A safe harbor for those who have been or are being subjected to harm as they stand for Biblical Truth’
By Craig M. Kibler, June 22, 2007
HIGHLANDS RANCH, Colo. – Commissioners to the 27th General Assembly were told Thursday that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church “must be willing to respond to His calling during the window of opportunity He is opening for the EPC to be a safe harbor for those who have been or are being subjected to harm as they stand for Biblical Truth.”
That comment came during an explanation of a Permanent Judicial Commission ruling that a proposal to create non-geographic, transitional presbyteries is compatible with the denomination’s Constitution and did not violate it.
Commissioners this week will consider a proposal that would create two administrative commissions – one for churches and pastors desiring transitional membership in established geographic EPC presbyteries, and another for those seeking to join a transitional, non-geographic New Wineskins Association of Churches-Evangelical Presbyterian Church Presbytery.
John Graham, moderator of the denomination’s nine-member Permanent Judicial Commission, told the nearly 1,000 commissioners in the worship center at Cherry Hills Community Church for the June 20-23 General Assembly that his commission “takes no joy from the conflict which is occurring between His people in Christ’s Church.”
Graham said the Permanent Judicial Commission believed it was “necessary to provide a rationale for its decision from our interpretation of our Constitution and not just from the ‘excitement’ of the facts and circumstances of the proposal or the apparent urgency to some degree in taking action at the 27th General Assembly.”
Unanimously in favor of proposal
Although the Permanent Judicial Commission “was not called upon to express support for or against the proposal,” Graham said that, “we, however, must and did make it a part of our record that, in our deliberations, we became unanimously in favor of the proposal. We state this to remind ourselves that, in that event, our responsibility to make our response … is based only upon our Constitution and our interpretation of its meaning in this particular case.”
Later, by voice vote, commissioners overwhelmingly voted to sustain the Permanent Judicial Commission’s interpretation.
In explaining the Permanent Judicial Commission’s action, Graham said the committee on administration had asked it to review a “Proposal to General Assembly, Structure of Receiving Churches Transitionally,” dated Dec. 13, 2006.
The Permanent Judicial Commission, he said, “determined that the proposal is compatible with the provisions of the Constitution of the church and not in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, and therefore may be presented as a motion to the General Assembly to be acted upon by the General Assembly as an act of the assembly and is not an amendment to the Constitution requiring action under G.17-2 of the Book of Government.”
In explaining the reasons for the decision, Graham said the Permanent Judicial Commission “does not view or determine the proposal as one requesting any amendment to the Constitution. The Permanent Judicial Commission does view and determine that the proposal is one requiring action by the General Assembly. The authority for this action being taken by the General Assembly as an act of the assembly not requiring an amendment to the Constitution is clearly given in G 16-22.C, in which the General Assembly has the power to establish presbyteries. There is nothing in that provision that makes any differentiation as between a permanent presbytery established in a geographical boundary and a transitional presbytery that might be established without a geographical boundary. Thus, it is quite clear that this authority, regardless of status or type, is vested with the General Assembly unless otherwise prevented by the Constitution. The Permanent Judicial Commission found no such prevention.”
He also referred to G 16-22H in the Book of Government, which sets forth “how vital and important it is to organize for the propagation of the Gospel and the advancement of the Kingdom. G 16-22.1 gives the General Assembly the duty to provide services to the presbyteries and to help in conjunction with presbyteries that the whole church may be effective in its total ministry. Indeed, the Permanent Judicial Commission recognizes the proposal as being exactly that, and this is clearly stated in the second paragraph of the proposal.”
Limited period of time
Graham also called the limited period of time in the proposal “very significant. The five-year ‘sunset’ is an important element in causing the proposal not to require an amendment to the Constitution.”
Under the proposal, he said, a particular church “may, at any time, seek to become united with the EPC on a permanent basis by application to the presbytery in whose bounds that church is located and the regular process of our Constitution would then occur. Simply stated, the proposal is not intended to be or organize a permanent governance structure whatsoever. Congregations or associations or groups of congregations who seek to become a member of the EPC on a transitional basis are not seeking to join except as transitional, which makes good and common sense and provides a reasonable time to accomplish a complete transition in an orderly fashion. This is nowhere prohibited in the Constitution. As transitional members the churches, persons and organizations are members, but limited in rights, duties and obligations. This is nowhere prohibited in our Constitution.”
Craig M. Kibler is the Director of Publications for the Presbyterian Lay Committee and Executive Editor of The Layman and The Layman Online. He can be reached at cmkibler@layman.org.