PFR newsletter says invalidation of petition involved ‘no ill intent’
The Layman Online, February 10, 2003
Presbyterians For Renewal has begun an E-newsletter that covers issues in the Presbyterian Church (USA). The first letter, written by Jim Berkley, PFR issues ministry director, concludes with an upbeat message about the condition of the denomination: “Rather than half-empty and draining rapidly, this Presbyterian cup is 99% full!”
Berkley commented on a range of issues, including the stated clerk’s invalidation of a petition that required the moderator to call the 214th General Assembly back into session to deal with constitutional issues. PFR had opposed the petition for the called meeting.
“Although a requisite number of commissioner signatures to call a meeting was turned in, uncertainty arose about the current intent of all the signers,” Berkley 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.”
None of the commissioners who signed the petition denied having done so. But instead of following the constitutional mandate to call the meeting, Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel “implored” commissioners to change their minds. Then Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, when contacting them to validate the petition, 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 signatures, the petition had been signed by 57 commissioners.
While PFR said its “first-hand observations and conversations with people involved” showed there was no skullduggery or ill intent, other Presbyterian renewal leaders had another view.
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.”
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.”
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. “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.
In addition, Presbyweb and The Layman Online both published on their Web sites dozens of letters from Presbyterians who were highly critical of the way the clerk and moderator scuttled the called meeting. Only a few letter writers supported the clerk and moderator.
Berkley’s e-newsletter also referred to Overture 03-08 from the Presbytery of Redstone in Pennsylvania, which calls on synods to adopt measures to strengthen constitutional enforcement. He said, “There appears to be across-the-board support, as well as positive momentum from the Stated Clerk.”
The stated clerk and the moderator contend that the “basic concerns in the petition will be before the 215th General Assembly in Denver.”
But the petition and Redstone are dissimilar in strategy and authority. The petition called on the General Assembly to use its authority as the highest governing body in the PCUSA to require compliance with the constitution. Redstone – like the stated clerk – says the General Assembly should not intervene in enforcement, but should urge the synods to seek to bring defiant officers into compliance.