GAPJC backs presbytery’s
intervention against two
churches seeking dismissal
By John H. Adams, The Layman, Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008
The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) handed down a sweeping ruling on Oct. 27 that will have a chilling effect on church leaders who take steps to revise their property and incorporation documents and/or request dismissal to another Reformed denomination.
The case is titled Robert Sundquist et al v. Heartland Presbytery. The GAPJC upheld the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Mid-America which ruled against the complainants on four of their five specifications of error and held that presbytery powers trump congregational desires for dismissal.
Broad power
The decision of the highest court in the Presbyterian Church (USA) grants presbyteries broad powers to deal aggressively and punitively with congregations and their pastors and elders. It warned church leaders that “calling congregational meetings, moving churches to seek dismissal from the denomination or obstructing constitutional governance are [unconstitutional] actions, not expressions of free conscience.”
Although not directly an issue in the specifications by the GAPJC, the commission’s opinion further proclaimed: “There shall not be any secret or secretive acts by sessions, pastors or congregations; bylaw changes or transfers of assets effectively negating the Book of Order or diminishing a church’s connection to the PC(USA); or curtailment of communications with the presbytery as a prelude to dismissal. Congregational meetings called or conducted by sessions for the purpose of voting on dismissal without the involvement of the presbytery are improper and have no binding effect.”
The case involved two congregations in Kansas, First Presbyterian Church in Paola and Hillsdale Presbyterian Church in Hillsdale. Without prior approval of the Heartland Presbytery, both churches held congregational meetings to discuss their relationship with the denomination and voted to seek dismissal to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The Paola vote was 200 in favor of leaving the PCUSA and 81 against. The Hillsdale congregation favored dismissal by a vote of 77-5.
‘Privilege,’ not a ‘right’
The GAPJC declared such actions “a privilege,” granted only by presbyteries, and not “a right,” and ruled they were in violation of the PCUSA Constitution. It said the pastors and church officers did not have the authority under the Book of Order to call the meetings or have congregations vote on dismissal and stated:
“Congregational meetings called or conducted by sessions for the purpose of voting on dismissal without the involvement of the presbytery are improper and have no binding effect.”
The decision referred to a resolution adopted by the 218th General Assembly that called for gracious pastoral response by presbyteries to congregations considering leaving the denomination. But the ruling emphasized only the resolution’s application to congregations. “Thus congregations, sessions and pastors who fail to abide by the principles of the Resolution for a Gracious, Pastoral Response … shall have breached important responsibilities and duties.”
Lesbian ‘wedding’ cited in ruling
Ironically, the GAPJC ruling makes a reference to a case it settled earlier this year when it ruled that lesbian activist Jane Adams Spahr did not violate the Constitution of the PCUSA
when she presided at the weddings of lesbian couples. The court said she could not be disciplined because the PCUSA recognized only marriages between a man and a woman.
It used the Spahr reference as the lead-in to its comments about freedom of conscience:
Rather than describing freedom of conscience in any absolute way, G-6.0108 declares the manner in which the conscience of an officer of the church is bound. The binding of the conscience of an officer of the church permits freedom of conscience with regard to the interpretation of Scripture only insofar as it 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.”(G-6.0108a) Submission to the current standards of the church may not always be comfortable, but it is not optional.
While the GAPJC affirmed the freedom of conscience clause, it added, “Free expression of conscience is limited for officers and pastors under G-6.0108b, and does not encompass the calling of congregational meetings, moving churches to seek dismissal from the denomination or obstructing constitutional governance of the church.”
The ruling includes numerous references to the unity of the PCUSA, but none to its doctrinal standards or moral requirements. It quoted a resolution by the 218th General Assembly that declared that the Book of Order authorizes congregational meetings for only five purposes: electing church officers; the call of a pastor; dealing with the relationship of the congregation to the pastor; discussions and action on buying, mortgaging or selling real property; considering permissive power of the session or asking the presbytery to exempt a congregation from a requirement because of its limited size. The GAPJC endorsed that limit and entertained no possibility of a congregational meeting for a vote to request dismissal.
Specification of errors
The complaint’s appeal alleged that the presbytery committed five errors in establishing its administrative commission to deal with the congregations considering requesting dismissal from the PCUSA by:
- … empowering an Administrative Commission to assume original jurisdiction of the session of one or more particular churches within its bounds without having complied fully with the requirements of G-11.0103s, viz, an affirmative determination that a session cannot exercise its authority and a prior thorough investigation and a prior and full opportunity for the subject session to be heard.
- … empowering an Administrative Commission to dissolve a pastoral relationship prior to discharging its affirmative duty to make findings to establish that the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands the dissolution (G-11.0103o).
- … delegating to its Committee on Ministry and its Council the authority to sub-delegate to any subcommittee its powers to “divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103a) and “to dissolve [the pastoral relationship] … when it finds that the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands it” (G-11.0103e).
- … empowering the Administrative Commission to assume the full powers and jurisdiction of the Session when “a Session calls a congregational meeting for the purpose of considering actions leading to separation from the PCUSA,” effectively preventing a Session from exercising its right, implicit in G-15.0203b, to call for a congregational meeting to consider requesting dismissal from the PC(USA) to another reformed denomination in correspondence with the PC(USA).
- … making powers of the Administrative Commission effective “when it should become evident to the Commission that minister(s) or congregation member(s) are moving toward expressing a desire for separation and that reconciliation is not likely” violating the requirement of G-1.0307 that “no Church governing body ought to pretend to make laws to bind the conscience in virtue of their own authority.”
No clarification
The synod PJC sustained only the specification of error 4, saying, “The Administrative Commission, acting
under powers delegated by the presbytery at the presbytery’s June 16th, 2007 meeting, must make one of these determinations [that a session cannot exercise its authority or that the session of a particular church is unable or unwilling to manage wisely the affairs of its church] before assuming the powers and jurisdiction of a session and may not assume such powers and jurisdiction merely because the session has called a meeting for the purpose of considering actions that may lead to separation from PC(USA).”
On appeal, complainants urged the GAPJC to clarify that opinion, arguing that the Book of Order required the presbytery to make affirmative determinations before an administrative commission can be granted powers of original jurisdiction.
But in the lengthy section of the opinion, the GAPJC did not respond directly to the request for clarification.
The complainants said, “The entire Heartland motion is directed at churches and ministers that ‘are considering withdrawal,’ or ‘are moving toward expressing a desire for separation,’ or that might call a congregational meeting for ‘considering actions leading to separation.’ It is obvious that the real purpose of the COM Motion is to utterly chill, if not foreclose, constitutionally permitted requests for dismissal by any congregation in Heartland Presbytery through the threat of dissolution of pastoral relationships. Heartland’s Motion was ill-conceived, the AC was unconstitutionally formed, and the AC’s sweeping powers were improperly subdelegated.”