Before church snubbed court order again,
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, December 11, 2002
One of the common themes expressed by the opponents of a called meeting of the General Assembly to deal with the denomination’s constitutional crisis is that the process is working.
That belief also prevailed when the 214th General Assembly voted in June not to take action designed to ensure that the constitution was being enforced.
Argument against intervention
A key argument in opposition to General Assembly action and, currently, to a called meeting of the national body was that a church court case involving constitutional defiance by Christ Church of Burlington, Vt., proved that the compliance was being achieved, albeit slowly.
Jack Haberer, senior minister of Clear Lake Presbyterian Church in Houston and president of Presbyterians For Renewal, took that view in a post-214th General Assembly analysis when he applauded the General Assembly’s refusal to take steps that would have required the Presbytery of Northern New England to discipline the Christ Church session. His analysis was published by the Issues Ministry of Presbyterians For Renewal.
Haberer sided with national staff members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in arguing that the Christ Church case had been resolved when the church said it had “set aside” its resolution of defiance and took the statement off its Web site.
Christ Church’s ‘compliance’
Haberer said the first reason the General Assembly rejected any attempt to discipline Christ Church was “the fact that the session of Christ Church Presbyterian had set aside the declaration that was the original complaint of noncompliance.”
“Such a withdrawal of dissent implies their [Christ Church’s] recognition that no ordained officers are free to disregard the Constitution,” he added. “While some conservatives could parse the words of the retraction, claiming that ‘set aside’ is not technical language, and, accordingly, may have no lasting significance, most commissioners readily accepted it as a sincere attempt to turn from their earlier stance. Any proclaimer of grace, any forgiven sinner serving as a commissioner understandably was asking, ‘Should we be punishing the penitent.'”
Compliance was short-lived
But Christ Church’s “penitence” was short-lived. On Nov. 11, the session of the congregation adopted a new statement of defiance that essentially overruled the highest court in the denomination, the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission.
In a case called Londonderry v. the Presbytery of Northern New England, the PJC said in 2000 that Christ Church’s original resolution violated church law because it stated an intent to defy the Constitution. The court instructed the presbytery to work with Christ Church’s session to resolve its noncompliance pastorally or through disciplinary action if necessary.
“This commission reaffirms the right of decorous dissent,” the court said. “An appropriate dissent may be expressed in various ways; however, it may not include an intent by those who have vowed to be governed by the church’s polity to violate the Constitution.”
The court also said, “This Commission finds that there are no constitutional grounds for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the Constitution, however inartfully stated. Assertions of inconsistency, confusion, or ambiguity may justify the right to protest. They do not create a right to disregard any part of the Constitution.”
Order ignored for nearly two years
For nearly two years after that decision, Christ Church and the presbytery virtually ignored the church’s order. Then, a few days before the 2002 General Assembly met in June, with the overture calling for disciplining Christ Church looming, the Christ Church session announced that it had set aside its declaration of defiance.
Some commissioners at the 214th General Assembly argued that the “set-aside” was a diversionary tactic, intended to persuade the commissioners that the constitutional process was working. Belatedly, with Christ Church’s latest statement, that argument appears to have been valid.
Christ Church uses its own definitions
Declaring its own right to “properly and faithfully” interpret the constitution, Christ Church now says it may ordain practicing homosexuals and not violate G-6.0106b, the fidelity and chastity ordination clause in the Book of Order. It came to that conclusion, according to the statement, by “reinterpreting” virtually every word of the standard and some sections of The Book of Confessions as well.
To the Christ Church session, chastity doesn’t mean chastity, sodomy doesn’t mean sodomy (it can mean inhospitality) and repentance doesn’t mean abandoning the practice of sin.
Haberer’s defense of the decision of the 214th General Assembly was incorporated into a later statement by Presbyterians For Renewal, expressing the organization’s opposition to a called meeting of the General Assembly.
PFR opposes called General Assembly
The PFR statement said a called meeting “at this time would be inopportune and perhaps misunderstood.”
The statement also said a called meeting would be “largely out of proportion to the problem” and that “several judicial cases are working their way through the system. Yes, some governing bodies have seemingly bungled or distorted various proceedings. But that does not a constitutional crisis make!”
“Despite our dismay over such apparent miscarriages of justice, we need patience,” PFR added. “We have yet to see if the system will work as intended. Not only might a called Assembly find it problematic, if not improper, to address these cases while they remain in process, the very call of an Assembly could actually jeopardize their satisfactory disposition.”
Constitutional crisis continues
By declaring itself no longer in violation of church law, Christ Church has poured more fuel on the constitutional fires raging across the denomination. Dozens of sessions have adopted resolutions saying they will violate church laws on ordinations, membership, communion and same-gender “weddings.” Although more than 20 judicial complaints have been filed against ministers and elders who have publicly declared their defiance of the constitution, none has reached the stage of a trial. One presbytery, Baltimore, has refused to allow the prosecution of charges against a minister who has openly stated his defiance of the constitution.
Uphill petition campaign continues
Meanwhile, Dr. Alexander Metherell, a physician-engineer who served as a commissioner to the 214th General Assembly, continues a one-man, uphill effort to summon the commissioners back into a called meeting to deal only with constitutional issues.
To date, 31 elders and 22 ministers have signed a petition to call for the special meeting. The required number is 25 of each.
Also, a grassroots response is picking up steam. The sessions of 33 congregations in 16 states have approved resolutions calling on church leaders to uphold the denomination’s constitution and to exercise the Rules of Discipline against those who defy it.