Commissioners asked to call for special meeting of GA
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, October 21, 2002
Alex Metherell of Laguna Beach, Calif., a commissioner to the 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), has sent a packet to nearly 564 other commissioners asking them to join him in seeking a called meeting of the General Assembly to consider constitutional issues.
Metherell notified the media that he mailed the packets to all 564 commissioners. Previously, he had contacted 68 commissioners through e-mail and 25 – half of the required 50 – signed on to ask Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel to call for the special meeting of the General Assembly.
A physician and an engineer, Metherell used a medical analogy to contend that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is in a constitutional crisis – much like a malignancy that begins to spread throughout the body. The unwillingness or inability of Presbyterian courts to enforce the denomination’s “fidelity/chastity” standard and church law against same-sex marriages has created the crisis, he says.
Ecclesiastical malpractice
“In my profession, failure to act when presented with a serious medical condition is not only medical malpractice; it places the patient in mortal danger,” he said in his letter to commissioners. “Failure for us, the Commissioners to this General Assembly, to act quickly and decisively constitutes ecclesiastical malpractice, and it places our denomination in mortal danger.”
Metherell said, “The authors of our PC(USA) constitution designed an excellent immune system composed of multi-leveled governing bodies. The system functions both judicially and administratively. How has the system worked in the more than 20 cases of documented defiance? Despite overwhelming evidence, and in some cases, blatant admission of disobedience, not one single accusation has resulted in charges being filed by any Investigating Committee. In addition to this failure of our judicial system, the system of administrative review has also failed due to the fact that presbyteries that opposed our ordination standards are not requiring compliance from individuals and sessions under their authority. Thus we have a complete breakdown of the church’s immune response system. COGA and others who claim that the system is working fine are profoundly wrong.”
Metherell’s packet to commissioners included the original e-mail letter, a question-answer response to arguments that a special session is not needed and a reply card.
Included in the Q&A are Metherell’s responses to the Committee of the Office of the General Assembly, which urged commissioners not to call for a special meeting.
Q. The COGA letter says a request for a called meeting must “specify exactly the items of business to be considered.” (emphasis added) Is that correct?
A. No. Here’s what the Book of Order says: “The notice [for the special meeting] shall set out the purpose of the meeting and no other business than that listed in the notice shall be transacted.” (emphasis added) We should not be preemptively bound to the motions we intend to make. Within the more broadly-stated purpose, although certainly consistent with it, commissioners must have the latitude to study, pray, discuss and debate over a wide range of motions that will emerge from our coming together to address this constitutional crisis. The “purpose for the meeting” that is stated on the request form (see enclosed card) is specific enough to define the purpose and put a clear boundary around the business that can come before the Assembly, but it is not so specific that it binds the hands of the commissioners in the actions they may take.