Disclaimer: As with all posts on this blog, the opinions contained herein are my own and are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.
Number 8: Judicial Authority and Compliance
When Bart Simpson was asked which animal he would like to become, he mischievously fantasized becoming a butterfly. As he put it, "Nobody ever suspects the butterfly!"
There is a butterfly at this year's Assembly.
One of the routine items of General Assembly business is the matter of reviewing compliance with decisions and orders of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. This consists of receiving the reports filed with the Office of the Stated Clerk from the stated clerks of presbyteries and synods that the orders contained in GAPJC decisions have been fulfilled. Often the order is simply to read the decision and enter a summary in the minutes of the particular council. Sometimes it requires fulfillment of a directive -- reinstating back pay to a wrongfully terminated employee, or completing the order of a lower council that had been stayed by appeal against a defendant who has lost the appeal.
When the GAPJC issues an order, it is a directive that must be followed by the lower church body. The order is final and binding. There is no further court of appeal. Our principles of church government make this authority clear. F-3.0206 states, "A higher council shall have the right of review and control over a lower one and shall have power to determine matters of controversy upon reference, complaint, or appeal." (See the footnote to F-3.02 for a more eloquent statement of this principle.)
But what happens when a lower council of the church refuses to obey the order of a higher council through its judicial commission?
That's reportedly what has happened in disciplinary case 220-08, Spahr v. Redwoods, in which the GAPJC upheld the decision of the judicial commission of the Presbytery of the Redwoods that the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr had committed an offense by conducting same-sex marriages. The order of the presbytery commission was to rebuke Spahr, the lowest level of censure in the church. Even so, the decision was appealed, ultimately to the GAPJC, which also affirmed the order of the presbytery PJC.
When the time came to report the decision to the presbytery, and to pronounce the rebuke originally ordered by the presbytery's own PJC, the presbytery reportedly adopted a motion opposing the order and refused to allow the order to be carried out.
There are constitutional avenues by which those who disagreed with the decision might have expressed their disagreement: filing dissents, or even adopting a resolution that expressed their disagreement without obstructing the order. Instead (again, reportedly) they prevented the order from being executed.
The report of compliance is presented to the General Assembly through assembly committee 6 (Church Polity) as "information." The report simply states, "This decision was reported at the stated meeting of the Presbytery of Redwoods on May 12, 2012." This has the appearance of fulfilling the order of the GAPJC. However, it fails to report whether the order of the presbytery PJC -- i.e., the rebuke -- affirmed in the GAPJC order has also been fulfilled. To be fair, there may be other compliance mechanisms of which I am not aware that will address the issue of the rebuke. Absent a clear statement that the rebuke has been pronounced as required, however, an ordinarily routine action of the Assembly in this case is likely to generate considerable interest and controversy.
The issue is greater than merely the ability of the Assembly to enforce compliance with the decisions of its judicial commission. It doesn't even matter if the Assembly believes the definition of marriage should be changed, effectively siding with Spahr's supporters. That isn't the issue either. What is at issue is the connectional and hierarchical nature of our denomination. If the General Assembly cannot or will not require compliance with a duly ordered directive of the courts of the church, then we no longer have a constitutional government.
It is not clear what power the Assembly has to address this matter of "information." I expect that there will be one or more commissioner's resolutions addressing the matter. Even if it is not within the scope of the Assembly's work to address it, this is an issue that will percolate throughout the Assembly, and throughout the church. Failure to address it will further unravel our constitutional unity.
Sometimes routine items of business contain significant matters of controversy. Nobody ever suspects the butterfly!
Next: #7 Ordination Standards and Freedom of Conscience
No comments:
Post a Comment