of the General Assembly, Kirkpatrick's duty is to "preserve and defend the Constitution," but his office has told leaders of the Presbyterian Coalition who have criticized his inaction that ensuring constitutional compliance is not his job. And, notwithstanding the continued acts of defiance, the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly has declared that the denomination's "constitutional process is working." "Despite numerous official requests," the session of Grace Presbyterian Church wrote, "Hudson River Presbytery has refused its constitutional obligation to call these defiant churches and officers to account. More recently, a number of Hudson River churches joined in a widely publicized worship service overtly celebrating constitutional defiance. That service impelled us to write the General Assembly Stated Clerk, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick. Several follow-up letters ensued. "Our exchange of correspondence has left us with serious doubts whether Rev. Kirkpatrick is willing or able to effectively carry out his paramount duties to 'preserve and defend the Constitution' (i.e., The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order) and to 'support the actions of the General Assembly.' We do not accept the Clerk's claim that he is precluded from being involved 'before, during or after any judicial matter.' We believe his hands-off attitude is directly abetting disregard for the Constitution and damaging the Church." The session said that its initial letter to Kirkpatrick, sent before the Hudson River "service of defiance," included documentation showing that "the intent for that service" was to "celebrate constitutional defiance. We asked Rev. Kirkpatrick what steps he would take in response to the service and other examples of continuing defiance in Hudson River to carry out his duty to 'preserve and defend' the Constitution. We pointed out that the GAPJC had spoken definitively to the conduct at issue in both its Londonderry and Benton decisions. We also asked for his advice in handling the pastoral challenge of negative public perceptions of the PCUSA." A response, which the session said was written by Associate Stated Clerk Mark Tammen, "completely ignored our primary documentary evidence. Instead, Rev. Tammen claimed that the (unattributed) news reports he read did not reveal any impropriety. His only advice – to tell us we could file a judicial complaint with the Synod PJC if we had evidence of misconduct." The session said that, "concerned at the non-responsive and inadequate character of Rev. Tammen's letter, we brought the matter to the council of Newark Presbytery. Affirming our view that the response from the Clerk's office was altogether deficient, the Council wrote Rev. Kirkpatrick, admonishing him that our letter deserved a proper response." Kirkpatrick's "reply took a different tack," the session wrote. "Whereas Rev. Tammen predicated the Clerk's inaction on news reports purportedly showing no forbidden activity, Rev. Kirkpatrick now asserted that he is precluded from any involvement 'before, during, or after a judicial matter.' He cited Polity Reflection No. 46, prepared by his own office as authority. We have reviewed the Opinion carefully, but are unable to locate in its fragmentary references anything that substantiates his view." The session wrote that it was "astounded at Rev. Kirkpatrick's claim. Taken at face value, his assertion could easily become an excuse for him to avoid any issue, because every action of a Presbyterian officer or governing body can potentially be reviewed by a higher governing body or be the basis of a judicial challenge. We replied, asking for clarification and pointing to several instances in which Rev. Kirkpatrick's actions appeared incompatible with his own dictum. For example, we cited his standing claim that a church officer advocating the withholding of per-capita funds is in danger of violating his/her ordination vows. We also pointed to the pastoral letter he and GA Moderator Abu Akel issued (at church expense) concerning the recall of the 214th General Assembly. Dated January 31, 2003, this letter was sent after the filing of the Westminster GAPJC case which named Revs. Kirkpatrick and Abu Akel as respondents. The content of the pastoral letter clearly mirrored the position taken by Revs. Kirkpatrick and Abu Akel in the litigation and arguably attempted to influence the Church's perception of their actions." The session said that, after a two-month delay and its letter of complaint to the General Assembly Council, Kirkpatrick finally responded, but "merely reiterated his previous hands-off position and ignored our concern about the consistency between his stated policy of neutrality and the circumstances we identified. He continued to ignore the pastoral questions we posed from the beginning." In its statement, the session called the stated clerk "the highest elected official of the PCUSA and is designated as the chief executive officer of the Office of the General Assembly. The GA has wisely given the Stated Clerk a unique responsibility for constitutional government, defining his paramount obligation to 'preserve and defend the Constitution.' Importantly, the duty to 'preserve and defend' is followed in the same sentence with the duty to support the actions of the GA, thereby clearly coupling these responsibilities. Presbyterian polity holds that a final decision by the GAPJC is itself an act of the GA." "By not being involved 'after a judicial matter,'" the session wrote, "Kirkpatrick has effectively declared that he will not take any steps to support a whole class of GA actions, namely GAPJC decisions. This unilateral action severs the connection between the Clerk's duties to defend the constitution and support the actions of the GA. In our view, the Clerk's duty to support GA actions cannot be satisfied by mere passive acquiescence and must be implemented in appropriate positive steps that are specific to each instance, and not simply generic. The nature of any executive office demands actions. "We are struck by the contrast between Rev. Kirkpatrick's silence on constitutional defiance and the ease with which he finds his voice on any number of other political, social, economic and religious issues. For example, we are unaware of any General Assembly action or other mandate that permitted him to declare, with the authority of his high office in the PCUSA, that U.S. military action to remove Saddam Hussein was illegal under international law. "We are also struck by Rev. Kirkpatrick's departure from the activist approach to constitutional compliance taken by his predecessors. For example, during the 1970s, William P. Thompson used the Stated Clerk's 'bully pulpit' to make it unmistakably clear that there was no room in the PCUSA for ministers who would not support the ordination of women. In contrast, Rev. Kirkpatrick's hands-off approach has proven ineffectual. Rev. Kirkpatrick invents a straw man when he suggests the only alternatives are a 'Wild-West Sheriff" and total inaction. History says otherwise. "The PCUSA desperately needs a more creative approach, lest the brazen disrespect for church law that has marked Rev. Kirkpatrick's tenure as Clerk to date become even worse." In its conclusion, the session wrote that "we have been left with more questions than answers. Rev. Kirkpatrick has offered no adequate explanation of his actions. More importantly, we have not been given us any help in responding to the pastoral challenge we face because of negative public perceptions of the PCUSA." "Grace Church is committed to being a responsible part of a connectional church," the session wrote. "We have attempted to pursue our concerns within the framework of a structure that has served our denomination well for centuries. However, connectionalism presumes a covenant, and a covenant presumes bilateral responsibilities that have both contractual and relational dimensions. A covenantal relationship is not viable if church leadership at any level defaults on its obligations." |
|
Respond to this article |
|
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|