Response to GAPJC Decisions

Response to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission’s

Decision and Order in the Matters of

Parnell et al v. Presbytery of San Francisco

Session of Caledonia P.C. et al v. Presbytery of John Knox

by Mr. Whitman Brisky, counsel for appellants in Caledonia, and

the Rev. Mary Holder Naegeli and Mr. Bruce McIntosh, counsel for appellants in Parnell

Full text of the decisions are available also through the GAPJC website:
http://oga.pcusa.org/gapjc/decisions/decisions.htm#1012
The Decision and Order of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) has been issued in two cases related to the ordination of candidates who refused to live under the “fidelity and chastity” sexual ethic taught in Scripture and the Confessions, and codified until this year in Book of Order G-6.0106b.

In Caledonia Presbyterian Church, et al v. Presbytery of John Knox, the Commission found the case moot, and did not reach the merits, writing that since Section G-6.0106b has been removed from the Book of Order “the Commission declines to rule upon the application of a provision of the Book of Order that no longer exists.”  While four commissioners stated that scriptural and doctrinal standards should have been considered, even they shifted that responsibility to Synod, declining to consider it themselves.

The holding that Caledonia is moot means the Decision & Order of Synod of Lakes and Prairies approving the decision of John Knox Presbytery to ordain Mr. Scott Anderson, still stands (despite the admission by Mr. Anderson he is living in a same-sex partnership). There is now no impediment to Mr. Anderson’s ordination.

In the Parnell case, the GAPJC again declined to interpret constitutional provisions “that no longer exist” (i.e. G-6.0106b). However, because the Synod of the Pacific (SPJC) failed to rule on the scriptural and confessional issues raised by the Complainants/Appellants, “the case is remanded to the SPJC to rule on [these] matters, and any other matters as may come before it.” Further, the GAPJC “encouraged” the SPJC to “direct the Presbytery to reexamine the candidate [Lisa Larges] under G-2.0104b,” which is “Amendment 10-A” ratified by the presbyteries in June as a replacement for the former fidelity and chastity standard.

We who represented the complainants/appellants in these cases are deeply grieved and disappointed in this outcome. The GAPJC had the obligation and clear invitation from all parties to actually decide these cases. If it was error for the Synods to avoid ruling on a doctrinal basis, it is equally erroneous for the GAPJC to dodge the scriptural and doctrinal issues raised by the complaints. The GAPJC commissioners have shown themselves to be doctrinal cowards by refusing to apply and invoke all of church law (found in the Constitution and the Confessions, and in the Scriptures that inform both) to their decisions.

Using the analogy presented by the Rev. Naegeli in her opening statement to the commission last Friday morning (see Saturday’s post), at the time Eve was rationalizing her desire to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen 3), Adam was frozen in place and said nothing.  And so it is with the GAPJC, paralyzed into silence in the face of moral confusion. The silence is deafening. In this critical moment—in which going back to God’s Word is the proper course—the GAPJC failed its duty to the church.

The GAPJC is hiding behind process in both cases, creating the “worst case scenario.” Two cases with identical facts, one of them presenting a legal argument, the other a doctrinal argument, were brought. The legal case is declared moot, opening the door to the ordination of practicing homosexuals in the PCUSA. The doctrinal case is remanded to Synod for more process.  In both cases, the GAPJC dodged the issue which is legitimately its to decide.

Whether there is anything to be gained through an appeal of a subsequent action of either the SPJC or the Presbytery of San Francisco is yet to be determined. For the moment, however, we have the clarity we were seeking regarding the GAPJC’s willingness to conform its decision to Scripture and the Confessions. It is not. Either through fear or recalcitrance, the Commission made its choice between Sola Scriptura and Nolo Scriptura.  It chose Nolo Scriptura, which does not bode well for our future together.