In a letter dated Jan. 21 and hand-delivered in California to Fahed Abu-Akel, moderator of the 214th General Assembly, Metherell wrote that “it is with a heavy heart that I have come to the decision that I must bring a lawsuit against you in the secular courts,” if Abu-Akel does not reconsider and promptly announce that he will reconvene the Assembly. “Mr. Moderator, taking my Christian brothers and sisters into a court is something that I do NOT want to do; the very thought of it grieves me, particularly in light of the counsel we are given in Scripture on that subject,” Metherell’s letter continues. “Yet I have exhausted every remedy offered to me in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I beseech you not to put me in the position that the only option left to me to defend the Constituion is in the secular courts where a truly impartial judgment can be made.”
In closing, Metherell wrote that “I will wait until next Monday” — meaning Jan. 27 — “before filing suit. I implore you to call the special session before then.”
Abu-Akel made the letter public. And four former General Assembly moderators — Robert Lamar, Price H. Gwynn III, Douglas Oldenburg and Freda Gardner — released an “open letter” to the PC(USA), in which they describe as “deplorable” the effort to take the church to court. “It constitutes not merely a threat but a defamation of character,” the open letter states. “Fahed Abu-Akel was not only elected by the church but shaped by life history to be a voice of reason, tolerance and forbearance. That any moderator would be so treated is unthinkable. Our moderator has followed the procedures laid out in the Constitution,” and if the Assembly is called back, will conduct it with fairness and respect.
The former moderators’ letter also states that “we do not agree with the necessity or importance of such a called meeting because of its drain on the mission of the church, both in dollars and staff time as well as its cost to the commissioners who will be asked to attend.” And it says that while the “charges and insinuations” made against Abu-Akel “come from intense feelings and convictions about the paths the church has taken is no excuse for treating the moderator or anyone else in this manner.”
In an interview Jan. 23, Metherell reiterated his disagreements with Abu-Akel, PC(USA) Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and the Office of the General Assembly, saying their actions show “blatant disregard” for the denomination’s Constitution. But when asked about the possibility of litigation in civil court, Metherell said, “It’s inappropriate even to discuss that right now,” and that “we need to tone down the rhetoric” surrounding the dispute over recalling the Assembly.
Metherell remains strong in his convictions — and in his criticism of how the petition he presented is being handled. He argues, as his letter states, that “the Constituion could not be more explicit” in its requirements for calling an Assembly back into session — and he contends he has met them all. To not call the Assembly back is “totally immoral” and unconscionable, Metherell said. “That demonstrates that the defiance is all the way up to the top level” of the denomination.
Among the points of disagreement:
* Abu-Akel and the Office of the General Assembly argue that a 120-day advance notice is required before calling the Assembly back, because that’s the rule when the business to be considered involves a possible change to the Book of Order or a constitutional interpretation. Metherell says only a 60-day notice is required and that the 120-day rule applies to questions involving constitutional interpretation arising from lower governing bodies, such as presbyteries or synods, not from the Assembly itself. “Of all of the erroneous arguments you and the stated clerk have raised, the most outlandish is that you must give 120 days advance notice,” Metherell wrote to Abu-Akel.
* The Office of the General Assembly has begun a process of verifying the signatures of 57 ministers and elders who called for the Assembly to reconvene, and Abu-Akel has written them a letter, urging them to change their minds. Metherell contends that once a commissioner has signed the petition, that’s it — the signature on the petition is vali; it doesn’t matter if someone changes his or her mind. “The thought that the moderator and stated clerk of the General Assembly would ignore the express provisions of the Constitution and trash the delivered requests is outrageous!” Metherell wrote. “They’re supposed to be the servants of the General Assembly and the church,” he said in the interview. “And they’re not — they do their own thing.”
In the interview, Metherell praised the courage of the commissioners who did sign the petition, and said they’re coming under considerable pressure, “particularly the ministers. Their careers are dependent on the Presbyterian church . . . They sacrificed a lot to say what is right and sign their names. It takes an immense amount of courage.”
Kirkpatrick has said the Office of the General Assembly is trying to be responsible in verifying each signature. “It would be an abdication of my constitutional responsibilities not to verify that a petition, such as the one presented by Dr. Metherell, represented the wishes of the commissioners listed and that those commissioners are duly authorized to make such a request,” Kirkpatrick wrote in explaining his position.
Text of Alex Metherell’s letter to Fahed Abu-Akel
Text of open letter from four former moderators.
