wfn.org | Church court says presbytery may not remain silent

[PCUSA NEWS <PCUSA.NEWS@ecunet.org>]

Note #6119 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS:

13-July-2000
00256

Church court says presbytery may not remain silent
when a congregation intends to disregard the constitution 

by Alexa Smith

LOUISVILLE, Ky. –- A presbytery may not be silent when a church within its
boundaries says that it will violate the constitution of the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.), the denomination's highest court ruled on July 7.
	In its decision, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission said
that there are limits to dissent, and ordered the Presbytery of New England
to "work pastorally" with the session of Christ Church Presbyterian, of
Burlington, Vt., to comply with the PC(USA) constitution.
	 Christ Church, a 70-member congregation, announced four years ago that it
did not intend to comply with a much-debated provision that, de facto,
forbids the ordination of gays and lesbians by restricting sexual activity
of ordained church leaders to marriage.
	Since the provision —  known as G-0106.b, or Amendment B  —  was decisively
voted into the constitution in 1997, gay "marriages" are automatically
banned by church law, and gay church-goers are categorically excluded from
serving as ordained leaders. The constitution defines "marriage" as between
"a man and a woman."
	Outreach to the gay community has been a hallmark of the ministry of Christ
Church, which is co-pastored by the husband-and-wife team of Rebecca Strader
and Michael Brown.
	In its much-awaited decision, the PJC drew a carefully worded distinction
between Reformed emphases on the individual conscience and what it means to
be accountable in covenant community. Citing Biblical texts, it concluded
that there is a difference between protest and defying that covenant, and
that there "are no constitutional grounds for a governing body to fail to
comply with an express provision of the constitution. . . . 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," it
said.
	The document can only be changed through a legislative process.
	In the case of Christ Church, the decision is more specific.
	The presbytery is ordered to "exercise pastoral and administrative
oversight of Christ Church" by putting in writing its concerns about the
session's stated intent to defy G-6.0106b. It is also instructed to warn the
church about the "spiritual effects" and "disciplinary consequences" of
non-compliance.
	The PJC said the Presbytery of Northern New England had neglected its duty
to help Christ Church understand and "embrace both the blessings and
responsibilities, the grace and obligation, of living in covenant
community," emphasizing that statements made by the session should have
prompted "reasonable concern."
	It said presbyteries must provide "counsel and guidance" to churches within
their boundaries. And in this case, it said, the presbytery had a
responsibility help the congregation determine what level of dissent is
appropriate under the constitution. The court went on to say that, when
individuals or governing bodies threaten to shift from verbal protest to
"active disobedience," the covenant community is obligated to intervene.
"This begins as an act of pastoral care," the decision says, "but may become
an act of church discipline (D-1.0103)."

	This case got under way when five sessions and 18 individuals filed a
complaint against the presbytery for having rescinded an order instructing
Christ Church to conform to G-6.0106b. The synod PJC upheld the complaint
and ordered the presbytery to "work pastorally" with the congregation to
bring Christ Church into compliance, and also to register its disapproval of
churches that disregard institutional policies.
	The Rev. James MacKellar, a member of the committee that represented the
litigants, issued a statement on July 13 that made it clear that the
committee interprets this decision as a win. He  has served at local,
regional and national church levels, including as a member of the Advisory
Committee on the Constitution.
	"This decision clearly supports the constitutional oneness of the PC(USA),"
he said, referring to arguments the litigants' lawyers used before the PJC
insisting that presbyteries do not have the right to contradict
constitutional standards in an historically connectional church. "It affirms
the basic principle that compliance is not a matter of local option when the
national denomination has embodied a position in its constitution. . . .
	"Both the synod and General Assembly PJCs required the presbytery to show
pastoral concern for the Burlington, Vt., church. The presbytery must also
have a concern for the whole PC(USA) and respect the authority of its duly
adopted constitution."
	Interestingly, the PJC did not uphold the complaint about the presbytery's
decision to rescind its earlier order, which it described as a parliamentary
choice. It said a presbytery always has the right to rescind an earlier
action, but when it has done so, cannot leave a vacuum. It agreed that the
presbytery was "delinquent" in taking no further action.
	After the synod decision, he presbytery did form a committee to visit with
all congregations concerned about G-6.0106b, including Christ Church and
some others that were offended by Christ Church's actions.
	The argument put before the PJC in May by the presbytery's attorney, Peter
Oddleifson of Rochester, N.Y., was that the church constitution contains
inconsistencies and ambiguities, and that G-0106.b does not abrogate other
parts of the constitution that uphold freedom of conscience and the rights
of church members to ordain leaders of their own choosing. Oddleifson is one
of the national liaisons for judicial issues for More Light Presbyterians, a
network of Presbyterians who support the ordination of gays, lesbians,
bisexual and transgendered people.
	The PJC did not sustain that argument.
	 It said: "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."
	Although the presbytery was still drafting a statement at press time,
Northern New England Presbytery Stated Clerk David Stoner told the
Presbyterian News Service that the presbytery will take no action before
this fall. The presbytery council is scheduled to meet in early September,
the presbytery on Oct. 14.

		 

_______________________________________________
pcusaNews mailing list
pcusaNews@pcusa.org

To unsubscribe, go to this web address:
http://pcusa01.pcusa.org/mailman/listinfo/pcusanews