PFR again defends stance on called meeting of the G.A.
The Layman Online, February 27, 2003
After having received what it calls “stinging criticism” for its public defense of Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and General Assembly Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel, Presbyterians for Renewal (PFR) has issued two new statements explaining its position. In both statements, PFR admitted that its own members are “divided” over the moderator and stated clerk’s refusal to call a special meeting of the 214th General Assembly.
Controversial decision
On January 14, the moderator and stated clerk were presented a petition signed by more than enough commissioners to require that a meeting be called. But instead of following their constitutional mandate to call the meeting, Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel “implored” commissioners to change their minds. Then Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, claiming that he was merely seeking “validation” of the commissioners’ names, asked them to vote again.
After removing 13 names from the petition, the stated clerk’s office said it fell short of the constitutionally required 50 signatures. Before the clerk removed those signatures, the petition had been signed by 57 commissioners. None of the commissioners who signed the petition denied having done so.
Those actions sparked an outpouring of criticism by Presbyterians who believed the two top denominational leaders had exceeded their constitutional bounds. The constitution provides neither for the moderator’s lobbying campaign against the petition nor for the stated clerk’s requirement that commissioners vote again.
A complaint by Westminster Presbyterian Church in Canton, Ohio – the only formal challenge against those actions – is asking the denomination’s highest court to declare that Abu-Akel and Kirkpatrick acted unconstitutionally in wrongly invalidating the petition and that the 214th General Assembly be reconvened.
A hearing before the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. Feb. 28 at the Embassy Suites near the Kansas City International Airport.
PFR: officials had ‘honorable intentions’
In its original 851-word “Can We Not Stand Down” statement January 27, the same day that the petition was declared invalid, PFR – which had earlier opposed the petition for the called meeting – admitted that “the appropriateness of the Moderator’s most recent plea to commissioners to remove their signatures is debatable, as is the ruling about the 120-day convening delay.” Nevertheless, PFR went on to say that “there is every reason to believe that both the Stated Clerk and the Moderator have been honest and aboveboard in their actions and within the bounds of their constitutional prerogatives,” adding that, “we are likewise grateful for the honorable intentions and due diligence of our constitutionally elected officers.”
That statement elicited a storm of criticism from Presbyterians, whose letters to the Layman Online and Presbyweb ranged from “PFR needs to check its glasses” to “Subversion of a democratic process should not be allowed to slide by with kindness, considering what is at stake in this dying denomination.”
PFR ‘divided’ and ‘united’
In a 566-word statement “Setting The Record Straight” posted on its Web site February 21, and repeated in an electronic newsletter February 22, PFR defended its stance about the called meeting, but admitted that its members were not of one mind.
“While we cannot fully agree among ourselves about who did what right and wrong in this whole matter,” said PFR, “we are united in our objection to declarations that recklessly impugn the character and integrity of others. We stated, and continue to affirm, that how we treat one another and whether we exercise our Christian faith on this journey are more important in the long run than whether any one particular means of attempted constitutional enforcement – or any other project! – succeeds.”
PFR cites insider information
Then, in a 2,865-word “The Reasoning Behind “Can We Not Stand Down?” posted on its Web site February 21, PFR offered another, expanded defense of its stance, saying that:
“Although a requisite number of commissioner signatures to call a meeting was turned in, uncertainty arose about the current intent of all the signers,” PFR said. “When a number asked to have their names removed and the petition fell short, many people wondered if skullduggery was afoot. PFR believes there was no ill intent, due to first-hand observations and conversations with people involved.”
That statement sparked another round of criticism from Presbyterians. One wrote, “Gobbledygook and poppycock. PFR is trying to play the role of a centrist when the issue is will this church live by its own law of the church and the Word of God, or die because it failed to do so.” Another said, “PFR appears to have acquiesced to the Louisville party line. By their recent apologetic op/ed piece written in support of the moderator and stated clerk, I am reminded of the craven Scottish lords in the movie Braveheart who sided with the English at the expense of their own downtrodden people.” Still another wrote, “A Vichy PFR is worse than no PFR at all.”
While PFR said its “first-hand observations and conversations with people involved” led it to believe that there was no skullduggery or ill intent, other Presbyterian renewal leaders appeared less inclined to excuse Louisville officials for refusing to do their constitutional duty.
Lay Committee statement
Peggy Hedden, chairman of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, said, “We have watched with alarm the actions of our denomination’s officers and agencies these past several days as they try to thwart a meeting that is guaranteed in our democratic procedures. It is clear to all fair-minded Presbyterians that the duty of these officials is to perform their responsibilities of office impartially and to execute evenhandedly the provisions of our constitution as they vowed to do when they became officers. Whatever privilege these officers may have had to advocate against such a meeting before the petitions were presented ceased the moment that the requisite petitions from commissioners were handed to them.”
Presbyterian Coalition statement
The Presbyterian Coalition said, “We affirm and support those who are working throughout the church to restore order and bring those who are defying the Constitution into compliance. Among those working toward these ends are the commissioners to the 214th General Assembly who signed the petition to call a special meeting of that body. Although their efforts have failed, we thank them for exercising their convictions in a Constitutionally consistent way and for elevating the church’s awareness of these threats to the peace, unity and purity of the PCUSA.”
Presbyterian Forum statement
Speaking for the Presbyterian Forum, the Rev. Robert Davis, who had not favored the attempt to call a special meeting of the General Assembly, castigated the moderator and stated clerk for their refusal to call the meeting when presented with the requisite number of commissioners. Included on the Forum’s Web site is an article by the Rev. Robert Mills in which he compared the moderator and stated clerk’s actions to Alice In Wonderland.
Mills said, “But instead of following the Constitution, the moderator and stated clerk made up new rules to achieve their aims, much like the king’s ‘Rule 42’ in Alice’s Wonderland. These new rules, found nowhere in the Constitution, required ‘verification’ of commissioners’ signatures, a process that included considerable public (and who knows how much private) arm twisting.”
Presbyweb statement
Presbyweb, which did not endorse the petition to call a special meeting of the General Assembly, was nonetheless critical of the tactics by the moderator and the stated clerk. In an online editorial, a rarity on Presbyweb, Editor Hans Cornelder said: “We find the responses of our national leaders not only strange, but wrong. Church leaders do not have the constitutional authority to overrule the Book of Order. We believe, in this instance, that the Moderator and the Stated Clerk are acting in violation of what the Constitution of our church expects from them.”
“In this matter, we believe the actions of these leaders, well-intended as they may be, are tearing the church apart, doing more harm than the non-compliance that started it all. If they cannot be trusted to honor the Constitution in a way well-informed people understand, who can?” Presbyweb added.
Singing almost solo
Stating that its voice “has been nearly unique in the evangelical community,” PFR offered its readers the assurance that “PFR remains constant in its evangelical beliefs and renewal purposes.” It also said that it is engaged in efforts to uphold the Constitution, does not condone misbehavior, and speaks the truth “as best we discern it.” Describing the times as “exceptionally turbulent,” PFR urged its readers not to panic or become judgmental.