wfn.org | [PCUSANEWS] News mixed for Lay Committee chief

[PCUSA NEWS <PCUSA.NEWS@ECUNET.ORG>]

Note #8706 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS:

05193
April 6, 2005

News mixed for Lay Committee chief

PJC faults process, orders presbytery, Williamson to try to reconcile

by Evan Silverstein

LOUISVILLE - The Rev. Parker T. Williamson, chief executive officer of the
Presbyterian Lay Committee and editor in chief of its publications, got some
good news and some bad news this week from the General Assembly Permanent
Judicial Commission (PJC).

	The goods news was that the April 4 ruling sustained his argument
that Western North Carolina presbytery did not provide adequate written
criteria for evaluating validated ministries before it moved last year to
withdraw its validation of Williamson's.

	The bad news was that the commission did not sustain a number of
other allegations of error he'd made in his appeal - that the presbytery was
wrong to consider the history and past editorial policies of the Lay
Committee's publication, The Layman, in reaching its decisions; that
presbytery officials refused to read and consider relevant materials he had
provided; and that the evidence presented was simply insufficient to warrant
the invalidation of his ministry.

	Williamson's Lay Committee ministry came under dispute in late 2003
when the presbytery's Committee on Ministry (COM) recommended against a
renewal of his validation.

	In January 2004, the presbytery voted 150-106 to withdraw the
validation and change Williamson's status to member-at-large.

	Williamson appealed the decision to the synod PJC and eventually to
the General Assembly PJC, the highest church court.

	The GA commission ruled that its synod-level counterpart was wrong to
order the presbytery to take no action regarding the validation of
Williamson's ministry for one year. It said that order improperly prevented
the presbytery from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities.

	"The development and use of written criteria is mandatory," the
ruling said. "Presbytery has not complied with this requirement because it
did not develop or utilize written criteria." The presbytery policy said only
that the criteria to be used "shall be the pertinent references in the Book
of Order." The GA PJC said that was "not sufficient."

	Williamson, a member of the presbytery since 1971, was happy with the
ruling on written criteria, which he called a "key issue."

	"I was delighted that we won on the key issue in our appeals," said
Williamson, who was pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Lenoir, NC, before
going to work for the Lay Committee in 1989. "Namely that a presbytery must
have written criteria. That was the most important element about our appeal,
and while we wish we could have won on every procedural detail, that one was
pivotal."

	Williamson appealed the presbytery's decision to the synod PJC in
March 2004. That put the presbytery's action and his status on hold.

	That September, the synod court found that Western North Carolina
Presbytery had failed to provide Williamson "adequate due process and
fundamental fairness" (a finding that the presbytery did not appeal), and
ordered the presbytery and Williamson to work together in developing a
presbytery-wide plan of reconciliation.

	The presbytery appealed the reconciliation order and asked to be
permitted to start a new validation inquiry in the meantime.

	The Rev. James E. Aydelotte, interim stated clerk of the presbytery,
conceded that the process was flawed. "Once it was decided not to validate
his ministry, we should have provided him with a concise statement of 'why
not,' and we should have given it to him as soon as possible, and we
shouldn't have raised any issues after that," he said. "We thought we were
being very fair, and we tried to be, but they (the PJC) felt that it would be
best to do those extra things. So we will do them in the future."

	Aydelotte said the presbytery has suspended all validation reviews
until a task force has time to draft new evaluation guidelines.

	"Surely we will be able to get that done in two or three months, I
would think," he added.

	The GA PJC's ruling did not sustain Williamson's claim that the synod
judicial commission had erred in its handing of the case. 

	Williamson argued that the synod commission should have ruled that
the presbytery acted improperly after the Lay Committee published a
"Declaration of Conscience" that urged church sessions to "prayerfully
consider" withholding per-capita and mission funds from the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.), on the grounds that its leaders have not been faithful to
Biblical standards.

	He argued that the recommendation against his ministry was based, not
on evidence, but on opinion - especially about the "Declaration," which the
board of the Presbyterian Lay Committee approved and signed in October 1993.

	Williamson argued that his endorsement and support of the document is
"constitutionally protected speech."

	But the GA PJC said: "This argument is not persuasive in view of the
finding by the SPJC that presbytery's action was not based on any opinions
Williamson may have expressed or on any respectful dissent he may have
offered."

	The commission also said in its ruling that "no retaliatory action"
was taken against Williamson; that the "editorial policy espoused by The
Layman is not consonant with presbytery's mission," and that "The Layman is
an institution wholly unrelated to the PC(USA), and not subject to its
discipline."

	The commission rejected the presbytery's argument that the synod
commission didn't have the authority to order a presbytery-wide process of
reconciliation and had overstepped its "constitutional bounds."

	It said the synod court "clearly had authority to order a plan for a
process of reconciliation."

	Because Williamson based much of his argument on the issue of freedom
of conscience, the court addressed the issue directly, saying: "One of the
historic and widely quoted statements of the PC(USA) is 'That God alone is
Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men which are anything contrary to his Word ... in matters of
faith and worship.'"

	However, it said, G-6.0108b of the Book of Order says: "It is to be
recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience
within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as
interpreted in the standards of the church. ... Every Presbyterian minister
should remember that by his ordination he has voluntarily limited his
freedom."

	It said Williamson "may exercise his freedom of conscience only
within the bounds prescribed by the covenant community."

	The PJC said in conclusion: "The burden is ... on the minister
seeking validation to demonstrate that his or her ministry is 'consonant with
the mission of the presbytery.' ... Thus, COM and presbytery were not bound
by a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, as Williamson argues."

To subscribe or unsubscribe, please send an email to
pcusanews-subscribe-request@halak.pcusa.org or
pcusanews-unsubscribe-request@halak.pcusa.org

To contact the owner of the list, please send an email to
pcusanews-request@halak.pcusa.org