 PCUSA's highest court rules presbyteries must have written criteria for validated ministries GAPJC rejects presbytery's argument, orders reconciliation in Williamson case By Craig M. Kibler The Layman Online Wednesday, April 6, 2005 The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission upheld an appeal by the Rev. Parker Williamson that the Presbytery of Western North Carolina must develop separate written criteria for the validation of ministries, while denying an appeal by the presbytery that a synod court did not have the authority to order the formulation of a presbytery-wide plan of reconciliation.
The GAPJC decision came in two appeals to a September 2004 Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic ruling. The synod court overturned the presbytery's decision not to validate Williamson's ministry as chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and editor in chief of its publications because the presbytery failed to provide Williamson with "adequate due process and fundamental fairness." It also ordered the presbytery and Williamson jointly to develop a presbytery-wide plan of reconciliation. Neither party contested the synod court's judgment that the presbytery failed to provide "adequate due process and fundamental fairness." The presbytery, however, filed an appeal against the court's reconciliation order, and requested that it be allowed to initiate a new validation inquiry before the appeal was decided. Williamson then filed a cross-appeal requesting that the General Assembly court require the presbytery to comply with the constitution by developing written criteria. Williamson's cross-appeal also raised four other errors in constitutional interpretation in the synod court's opinion, which were not sustained by the GAPJC. The GAPJC upheld the synod court's finding that the presbytery could consider the Presbyterian Lay Committee's "Declaration of Conscience" in the validation process. It found that the presbytery had not taken punitive action against Williamson solely because of the declaration. It also upheld the synod court's findings that the presbytery could consider statements and activities that had occurred during previous years in which the ministry had been validated; that the "thorough review" required of the presbytery to consider all materials submitted to it by the applicant minister "lies within the sound discretion of the Committee on Ministry;" and that the burden of proof for validation rests on the minister seeking it. In February 2005, the GAPJC ruled that the presbytery defer any further review of Williamson's validation until after the GAPJC appeals. At the April 1 hearing of the before the GAPJC held near the Baltimore airport, both sides agreed that the interim ruling rendered moot one point of the presbytery's appeal. Representing the presbytery before the 14 GAPJC commissioners hearing the appeals was the Rev. Mark P. Clark. Two other members of the presbytery's committee of counsel, Robert Riddle and the Rev. Eugene Witherspoon, were not present. Representing Williamson were Robert L. Howard, a member of the board and a former chairman of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, and Peggy Hedden, current chairman. Reconciliation plan ordered Clark argued against the synod court's ruling requiring the presbytery to "develop a presbytery-wide plan of reconciliation with Rev. Williamson," calling it "the boldest kind of substitution of judgment by a judicatory for a governing body that I frankly could imagine." In its brief, the presbytery argued that the synod court's "authority was limited to findings of procedural integrity and ordering Presbytery to correct them," and that the synod court was going beyond its constitutional bounds in "holding out itself as the ongoing arbiter of such a plan on issues of implementation, interpretation and enforcement." Clark called the ruling "gratuitous and unnecessary." "The Latin root for 'gratuitous' is grace," Hedden said in her rebuttal. "We support the synod PJC's order for a plan of reconciliation on two grounds," she said. "First, it is within the constitutional authority of the synod PJC to issue an order for the formulation of such a plan and, secondly, it is within the constitutional and Biblical duties of the presbytery to seek reconciliation." The GAPJC agreed, ruling that the synod court "clearly had authority to order a plan for a process of reconciliation. Further, in light of the encouragement for reconciliation, which underlies the Rules of Discipline … and undeniable evidence in the record of tension between the parties throughout the proceedings at issue, this Commission finds that it was appropriate for SPJC to order a plan for a process of reconciliation." It ordered that, "The Presbytery of Western North Carolina formulate a plan a plan to implement a Presbytery-wide process of reconciliation concerning its relationship with Parker T. Williamson, and that it consult with Parker T. Williamson in the formulation." Written criteria required On the point regarding written criteria, the presbytery's counsel argued that it had adopted "the five standards set out in G-11.0403 a.-e. as the presbytery's written criteria for the review of validated ministries. There is no constitutional requirement that the written criteria be original work product or specifically tailored to each applicant's requested ministry." Howard argued that, "The presbytery clearly did err when it failed to adopt – approve, develop and adopt – written criteria as required by the constitution for its process in validating ministries. They never developed any criteria. The testimony in the record is undisputed. They thought about it, they worked at it, they decided the task was too hard, so they just said, 'Well, we'll just adopt what's already in the constitution.' And that's the essence of the presbytery's argument that they really do have criteria because they, by circular reasoning, went back and adopted what was already in the constitution." "The constitutional language is quite clear. It requires that all presbyteries shall develop written criteria for validated ministries within their bounds and that such written criteria shall be based upon and in addition to the standards that are listed in 11.0403." Howard cited an exhibit in his brief displaying written criteria developed and approved by Seattle Presbytery, saying, "The Seattle Presbytery and many other presbyteries have been able to develop written criteria. There's no reason why this presbytery couldn't." 'Declaration of Conscience' On the point regarding the Presbyterian Lay Committee's "Declaration of Conscience," Howard argued that "that the presbytery did take unconstitutional action adverse to Rev. Williamson because of the Lay Committee's 'Declaration of Conscience' … It is simply uncontrovertible that the reason this Validated Ministries Task Force turned from moving toward validation was when Peggy Hedden shared with them the Lay Committee's statement of conscience. All the witnesses say the climate in the room changed. Rev. Taber said, 'We can't validate a ministry like that.' It's clear that that was the precipitating cause, if not the sole cause, for their recommendation 3-1 to the Committee on Ministry not to validate." "And to punish or discriminate against Rev. Williamson because of that is a clear violation of the constitutional protection afforded to all ministers and all elders in this church. This commission has consistently held that the designating of mission giving, that the redirecting or withholding of per capita, whether one agrees with it or thinks it's a good idea or not, is the right of a session. It can't be grounds for denying the validity of a ministry if a minister agrees that a session can either designate or redirect its giving. It just can't be a constitutional action. And yet that's precisely what this presbytery did in its escalating approach to the Validated Ministries Task Force and the Committee on Ministry and then on the floor of presbytery." The GAPJC disagreed, stating that the high court maintains "a presumption of correctness" in the findings of a lower court. Those findings "are not to be disturbed unless they are plainly wrong, without supporting evidence or manifestly unjust." The GAPJC applied its presumption of correctness doctrine to the synod court's ruling that "no retaliatory action was taken by Presbytery against Williamson [and] the actions taken by Presbytery were not based on any opinions he may have expressed or any respectful dissent he may have offered." In the briefs, counsel for Williamson argued that, "The position stated by the Declaration of Conscience is grounded in an interpretation of Holy Scripture, the Book of Confessions, and the Book of Order, all of which the Directors of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and Rev. Williamson affirm as authorities by virtue of their ordination vows." A separate, concurring opinion signed by 10 commissioners detailed their "understanding of the limitations upon the exercise of freedom of conscience." In their opinion, the 10 commissioners wrote that, "as members of the church and as officers, freedom of conscience is absolute in belief, and answering only to God, through the discernment of the covenant community. Because Williamson may exercise his freedom of conscience only within the bounds prescribed by the covenant community, Presbytery could properly consider the Declaration of Conscience as one of many factors in reaching its decision." Annual review The point related to the presbytery considering statements and activities that had taken place years earlier was defended by counsel for the presbytery as a "duty to consider relevant and timely information," and that the constitution "places no particular constraints on the dates events might have occurred that might be considered relevant to presbytery members in making their decision." Howard argued, "It's interesting how this happened because at the Validated Ministries Task Force level none of this was raised. The only point of discussion was the 'Declaration of Conscience.' And then, at the Committee on Ministry stage, that was the only rationale provided by the chair of the Task Force on Validated Ministries; namely, the 'Declaration of Conscience.' And then they voted not to recommend validation. Then they appointed a small group to make a presentation to presbytery, and I've cited in the record what happened. The small group got together and one of the witnesses, who was a presenter, issued a request to the Rev. Taber, the executive presbyter, to have someone on the staff go back and see if they could find some documents to support the conclusion they had already reached. And so, they dredged up and went back and referred to an article that was published well over 10 years before. They didn't cite it, and the presenter actually didn't ever reread it, misquoted it, misrepresented what was in it." "But the point is that we have a yearly validation of ministries…. What's the point of an annual validation of ministries if, in any given year, the presbytery can reach back indefinitely to any point in a minister's prior career to cite examples that have already been approved and already validated? …. That's just fundamentally wrong, it isn't fair and it shouldn't be allowed." The GAPJC found that "the record confirms that Presbytery relied on material that was in some cases over ten years old," but ruled that this "was not in itself a violation of the principle of fundamental fairness. This Commission holds that a presbytery is not precluded from reviewing relevant materials from prior years for the purpose of setting context for present statements or actions, or for the purpose of showing a pattern that has continuity with present statements or actions. The SPJC's finding that Williamson had not been accorded fundamental fairness was not based on Presbytery's use of old material, but on the manner in which the material was used." Accordingly, it affirmed the synod court's view that a candidate's statements and writings during prior years may be considered by the presbytery if they shed light on activities currently being evaluated. 'Thorough review' The court agreed that the constitution requires a "thorough review" and reaffirmed its requirement that applicant ministers be accorded "fundamental fairness." It concluded, however, that the presbytery can determine for itself how much material submitted by an applicant it will consider and that it is an administrative procedure, not a disciplinary procedure. Regarding the burden of proof in the validation of applicant ministries, the court ruled that "the burden is placed on the minister seeking validation to demonstrate that his or her ministry is 'consonant with the mission of the presbytery'" and, therefore, that the "preponderance of the evidence standard" that would be mandated in a judicial case does not apply. The Layman Online called the Presbytery of Western North Carolina office twice Wednesday, but was unable to reach the Rev. James Adeylotte for a comment about the decision. Adeylotte is the interim stated clerk who represented the presbytery at the GAPJC hearing. The Rev. Williamson said, "I was very pleased that the court ordered that the presbytery adopt written standards. I believe that this will serve the whole church well, and now I look forward to the process of reconciliation." |
||
Respond to this article |
||
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||