By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, Posted Monday, January 27, 2003By changing the ballots already cast, the moderator and stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA) have declared that there will be no special meeting of the 214th General Assembly to consider constitutional issues.
During a press conference in Louisville on Monday, after nearly two weeks of exerting pressure on commissioners to change their minds, Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel declared that the petition to force the called meeting does not include enough signatures and Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick said “no further petitions are in order.”
When presented to the moderator on Jan. 14 by Dr. Alexander F. Metherell of Laguna Beach, Calif., the petition included 57 signatures – more than the number required to ensure, as the Book of Order says, that the moderator “shall” call the meeting. The clerk’s office eliminated the names of six ministers and seven elders, saying that they had changed their minds. He ignored the later signatures of two ministers, who, in reaction to attempts to torpedo the called meeting, joined the original 57.
But “there’s no provision for people to withdraw their names,” Metherell told The Layman Online after the press conference. “I believe the office of the stated clerk has acted completely contrary to the constitution and that this demonstrates a very sophisticated form of defiance on the part of the clerk. They are reading what they want the constitution to say, not what it actually says.”
The statements by the moderator and the clerk may not be the final word. The session of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Canton, Ohio, has filed a remedial complaint before the highest court in the denomination, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. The Westminster complaint accuses the moderator and stated clerk of failing to perform their constitutional duties to call the General Assembly back into session.
The minister of Westminster, the Rev. William Pawson, also began experiencing pressure from leaders of the Presbytery of Muskingum Valley after news stories about his session’s complaint.
Immediately after Metherell presented the petitions to the moderator at the meeting of the General Assembly Council in Louisville, Abu-Akel and Kirkpatrick began working to get commissioners to change their minds and take their names off the petition.
In one case, The Layman Online learned, a Cleveland minister questioned Angela A. Davis, an elder in his congregation and a commissioner, after her name appeared on the petition. He said he wrote a letter on her behalf and sent it with her signature to the stated clerk’s office recanting her call for a special assembly.
Another commissioner, elder William Wythe Hall of Abingdon Presbytery, notified the clerk’s office that he had changed his mind because of delays, but he added: “I still feel that the situations causing the brouhaha have not been handled properly or firmly. Hopefully, the 215th General Assembly will address the issue.”
The other signatures that Kirkpatrick’s office removed from the list were the Rev. Juan Bordoy, Noroeste; the Rev. William C. Duckworth, Central Florida; the Rev. Nancy Gillard, Giddings-Lovejoy; the Rev. Seung-Nam Kim, Hanmi; the Rev. Brian Jannsen, Prospect Hill; the Rev. David B. Rodriguez, San Jose; Elder Terry Aiello, Sierra Blanca; Elder Herbert Minich, Utah; Elder Dorothy M. Tatum, Peaks; Elder Beatrice Thomas, Detroit; Elder Nancy O. Young, Tropical Florida. The Layman Online was unable to ascertain immediately why those names were scratched.
Kirkpatrick’s office would not accept additional signatures that have come to his office since Metherell, a physician-engineer, made his presentation to the moderator. Using a disputed section of the Book of Order, Kirkpatrick said the additional signatures arrived too late to schedule the called meeting before the regularly scheduled 215th General Assembly, which will convene on May 24 in Denver.
Based on the date of the original petition, Jan. 14, Kirkpatrick says G-13.0112c of the Book of Order would not allow a called meeting until mid-May calls for a delay of 120 days, the period required for advanced review of proposed amendments to or interpretations of the constitution. But the petition calling for the meeting proposed neither. Besides, Metherell argues that the 120 days applies not to the General Assembly, but to lower governing bodies.
On Jan. 21, Metherell handed Abu-Akel a letter saying that he would consider a civil suit that would require the Presbyterian Church (USA) to comply with its corporate bylaws – i.e., its constitution. But he now prays that remedy can be found within the denomination through the Westminster case.
The moderator and the stated clerk did not attend the press conference, but they were hooked up by speaker phone. They both said the 215th General Assembly will address the issues raised by Metherell.
“The moderator and I share a commitment to honoring the constitution,” Kirkpatrick said. “When, as some have done, the constitution is openly defied, we dishonor Jesus Christ. The next Assembly will have to address these issues – the decision not to call the 214th General Assembly into special session in no way reflects a lack of concern (over non-compliance with the constitution).”
Kirkpatrick’s expressed concern over open defiance comes after he and the moderator had exerted pressure on commissioners who were trying to apply a constitutional standard – the call for a special meeting – to remedy the failure of denominational leaders to enforce the constitution. Neither Kirkpatrick nor Abu-Akel has written letters “imploring” defiant church officers to change their ways – as the moderator had implored the 57 commissioners to recant their support for a constitutional process.
At the press conference, the Office of the State Clerk released Abu-Akel’s Jan. 24 letter to the commissioners of the 214th General Assembly:
To the Commissioners to the 214th General Assembly (2002)
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ:
Greetings to you in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Earlier this month, shortly after the new year began, I had the opportunity to travel to Sudan. I saw firsthand the tremendous growth of the Presbyterian Church of Sudan and the Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church and the excitement people have there for the gospel of Jesus Christ. I still remember the Sunday when I preached five times, each time to churches filled with children, youth, and adults who love Jesus Christ and who have a real urgency to do Christ’s mission in their country. The Presbyterian Church has had a presence in Sudan for 100 years. I am grateful to each of you and to countless Presbyterians in the United States who have been faithful in your stewardship and commitment to our denomination in general and to mission in particular. I ask you to continue to pray for the people of Sudan in the midst of civil war, poverty, and hunger.
I returned from Sudan and went immediately into meetings of the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly and the General Assembly Council. At a joint session of these two bodies, I was presented a petition with fifty-seven signatures of minister and elder commissioners to the 214th General Assembly, asking me to call a special meeting of the 214th General Assembly. Last fall, I learned of the effort asking you to sign such a petition, and I wrote to you in November to share with you my concerns about a special assembly. After I received the petition, I wrote to the individuals who signed it, again sharing my concerns about a called assembly. I still believe that a special assembly would create needless confusion in the church; the purposes stated are vague and it is questionable if the General Assembly could act on them; and the time, energy, and money (as much as $500,000) that we would spend on a special assembly would be that much less that would be spent on mission in the name of Jesus Christ.
You must know, however, that while I have shared with you from the beginning my personal concerns for calling a special assembly, I am deeply committed to following our Constitution. The Book of Order (G-13.0104) provides that the Moderator shall call a special meeting if twenty-five elder and twenty-five minister commissioners from a requisite number of presbyteries and synods request it. I asked the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly to immediately begin to verify the names of those who signed the petition and to make sure that they concurred with the request to have a special meeting. The verification process became very urgent for me when the Stated Clerk received from the person who gave me the petition a communication the very next day that said that a minister commissioner had asked that his name be removed from the petition-a request that the presenter of the petition indicated having known for some time but had not acted on. Two additional signers sent notices immediately that they, too, did not want to be on the list-one of them indicating confusion as to how her name ended up on the list. So, you can understand the need to be perfectly clear about whom-and how many-the signers were, given the serious nature of the petition. (See editor’s note at end)
I am very grateful to the staff in the Office of the General Assembly who have worked diligently and faithfully to verify the signers of the petition. The final result of the verification process is the following: formal notification was received that six minister commissioners wished to be removed from the list. Formal notification was received that seven elder commissioners wished to be removed from the list. This leaves twenty minister commissioners and twenty-four elder commissioners on the list-less than the minimum in each category required to call a special assembly, as indicated in our Constitution.
Therefore, I am not calling a special meeting of the 214th General Assembly. It was not an easy decision to make. There are no winners in this situation. Not only have I been mindful of and sensitive to the commissioners who signed the petition; I have been mindful of and sensitive to all 554 of you who are commissioners to the 214th General Assembly. It has become even more obvious through this that there are people who are in great pain in our denomination, and for that I have great concern and compassion. As the apostle Paul writes, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ…. If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it” (1 Cor. 12: 12, 26).
I believe it is important for you to know about a recent overture by the Presbytery of Redstone to the upcoming 215th General Assembly that convenes in Denver, Colorado, on May 24, 2003. This overture assures that the matters in the petition will be before the commissioners to that assembly.
As I travel across the church, I see the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in action, living out the mission of Jesus Christ. I believe deeply that our denomination is alive and well. I also know that we have more to do if we are to have unity in the midst of our diversity. Please continue to pray for the church-for our pastors and elders and members; for healing from the pain felt by those who signed and presented the petition; for our Stated Clerk and our national and middle governing body staff who work on all of our behalf; and for a continued commitment by all of us to compliance and forbearance of the church’s Constitution.
Brothers and sisters in Christ, let us not lose sight of our calling to be ambassadors for Christ. My prayers continue for each of you. I ask your prayers for me as well.
Peace/Salaam,
The Rev. Dr. Fahed Abu-Akel
Moderator of the 214th General Assembly (2002)
- [The moderator and the stated clerk have both repeated on several instances the statement that “a minister commissioner had asked that his name be removed from the petition – a request that the presenter of the petition indicated having known for some time but had not acted on.” That is not true. Metherell informed both the moderator and the clerk about that commissioner’s request to have his name removed from the petition. He did that immediately after the commissioner contacted him on Jan. 15. Metherell told the clerk and the moderator that he had received no previous request from that commissioner, either by e-mail or letter. Metherell also informed the denomination’s leaders that he had no authority to remove that commissioners’ signature from the petition and neither did they. The editors]