GA official warns of possible ‘disciplinary actions’ Kirkpatrick says warning ‘is not an advisory opinion of the stated clerk’ By Parker T. Williamson The Presbyterian Layman Nov/Dec, 1997 Mark Tammen, manager of Polity, Guidance and Training in the Office of the General Assembly, is warning ministers that they face possible disciplinary action, if they and certain members of their session advocate non-payment of per capita funds in their session meetings. Tammen’s warning was conveyed to Rev. James Tony, minister of the Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church in Palos Park, Ill., via e-mail on Oct. 14, 1997. Tony had written a letter to the editor of Presbyterians Today, the official magazine of the denomination, criticizing an interview with Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick in which the clerk had equated Covenants of Dissent (refusal to obey the Constitution) with decisions by local church sessions not to pay their per capita contributions to the General Assembly. Tony’s letter cited Book of Order G-10-0102i, which grants to church sessions the inalienable right to determine the disposition of all congregational offerings. He also cited the 1992 decision of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission that said sessions cannot be coerced to pay per capita, nor can they be punished by higher governing bodies for their refusal to do so. After reading Tammen’s communication, Tony wrote the stated clerk on Oct. 24, to ascertain if he shared Tammen’s opinion. Early the next week, not having received a response, Tony sent a reminder of his request to the stated clerk’s office. Claims stated clerk support Tammen responded with a phone call. He said he doubted the stated clerk would have expressed himself in the same words, but that the clerk, he believed, would stand by his constitutional rationale. Asked whether there was any judicial precedent to support his interpretation, Tammen invoked a 1755 Synod case, admitting that it was not much of a precedent. Tammen then asked that his interpretation of the Constitution not be published so that the clerk’s office could respond to individual questions privately. He indicated that his office has already shared this warning with “several ministers” who have called the stated clerk’s office to discuss withholding or redirecting per capita contributions. He added that if his opinion is reported in the press, it might have the effect of igniting disciplinary cases. Tony decided to report Tammen’s interpretation in light of the fact that the stated clerk’s office is making it public by sharing it with ministers individually. “If they really believe that ministers and elders who advocate redirecting per capita are putting themselves at risk, then they should make that belief public,” said Tony. A punishable offense? Tammen argues that if the minister and elders from a local church attend a presbytery meeting that votes for per capita, they are obliged to advocate that decision subsequently when it comes up in their session meetings. Apparently, Tammen believes that other members of the session may voice and vote their convictions in opposition to making the per capita payment, but that those particular members who attended the presbytery meeting are, according to Tammen, bound to represent the position of the presbytery, and they risk being subject to disciplinary charges if they do not do so. In order for a disciplinary case to be filed against individuals, as Tammen suggests may become inevitable, there has to be an allegation of offense. The Book of Order defines an offense as “any act or omission … that is contrary to the Scriptures or the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).” To make that assertion is to say, in effect, that participating in an act of a session that is constitutional is a violation of the Constitution. Reflecting on Tammen’s interpretation, Tony considered a hypothetical case: if a minister or elder was a commissioner to the Syracuse General Assembly that approved Amendment A, would they commit a punishable offense if they speak against its ratification in their presbytery meeting? Seeking a retraction Given the opportunity to correct or modify his subordinate’s comments, Clifton Kirkpatrick did not do so. On Oct. 29, the stated clerk sent a message to Tony, saying, “I will not bring charges or encourage people to bring charges for disciplinary action against anyone urging the withholding of per capita apportionments. However, I do believe that the propensity of both sides in the current dispute to resort to extra constitutional means [emphasis added] will inevitably lead to more disciplinary cases, which I do not believe is helpful to the church.” Tony responded, “I remain unclear whether or not you intend to agree with Mr. Mark A. Tammen’s constitutional reasoning, if not his wording.” Citing Tammen’s statement that he believes Kirkpatrick agrees with his line of reasoning, Rev. Tony asked, “Does that mean that you now intend to inform the church that advocating nonpayment of per capita is an “offense” as defined by D-2.0302b, which gives the grounds for disciplinary action?” “Not an advisory opinion” On Oct. 31, in a telephone interview with the Presbyterian Layman, Kirkpatrick said that Tammen’s interpretation “is not an advisory opinion of the stated clerk.” The clerk continued, “There is a fine line between opposing the action of a governing body as a matter of conscience and taking efforts to undermine the implementation of a governing body decision.” Asked if this means that he agrees with Tammen’s interpretation, Kirkpatrick declined to answer. Also speaking with the Layman on Oct. 31, Mark Tammen restated his interpretation, saying, “The polity seems clear, at least theoretically.” Tammen added that neither he nor the stated clerk had any intention to enforce it by taking any action against anyone urging the withholding of per capita apportionments. He said that his statements to ministers should be received as “pastoral advice to those who are placing themselves at a potential risk … I’m not using this advice as a threat,” he said, “but as a warning.” Asked how he would respond to ministers who interpret his words as a threat or an attempt at intimidation, Tammen said, “If they perceive it as a threat, that would sadden me.” Per capita protests spreading The Presbyterian Layman has learned that many local church sessions are actively discussing the per capita issue, and growing numbers of these churches are redirecting their per capita contributions to alternative ministries. The session of Peachtree Presbyterian Church in Atlanta, Ga., the largest congregation in the denomination, has approved payment of only one half of its per capita apportionment. The executive committee of the 4,000-member First Presbyterian Church in Orlando, Fla., has made a recommendation to its session that in response to the actions of the Syracuse General Assembly it will redirect its per capita contribution to the Presbyterian Coalition, a network of independent renewal organizations working within the Presbyterian Church (USA). Per capita protests are not limited to the denomination’s mega churches. First Presbyterian Church in Nappanee, Ind. wrote to the stated clerk: “We will not send money to be used by the denomination to support efforts we believe are wrong ... .” At the Gathering II, a rally of more than 1,100 Presbyterian leaders in Dallas, Texas, scores of ministers and elders went to microphones during a “speak out” plenary session to advocate cutting off the supply lines to denominational leaders whose policies have undermined Reformed faith and practice. |
|
|
Home
· The
Presbyterian Layman ·
News |
|
