THE PERMANENT JUDICIAL COMMISSION

OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.)

Decision

Session,

Londonderry Presbyterian Church, et al.

v. Remedial Case 213-2

Presbytery of Northern New England

This case has come before this Commission on appeal from a

decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the

Northeast (SPJC).

Pursuant to D-13.1200a, this Commission finds that it has

jurisdiction, that the Complainant has standing to appeal, that

the appeal was properly and timely filed, and that the appeal is

in order.

History

On April 20, 1997, as the vote of the presbyteries adopting what

is now G-6.0106b was drawing to its completion, the Session of

Christ Church Presbyterian, Burlington, Vermont, (Christ Church),

a particular church under the jurisdiction of the Presbytery of

Northern New England (Presbytery), adopted and issued a

Resolution of Dissent (Resolution). The Resolution asserted that

G-6.0106b was inconsistent with various other provisions of the

Book of Order that affirm inclusivity, and concluded, we vow to

continue welcoming persons living singly or in committed

relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, into the life,

membership and leadership of this congregation on an equal basis,

including eligibility for election and ordination as a ruling

elder or deacon. The Resolution was received by Presbytery at its

stated meeting on June 7, 1997. A similar resolution was

submitted by Mid-Coast Church, Topsham, Maine. Presbytery

authorized its moderator to appoint a committee to meet with the

dissenting churches regarding the resolutions. At a meeting of

the Presbytery held in March, 1998, the Presbytery adopted the

recommendation of the committee:

While affirming the right of both Christ Church and Mid-Coast

Church to express their opinions and feelings regarding the

eligibility requirements for ordination in the Presbyterian

Church (U.S.A.), the Presbytery of Northern New England cannot

affirm non compliance (sic) with the Book of Order, therefore it

instructs the sessions of Christ Church, Burlington VT and

Mid-Coast Church, Topsham ME to be in conformity with Book of

Order G-6.0106b as pertains to the ordination of elders and

deacons, and report such compliance to the Presbytery by the

March 1999 stated meeting.

While Mid-Coast Church did not protest the Presbytery order, on

June 18, 1998, Christ Church submitted a Report of the Session to

the Presbytery of Northern New England in which it stated hat it

could not in good conscience comply with G-6.0106b, without

harming deeply the church community that we have been called to

lead. The Presbytery Council subsequently formed what it termed

a response team. At the December 5, 1998, Presbytery meeting,

the response team presented four alternatives for Presbytery to

consider. The Presbytery adopted the alternative that the

Presbytery, acknowledge that Christ Church Presbyterian carries

on a valid and sacred ministry in Burlington; ... recognize that

the alleged inconsistencies do exist; ... [and] rescind its

action instructing the Session of Christ Church Presbyterian be

in compliance with G-6.0106b.

A protest was filed objecting to the Presbytery action, and a

stay of enforcement was granted on January 4, 1999. A complaint

against the Presbytery was subsequently filed on March 2, 1999.

The SPJC held a trial on October 8, 1999. It found that the

action of Presbytery to rescind its previous motion did not meet

the requirements of G-11.0103t.(2) to see that, orders of higher

governing bodies are observed and carried out, and that

Presbytery was required, at a minimum, to record in its minutes

its disapproval of the Session's action. Moreover, it found that

the motion was irregular because an action fulfilling an

affirmative duty of a governing body can only be in order if it

leaves in place some other action... which fulfills that duty.

The SPJC ordered the Presbytery to work pastorally with the

Session of Christ Church, with the ultimate goal of bringing them

into compliance with the Constitution.

The Respondent appealed the decision to this body, and the

Complainant/Appellee filed a cross-appeal.

Specifications of Error

The Respondent/Appellant cites five specifications of error

(restated for clarity and concision):

A-1. That SPJC erroneously concluded that the Presbytery's

rescission constituted an irregularity, in that the stated

intention of Christ Church and the action of Presbytery were in

compliance with G-6.0106b under the Authoritative Interpretation

adopted by the 1998 General Assembly.

This specification is not sustained.

While the authoritative interpretation adopted in 1998 requires

governing bodies to examine each officer-elect on the basis of

his or her individual character and behavior, it does not permit

a governing body to disregard ordination standards mandated by

the Constitution in the examination of those individuals. The

interpretation of G-6.0106b and G-4.0403 states: "Standing in

the tradition of breaking down the barriers erected to exclude

people based on their condition, such as age, race, class,

gender, and sexual orientation, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

commits itself 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." (Minutes,

1998, pp. 68, 166)

A-2. That SPJC erroneously concluded that the Presbytery's

rescission constituted an irregularity, in that various other

passages of the Form of Government (see Endnote 1) are

irreconcilable with the requirements of G-6.0106b;

A-3. That SPJC erroneously concluded that the Presbytery's

rescission constituted an irregularity, in that G-1.0301a and

G-6.0108 affirm freedom of conscience with respect to matters

addressed by G-6.0106b.

These specifications are not sustained.

It is not unusual for a document such as our Constitution,

written at different periods of time and under different

circumstances, to exhibit tensions and ambiguities in its

provisions. Nevertheless, it is the task of governing bodies and

judicial commissions to resolve them in such a way as to give

effect to all provisions. It is not within the power of any

governing body or judicial commission to declare a properly

adopted provision of the Constitution to be invalid. The only

appropriate avenue to change or remove a provision of the

Constitution is through the process for amendment provided within

the Constitution itself.

G-6.0106b presents the qualifications established by the

corporate judgment of the whole church for ordination to service

as minister of the Word and Sacrament, elder, and deacon. The

Historic Principles of Church Order are explicit as to the right

of the church to make and to enforce these standards:

That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common

right, every Christian Church, or union or association of

particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of

admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its

ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its

internal government which Christ hath appointed; that in the

exercise of this right they may, notwithstanding, err, in making

the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet, even in

this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of

others, but only make an improper use of their own. (G-1.0302)

The paradox illustrated in the instant case did not originate

with the adoption of G-6.0106b, but is inherent in the essentials

of our faith and our Constitution, as evidenced by the first two

Historic Principles of Church Order (G-1.0301 (see Endnote 2) and

G-1.0302).

A-4. That SPJC erred in its conclusion that the action of

Presbytery rescinding its original order to comply with G-6.0106b

constituted an erroneous decision or action, and hence an

irregularity.

This specification is sustained.

As a matter of procedure, Presbytery had a right to rescind its

previous action. In so doing, it did not commit an irregularity.

However, the rescission did not release the Presbytery from its

responsibility to act (see discussion under A-5 below).

A-5.That SPJC erred in declaring that the rescission of an action

requires some other action which fulfills a duty.

This specification is not sustained.

In the instant case, it is not the act of rescission itself which

is in question, but the oversight obligations of Presbytery.

Appellant is correct in its claim that Robert's Rules of Order do

not require any action following a rescission. However, the

judgment of the SPJC was not grounded on Robert's Rules, but on

G-11.0103t(2) and G-9.0409. While there is no accusation of an

action by Christ Church regarding an improper ordination or

installation, its statements clearly went beyond a mere

expression of opinion and gave a reasonable basis for concern

that violations may have already occurred or might occur.

Therefore, Presbytery had an obligation to make at least a

minimal response.

Rescinding the original order to comply with G-6.0106b created a

vacuum. Since Presbytery has responsibility for both pastoral

and administrative oversight of Christ Church, the primary

response is pastoral. This shall reaffirm the Presbytery's

connectional responsibility for the work and struggle of Christ

Church, while counseling Christ Church not to violate the

Constitution. This Commission reaffirms the right of decorous

dissent. An appropriate dissent may be expressed in various

ways; however, it may not include an intent by those who have

vowed to be governed by the church's polity to violate the

Constitution. Therefore, nothing in this decision shall be

construed to abridge the right of decorous dissent. Indeed, the

Second Helvetic Confession affirms that, it pleases God to use

the dissensions that arise in the church to the glory of his

name, to illustrate the truth, and in order that those who are in

the right might be manifest (I Cor. 11:19). (C-5.133)

Specifications of Error of Cross-Appeal

The Complainant/Cross-Appellant listed four specifications of

error in the notice of cross-appeal. Complainant/Cross-Appellant

subsequently abandoned two of these, and rephrased the remaining

two prior to the hearing on appeal. There was no objection at

the hearing to this modification.

C-1. That SPJC erred in not finding that the December 5, 1998

action of the Presbytery of Northern New England violated the

amendment process prescribed in G-18.0300.

This specification is not sustained.

By rescinding its former order, Presbytery did not invalidate any

provision of the Book of Order, or exempt Christ Church from its

obligation to act in conformity with the Constitution. If at any

time the Session of Christ Church were to ordain or install an

elder or deacon in violation of the Constitution, it would still

be subject to the discipline of the Church. Presbytery merely

withdrew its formal censure of Christ Church's Resolution.

C-2. That SPJC erred in not finding that the December 5, 1998

action of the Presbytery abdicated its duties and

responsibilities under any one or more of G-1.0302, G-1.0303,

G-4.0300a, G-9.0102b and G-9.0409, and not just under

G-11.0103t(2).

This specification is not sustained.

It is sufficient for a judicial commission to base its decision

on Holy Scripture and the Constitution of the Church. It is not

an error to fail to cite all passages and provisions that might

apply to a given case, unless failure to consider them would

alter the decision or order.

Discussion

This case raises fundamental questions about the paradoxical

nature of Christian liberty within the covenant community of the

Church, especially as it relates to the freedom of governing

bodies to dissent from Constitutional standards of faith and

conduct.

There is a natural tension between God alone being the Lord of

the conscience and the Church being a covenant community. The

covenantal nature of the Church requires the exercise of mutual

accountability between both individuals and governing bodies. In

Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus instructs the disciples concerning how

this accountability is to be exercised within the church. Our

Lord also strictly warned the disciples concerning the spiritual

peril of allowing a brother or sister to stumble in sin (Matthew

18:6-7). The confessions also echo this covenantal

responsibility (C-9.38, 5.163). When an individual or governing

body threatens to move from verbal dissent to active

disobedience, it is the obligation of the covenant community to

seek to prevent the dissenting party from falling into contumacy.

This begins as an act of pastoral care, but may become an act of

church discipline (D-1.0103).

The Second Helvetic Confession speaks extensively of the Church

as a covenant community with Christ alone as its head

(C-5.124-.141). While our culture prizes individualism, the

nature of the Church as a covenant community under the Lordship

of Christ implies that no individual or segment of the Church

exists unto itself (I Corinthians 12:14-27). Indeed, because of

our propensity to sin and self-interest, we must look to the

collected wisdom of the whole Church as an aid to continual

self-examination and the grace of repentance. For this reason,

we seek the will of God corporately as a covenant community. For

the same reason, our consciences are free, but subject to the

headship of Christ and to the Church as a covenant community. As

a community bound by covenant with Christ as our head, we can

celebrate and encourage a diversity of opinion while faithfully

calling for conformity in action.

The Westminster Confession addresses Christian Liberty and

Liberty of Conscience in Chapter XXII (C-6.108ff.), from which is

derived the first historic principle of church order, That 'God

alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the

doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary

to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.'

(G-1.0301a) Here too, however, the confession is clear that

this liberty is to be exercised within bounds. These include

respect for and obedience to duly constituted authority

(C-6.111). While one is free to hold and decorously to advocate

ideas that are contrary to such authority, one may not act in

contravention of such authority (in this case, a properly enacted

provision of the Church's Constitution).

The Form of Government echoes these principles as they pertain

to church officers in G-6.0108a: It is necessary to the

integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in

it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed

faith and polity as expressed in the Confessions and the Form of

Government. So far as may be possible without serious departure

from these standards, without infringing on the rights and views

of others, and without obstructing the constitutional governance

of the church, freedom of conscience with respect to the

interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained.

A formal declaration by a governing body whose members have taken

the vow [to] be governed by our church's polity, and abide by its

discipline, not to comply with the express corporate judgment of

the Church in an explicit constitutional provision exceeds the

constitutional bounds of freedom of conscience and therefore

requires a response on the part of the governing body exercising

oversight. Because the statements of Session raise a reasonable

basis for concern that the Constitution may be violated,

Presbytery neglected its duty to help Christ Church to apprehend

and to embrace both the blessings and responsibilities, the grace

and obligation, of living in covenant community.

In the process of providing counsel and guidance to sessions and

congregations, presbyteries should not lose sight of the special

relationship that exists between particular churches and their

presbyteries. It is a relationship that is built on mutual trust

and accountability among those parties and with the larger

church.

Presbyteries are responsible to particular churches for providing

guidance. Particular churches rely on presbyteries for this

guidance. Presbyteries are likewise accountable to the larger

church for upholding the Constitution. They are also responsible

for dealing fairly and honestly in upholding these connectional

obligations.

Decision

This Commission finds that there are no constitutional grounds

for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision

of the Constitution, however inartfully stated. Assertions of

inconsistency, confusion, or ambiguity may justify the right to

protest. They do not create a right to disregard any part of the

Constitution. Furthermore, no court in our denomination has the

authority to amend the Constitution or to invalidate any part of

it. This is exclusively a legislative process (G-18.0300).

SPJC correctly ruled that Presbytery's action was insufficient.

Presbytery had a right to rescind its original order. However,

in so doing without further action, Presbytery was delinquent in

failing to fulfill its responsibility of oversight (G-11.0103g

and G-11.0103t) to care for and to counsel Christ Church not to

violate the Constitution. Because other constitutional remedies

are available to the Presbytery than those stated in the original

order, the order of SPJC to void the rescission and to reinstate

the original order was in error.

Order

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the decision of the SPJC be affirmed

with the following modifications: (1) to reinstate the action of

Presbytery rescinding its original order, and (2) to require the

Presbytery to exercise pastoral and administrative oversight of

Christ Church as herein stated;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Presbytery of Northern New England

continue to work pastorally with the Session of Christ Church to

assist it in fulfilling its obligation to comply with the

Constitution. The Presbytery of Northern New England shall

notify in writing the Session of Christ Church Presbyterian,

Burlington, Vermont of its concern over the stated intention of

the Session not to comply with G-6.0106b, and warn it of the

spiritual effects and disciplinary consequences of

non-compliance. A notation of this correspondence shall be

recorded in the Presbytery minutes.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stated Clerk of the Synod of the

Northeast report this Decision to Synod at its first meeting

after receipt, that a copy of this Decision be entered into the

minutes and that an excerpt of those minutes showing entry of the

Decision be sent to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly; and

that the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Northern New England

report this decision to the Presbytery at its first meeting after

receipt, that the Presbytery enter the full decision upon its

minutes, and that an excerpt from those minutes showing entry of

the decision be sent to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly.

Dated this 7th day of July, 2000.

Concurring Opinion in part; Dissenting Opinion in part by

Patricia K. Norris

I concur with the Commission's order reinstating the Presbytery's

action rescinding its March 1998 motion and requiring it to

exercise appropriate oversight and counseling of Christ Church.

And, I agree with much of what the Commission has said regarding

the nature of Christian liberty within the Church. I dissent,

however, from the parts of the Commission's opinion which suggest

that Christ Church's statements violated the Constitution.

The fundamental issue in this case is whether the Presbytery

violated G-11.0103t.(2) (seeing that the orders of higher

governing bodies are observed and carried out) when, on December

5, 1998, it rescinded its March 7, 1998 motion instructing

sessions of two churches to be in conformity with Book of Order

G-6.0106b as pertains to the ordination of elders and deacons,

and report such compliance to the Presbytery...The answer is no.

The Presbytery's March 7, 1998 motion and subsequent rescission

arose out of an April 1997 resolution of dissent by the Session

of Christ Church Presbyterian, Burlington, Vermont. Endorsed by

unanimous vote of the Christ Church congregation, the resolution

vowed to continue welcoming persons living singly or in committed

relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, into the life,

membership and leadership of the congregation on an equal basis,

including eligibility for election and ordination as a ruling

elder or deacon. After Christ Church reported to the Presbytery

in response to the March 1998 motion that it had not found a way

to be in compliance with G-6.0106b without deeply harming its

community, the Presbytery rescinded its March 1998 motion,

acknowledging that Christ Church was carrying out a valid and

sacred ministry and recognizing that inconsistencies existed

between G-6.0106b and other portions of the Book of Order.

In rescinding the prior motion, the Presbytery did not state,

directly or indirectly, or indicate in any way that it would not

enforce G-6.0106b in a matter properly before it. Within our

system of governance, a presbytery is entrusted with judgement

and discretion as to how and when it will respond to allegedly

irregular or delinquent conduct by a lower governing body. This

constitutional grant of discretion does not sanction attempts of

a lower governing body to nullify or disregard the law of the

Church as constitutionally determined by a higher governing body.

But, in the constitutional exercise of its judgment and

discretion, a presbytery may elect to deal with a particular

situation in a variety of ways, consistent with its obligations

under G-11.0103t.(2). This Commission recognized this very

principle in Central Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Long

Island (Minutes, 1996, p. 173).

The importance of recognizing and preserving such discretion is

of critical importance in this case. It is undisputed, as

Appellee acknowledged, that no ordination or attempted ordination

by Christ Church in violation of constitutional standards was at

issue. No evidence was presented, as Appellee also admitted,

that either Christ Church or the Presbytery had taken any action,

remedial or otherwise, inconsistent with denominational

ordination policy. The Church's ordination standards are not

violated through disagreement, objection, and protest, or even by

advocacy of unconstitutional action at some indefinite time in

the future. Compliance with ordination standards is to be

determined by considering the lives and behaviors of candidates

as individuals. (Minutes, 1998, p. 166) (Authoritative

Interpretation).

Appellee asserts, nevertheless, that this case is governed by

this Commission's decision in Union Presbyterian Church of

Blasdell, New York v. Presbytery of Western New York (Minutes,

1985, p.120). In that case, this Commission held that a session

had committed an irregularity in adopting a resolution proposing

a course of action contrary to established Church ordination

policy and that a presbytery was required to take corrective

action to deal with this irregularity.

Appellee's reliance on Blasdell is misplaced. First, Blasdell

was decided before the adoption of Amendment B and before the

1998 Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0106b. Under the 1998

Authoritative Interpretation, as explained above, conduct and

behavior, not statements of protest and intent, are determinative

for compliance and, conversely, non-compliance, with

constitutional standards for ordination.

Second, Blasdell was decided before this Commission's decision in

Presbytery of West Jersey v. Synod of the Northeast (Minutes,

1993, p. 181). This Commission distinguished between expressions

of opinion and actions in violation of constitutional

requirements, stating as follows:

Expression of an opinion by a synod or other governing body,

without action, does not constitute the adoption of a policy

contrary to an established and controlling constitutional policy

of the denomination.

Each case must be decided on the facts presented. Here, the

resolutions passed by the synod and challenged by the presbytery

before this commission do not compel or direct any action (or

inaction) and do not extend any rights (including the right to be

ordained) that contravene any stated positions of this church.

Appellee raises two additional arguments in requesting

affirmation of the Synod PJC's decision. First, Appellee asserts

that the Presbytery was barred from rescinding its March 1998

motion because rescission left Christ Church's resolution in

place, without correction or disapproval by the Presbytery. For

the reasons expressed above, the Appellee is mistaken.

Second, citing Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery (UPCUSA, Minutes,

1975, p. 254), Appellee asserts that the Presbytery was required

to take corrective action concerning Christ Church's resolution

because it expressed an intent not to conform to Church

ordination policies. In Maxwell, a presbytery voted to ordain a

minister who was unable to answer the ordination questions in the

affirmative. The ordination was stayed. The General Assembly

held that the Presbytery's action violated the Constitution. In

so doing, the General Assembly did not challenge the right of the

minister to his beliefs: It is not seemly to challenge the right

of [the minister] to his beliefs, but it is the responsibility of

our Church to deny ordination to one who has refused to ordain

women. Maxwell did not hold that a statement of intent

constituted a violation of the Constitution. The constitutional

breach in Maxwell was the presbytery's decision to ordain a

person in violation of the Constitution, not the minister's

statement of intent. Here, the Presbytery has not sanctioned the

ordination of anyone contrary to denomination requirements.

In obedience to Jesus Christ, the church is open to the reform of

its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church

affirms 'ecclesia reformarta, semper reformanda,' that is, 'the

church reformed, always reforming,' according to the word of God

and the call of the spirit. (G-2.0200).

Dissent, advocacy of the unpopular and even proclamations of

intent are ways to express truth to power, to induce change and

to encourage the church reformed, always reforming.

Although the Presbytery, in accordance with its connectional

obligations should counsel with Christ Church to ensure

constitutional compliance, the Presbytery's rescission of its

March 1998 motion did not constitute an irregularity.

Endnotes

1. G-3.0401, G-4.0403, G-5.0103, G-5.0202, G-10.0102(l),

and G-11.0103a, b, g, and n.

2. G-1.0301(1)(a): "That 'God alone is Lord of the

conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and

commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word,

or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.'"; G-1.0301(1)(b):

"Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all

matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable: We

do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the

civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and

security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all

others."

-0-