 Refusal to enforce property clause a 'misuse of its discretion' Court rules presbytery policy upholding ordination standards is unconstitutional By Craig M. Kibler Staff Writer The Layman Online Tuesday, June 26, 2007 The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific has ruled unconstitutional a Sacramento Presbytery policy under which men and women would not be considered for ordination if their behavior did not conform to the "fidelity/chastity" requirements of the Book of Order in the Presbyterian Church (USA). In a series of remedial rulings June 16, the synod court also found that a presbytery policy honoring the withholding of per-capita payments was "inappropriate" and "obstructive behavior." In regard to another policy that stated the presbytery will never enforce the trust provisions of Chapter VIII of the Book of Order, the court – taking a page out of "The Louisville Papers" – declared that it "constitutes a misuse of its discretion to determine how the property of a congregation that is being dissolved or dismissed shall be held, used or applied." The court's action was in stark contrast to a similar case in which the Synod of Alaska Northwest's Permanent Judicial Commission ruled March 20 in favor of Olympia Presbytery. On Sept. 9, 2006, Sacramento Presbytery approved four resolutions as follows:
That authoritative interpretation did not call for the repeal of G-6.0106b. Instead, it stated that ordaining bodies must decide on their own whether the "fidelity/chastity" ordination requirement is an essential. According to the Book of Order's definitions of what constitutes a mandate, G-6.0106b is in that category. But the authoritative interpretation, focusing on G-6.0108, the "conscience" clause, said the judgment of ordaining bodies cannot be bound by any rule that they deem to be non-essential. On Oct. 20, 2006, the sessions of five congregations – Davis Community Church in Davis, El Dorado Presbyterian Church in Placerville, Grace Presbyterian Church in Sacramento, Shepherd of the Sierra Presbyterian Church in Loomis and Westminster Presbyterian Church in Sacramento – filed remedial complaints alleging six counts of irregularities in the calling of the Sept. 9 special meeting and in the conduct of the Sept. 23 regular meeting of the presbytery. By a vote of 9-1, the synod court sustained the allegations of irregularities regarding Resolution 1, ordination standards, which include: "(a) The action directs Sacramento Presbytery and its committees to defy and contravene an Authoritative Interpretation of the 217th General Assembly (2006) regarding the process by which ordaining bodies are to assess candidates' fitness for ordained service. Accordingly, the action violates Sacramento Presbytery's duty to honor the constitution and to implement the decisions of higher governing bodies. "(b) The action denies the freedom of conscience that is to be afforded to all officers and candidates, and breaches the presbytery's duty to show 'mutual forbearance' in non-essential matters, by curtailing individual candidates' opportunity to present, and to have meaningfully considered principled objections to standards that may not be deemed 'essentials' of Reformed faith and polity. Indeed, the mere existence of policy adopted by Sacramento Presbytery will have a dampening effect on individual candidates' willingness and ability to express conscientious points of view. "(c) The action constitutes a denial and abdication of Sacramento Presbytery's responsibility meaningfully to assess both the fitness of individual candidates and the validity of any principled objections such candidates might assert regarding church standards during the processes of inquiry, candidacy and examination of fitness for office. "(d) The action constitutes a misuse of Sacramento Presbytery's discretion in assessing the fitness of individual candidates by converting what are supposed to be case-by-case assessments into a mandatory policy that applies without distinction to all cases. "(e) The action violates the obligation of all sessions and presbyteries 'not to exclude anyone categorically in considering those called to ordained service in the church, but to consider the lives and behaviors of candidates as individuals (emphasis in original).' "(f) The action promulgates an erroneous view that all of our constitutional standards lend themselves to a single, uncontroverted interpretation disregarding the unavoidable complexities and interpretive work that proper application of scriptural and confessional standards entails. It therefore invites members of Sacramento Presbytery and its committees, as well as individual candidates, to abdicate their responsibility carefully to consider the meaning of church standards, both when attempting to comply with them personally and when applying them to others. "(g) The actions constitute an attempt to impose a 'litmus test' for office requiring compliance with certain conservative readings of Scripture and the Confessions, rather than testing a candidate's ability to answer truthfully in the affirmative the questions for ordination and installation set forth in the Book of Order G-14.0405b and G-14.0510. "(h) The action erroneously applies to inquirers and candidates for the ministry of Word and Sacrament standards that do not apply, as a matter of law, until a candidate's readiness to begin ministry is being finally assessed. It thereby forecloses the process of discernment in which inquirers and candidates as well as Sacramento Presbytery and its committees, are supposed to engage under Chapter XIV of the Book of Order. "(i) The action denies and contravenes Sacramento Presbytery's obligation to give serious and meaningful consideration to the choices of ministerial leadership made by congregations under its oversight." The court stated that it found "Resolution 1 was adopted for the purpose of suggesting that the presbytery should apply the standards of the church without applying the spirit of the Authoritative Interpretation; therefore, the resolution is unconstitutional." By a vote of 10-0, the court did not sustain two other allegations of irregularities. The court stated that the evidence presented on those two allegations "was inconclusive." Those allegations stated: "(j) The action forecloses, within the bounds of Sacramento Presbytery, processes of dialogue and discernment that are fundamental to the church's self-professed identity as 'the Church reformed always reforming, by the Spirit of God.' (sic) "(k) The action ignores and forecloses any positive response to the strong urging of the 217th General Assembly that all governing bodies 'renew and strengthen their covenanted partnership with one another and with the General Assembly' and 'engage in processes of intensive discernment and worship, community building, study, and collaborative work' to address the issues that currently divide the church. Such disregard of General Assembly's guidance denies and contravenes commitment to openness and connectionalism that are fundamental to our polity." By a vote of 10-0, the court sustained allegations of irregularity regarding Resolution 2, scruples, which stated: "The action directs Sacramento Presbytery and its committees to distinguish among, and to withhold recognition from, certain members of presbytery in violation of the rights of all active minister members, minister members-at-large and elder representatives to participate fully in the affairs of the presbytery through equal voice, vote and eligibility for office." The court stated that Resolution 2 "refuses to receive or recognize anyone who has been ordained or installed under a scruple. This is more egregious than Resolution 1 as it is contrary to the long established history of connectivity, church-wide standards, the conscience of individual candidates and the collective discernment in the application of the standards for ordination." The court stated that it was "particularly concerned with the attempt to not 'recognize as a member anyone who has been ordained or installed under a scruple.' Although testimony was offered that the presbytery had no intention of delving into the facts behind the ordination of its existing members, the plain meaning of the resolution is that it could do so. This is certainly not constitutionally correct and cannot be allowed." In regard to Resolution 3, per capita, the court by a 10-0 vote sustained the allegations of irregularity, which were: "(a) In stating that it will 'honor the protest of every congregation' that would withhold per-capita payments, Sacramento Presbytery seriously mischaracterizes the covenantal nature of the per-capita system and disregards authoritative rulings that withholding of payment as a means of protest or dissent 'evidences a serious breach of the trust and love with which our Lord Jesus Christ intends the covenant community to function together.' "(b) In stating as a matter of policy that it will honor all withholding of per capita, Sacramento Presbytery violates its obligation under Book of Order G-11.0103g, 'to provide pastoral care' to sessions and congregations that withhold such payments. "(c) In stating that it will use only designated congregational funds to fulfill its own per-capita assessments, without compensating for funds withheld under protest, Sacramento Presbytery violates is direct responsibility for 'raising and timely transmissions' of the full amount of per-capita assessments against it to the Synod of the Pacific and the General Assembly." The court stated that it found "the conduct of the presbytery which invites congregations to withhold per-capita payments inappropriate. It falls short of the presbytery's duty not only to the larger church but to the individual congregations which consider protest methods or alternatives." Resolution 3, the court ruled, "represents obstructive behavior and does not reflect reasonable pastoral concern. The relationship between these levels of government is one of trust. To suggest that the individual sessions begin to embrace such practices of dissent, supported by the presbytery, is destructive of the covenant relationship among governing bodies." On Resolution 4, property, the court by a 10-0 vote sustained the allegations of irregularity, which said that "Sacramento Presbytery's statement that it will never enforce the trust provisions of chapter VIII of the Book of Order:" "(a) Is founded on, and promulgates, gravely erroneous teaching about the nature of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Our ecclesiology provides, inter alia, that congregations come into existence and subsist as organic parts of the larger denomination; agree to be governed in perpetuity by the denomination's Constitution; and seek to remain in community so as to provide a witness to the world of the reconciling power of Jesus Christ. By adopting Resolution 4, Sacramento Presbytery strains the ligaments of our organic union and invites the kind of dissolution which discredits our fundamental witness to the Gospel. "(b) Constitutes a denial and abdication of its responsibility to provide effective pastoral care and administrative oversight for the congregations within its bounds. This includes, inter alia, the responsibility:
"(d) Constitutes a denial and abdication to individual sessions and congregations of presbytery's non-delegable responsibility to act as the original decision-maker in all matters relating to the dismissal, dissolution and transfer of congregations and their property. "(e) Constitutes a denial and abdication of its responsibility:
The court also ruled that Resolution 4 "contravenes the trust provisions of Chapter 8 in the Book of Order and thus is inappropriate and unconstitutional." Craig M. Kibler is the Director of Publications for the Presbyterian Lay Committee and Executive Editor of The Layman and The Layman Online. He can be reached at cmkibler@layman.org. |
|
Respond to this article |
|
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|