GAPJC Decisions

Closing Argument before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Meeting in Indianapolis on April 27, 2012 Mary Holder Naegeli for the Appellants [Following a few remarks in rebuttal of the Presbytery’s argument . . .] When a person has been at this process for over four years, as we have, it is worth answering the question, “Why does this matter so much?” I know the outcome of the Commission’s deliberations will matter to the candidate, who has waited long enough for a definitive answer, and to San Francisco Presbytery, which desires to be affirmed in a position

Opening Arguments before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Meeting in Indianapolis on April 27, 2012 First Presentation: Bruce McIntosh for the Appellants May it please the Lord: I will take a few moments to address why it is this Commission’s obligation to correct the errors of the lower councils.  Later, Dr. Naegeli will discuss how we as a church live into being obedient to God’s commands in the area of human sexuality. Let me remind us where we are in this process. Recall that this commission remanded the case to the Synod because it failed in

Yesterday (Friday) my legal colleague Bruce McIntosh and I argued before the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) at 3 p.m. EDT in Indianapolis, IN. It was, we assume, the last appeal in the matter of Parnell et al v. San Francisco Presbytery, over the Presbytery’s approval of Lisa Larges’ ordination examination in the fall of 2009. (Yes, the wheels turn slowly in our system.) Fourteen GAPJC members heard the case. The Presbytery was represented by Mr. Doug Nave, an attorney who seems to represent “the other side” in many of these cases as they come up. This is our

 In instances too numerous to mention, Presbyterians have claimed that the passage of Amendment 10-A last summer opened the door to the ordination of practicing LGBT people. But is this what 10-A did, really? Read it for yourself: Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (F-1.02). The council responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.2.0402; G-2.0607; G-3.0306) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of ordered ministry. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s

  The last of the PCUSA’s “historic principles of church order” points to the importance of discipline within the church: F-3.0108 The Value of Ecclesiastical Discipline Lastly, that if the preceding scriptural and rational principles be steadfastly adhered to, the vigor and strictness of its discipline will contribute to the glory and happiness of any church. Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object, and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no force whatever but from its own justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the great