While the investigating committee found no basis for bringing charges against Martin, neither did it completely vindicate him. In fact the committee found a bit of blame for all concerned, including the Presbyterian news media.
By the time Western North Carolina (WNC) Presbytery received the report on the request for vindication last weekend (Oct. 24-25), Martin had already been officially transferred to San Jose Presbytery and installed as pastor of the Palo Alto church. This occured after the investigating committee told WNC executive presbyter Bill Taber in September that no charges should be filed.
In his first remarks to the Palo Alto congregation in late September, Martin said ” If the radical right in our denomination today thought that their accusations would reel me in somehow, then they are deeply mistaken — for their actions have made me even more radical in working for a church where God’s unconditional love is not defended but displayed, where it is not litigated but lived out, where it is not condemned but conveyed to all who desperately need to hear about grace and good news.”
In its report, the WNC investigating committee noted that “Mr. Martin’s sometimes intemperate language in sermons errs by including derogatory comments that do not further the peace, unity and purity of the church.”
Jensen has filed an appeal of the investigating committee report with the presbytery’s permanent judicial commission, according to Taber.
A Confusing Examination
Jensen’s complaint involved Martin’s April 5 examination by San Jose Presbytery. Jensen claimed that during that examination Martin said “that he did not believe in the bodily resurrection and ascension into Heaven of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
After interviewing numerous participants in the April 5 meeting, the investigating committee said that David Rodriguez, a minister member of San Jose Presbytery, asked Martin about his belief in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. “Martin testified [to the investigating committee] that he heard the question as, ‘Do you believe in the literal, physical, bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ?'”
Martin’s first response to the presbytery was “No, but …” and he then attempted to explain himself. “There was a significant amount of distracting talk among persons present, and inattention to Mr. Martin’s further statements,” reported the committee. “There is very little agreement by some witnesses as to what he said, and others do not recall what he said at all. … Much uncertainty exists as to exactly what question was asked and what answer Mr. Martin gave.”
The examination process was arrested. A motion to resume the process was defeated and San Jose Presbytery voted 57 to 26 (with three abstentions) to accept Martin into the presbytery.
Jensen was not at the San Jose meeting, but was contacted by Rodriguez regarding drafting a complaint for remedial action. Rodriguez dropped out of that effort, but Jensen continued, using the statements of Rodriguez and others in his complaint. (Rodriguez did file a complaint against the presbytery with the Pacific Synod, but that was later dismissed.)
The investigating committee reported that Martin, under oath, told them that “he believes in the bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. He especially connects the resurrection with the church, and our experience of the resurrection with Christ as members of his body.”
The committee concluded that “the allegation of heresy in the complaint cannot reasonably be approved, nor is there probable cause to believe that the offense charged was committed.”
It also said that four other charges that Martin violated his ordination vows could not “reasonably be proved.”
And finally it noted that Jensen had made no attempt at consultation or to resolve the dispute with Martin, “even though this is a provision in the Book of Discipline and a requirement in Christianity.”
Partial Vindication
The committee then addressed Martin’s request for vindication of the charges brought by Jensen. Continuing in the same vein as its earlier report, the committee agreed that Jensen’s charges could not be sustained, but said Martin was somewhat responsible for the situation.
“The committee finds that Mr. Martin contributed to the controversy by failing to articulate clearly his understanding of an important Christian doctrine. Complete vindication of Mr. Martin is not possible. His public statements on the resurrection of Jesus Christ could and should have reflected the full witness of Scripture and the confessions. They do not, however, place him outside of the Reformed tradition and he cannot properly be called a heretic.”
In its concluding remarks the investigating committee said this action “and others similar to it would not occur if all Presbyterians heeded the admonition of Book of Order D-1.0102 in its entirety:
“The power that Jesus Christ has vested in his Church, a power manifested in the exercise of church discipline, is one for building up the body of Christ, not for destroying it, for redeeming, not for punishing. It should be exercised as a dispensation of mercy and not of wrath so that the Great Ends of the Church may be achieved, that all children of God may be presented faultless in the day of Christ.”
In general the committee found the situation unfortunate. “Precious resources were expended on this investigation. Conscientious people of faith were placed in an antagonistic atmosphere involuntarily and unnecessarily. The ill effect upon them, upon the two presbyteries involved and upon the denomination as a whole is regrettable,” it said in the report.
“All Presbyterians,” concluded the committee, “should express their convictions in ways that do not impugn the integrity or demean the opinions of those who hold opposing views, mindful of the biblical injunction to be ‘quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger’ (James 1:19) and especially of Christ’s commandment to his disciples to ‘Love one another as I have loved you’ (John 15:12).”
The committee also criticized the publicity the case had received, saying it “has been unfortunate for its effect on Mr. Martin and his family, on the two churches involved and on the two presbyteries.” It added, “much of the publicity … has caricatured Mr. Martin, leading many to believe he is not a faithful minister.”
The committed recommended that “confidentiality on the part of all parties to disciplinary actions should be mandatory until the due process of investigation and eventual trial has been completed. This is not explicit in the present Rules of Discipline.” (Western North Carolina Presbytery is sending an overture to the 216th General Assembly that addresses this issue.)
The committee included three retired seminary professors — Thomas D. Parker of McCormick Seminary, Will Kennedy of Union (N.Y.) and Union-PSCE and Lamar Williamson of Union-PSCE — and two elders, Beverly Beal and Noel Johnson. Taber said both elders were members of congregations which have joined the Confessing Church Movement.
