Metherell: Moderator's opposition to called GA based on faulty premise The Layman Online Tuesday, November 12, 2002 The leader of a petition campaign to call an historic special meeting of the General Assembly to deal with constitutional issues says Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel's opposition to the meeting is based on a faulty premise. In a letter mailed to commissioners to the 214th General Assembly last week, Akel cited 13.0112c, which would require a 120-day notice prior to a called meeting of the General Assembly because the petition "requires an interpretation of the Constitution." But Alexander Metherell of Laguna Beach, Calif., the leader of the petition campaign, says there is nothing in the "petition ... that states or implies such an intention. Personally, I believe the Constitution, as written, provides all of the authority that the General Assembly needs to deal with this crisis." Therefore, Metherell said in an open letter to the denomination, the moderator could call a special meeting of the General Assembly within 60 days – not 120 days – of the date when he received the signatures of 25 ministers and 25 elders who served as commissioners to the 214th General Assembly. Akel objects to the called meeting, he says, because the 120-day requirement would have the commissioners meeting shortly before the 215th General Assembly convenes in Denver in May. But, because the petition does not call for a constitutional interpretation, Metherell said, 60 days would meet Book of Order requirements. "It is my hope that those who are advising our Moderator will take the words of our petition at face value and neither presume to know their intent nor assign meaning to our language that is not self-evident," he said. Following is Metherell's open letter: Statement by Alexander Metherell November 12, 2002 Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel has sent a letter to all commissioners of the 214th General Assembly advising us not to sign a petition that calls for a special meeting to deal with our denomination's constitutional crisis. He states "the reason for the special meeting given in the petition requires an interpretation of the Constitution. According to G-13.0112c of our Book of Order, this requires a 120-day notice prior to the meeting." Neither the Moderator, nor the Stated Clerk has contacted me to ask if the stated purpose for the called meeting will in fact require an interpretation of the Constitution. It has never been my intention that the business of the called meeting include either an amendment to or an interpretation of the Constitution. Certainly there is nothing in the petition calling for a special meeting that states or implies such an intention. Personally, I believe the Constitution, as written provides all of the authority that the General Assembly needs to deal with this crisis. The Moderator will therefore only need to give the required 60 days notice to call the meeting, once he has received a petition with the required number of signatures. One should not assume at this stage exactly what motions will be offered by commissioners during the meeting. I would hope our first order of business would be to get on our knees and seek the Lord's leading for his church. If in the course of our subsequent discussion, someone should make a motion that would require an interpretation of the Constitution, members of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution will be present to provide that interpretation for us. The Book of Order is very clear regarding the criteria for calling a special meeting of the General Assembly. Commissioner-colleagues who are seeking this meeting understand those criteria, and we believe that we will meet them. It is my hope that those who are advising our Moderator will take the words of our petition at face value and neither presume to know their intent nor assign meaning to our language that is not self-evident.

Respond to this article

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links