Synod Judicial Comm. announces Williamson decision

The Presbytery of Western North Carolina made mistakes in its handling of a case involving the ministry of Parker T. Williamson, chief executive officer of The Lay Committee and editor of The Layman, and failed to provide “adequate due process and fundamental fairness,” a church court has ruled.

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic ruled Sept. 29 that the presbytery had made procedural errors significant enough that its controversial decision last January to make Williamson a “member-at-large” of the presbytery, rather than to validate his call for his work with the Layman, should be set aside.

The judicial commission also ordered Western North Carolina presbytery not to take any action involving the validation of Williamson’s ministry for a year from the date of the ruling, and ordered the presbytery and Williamson — who has been a member of the presbytery for 32 years — “to jointly formulate a presbytery-wide process of reconciliation concerning this issue.”

During a stormy meeting in Asheville on Jan. 31, the presbytery voted 150-106 not to continue to validate Williamson’s ministry with the Layman and to make him a “member-at-large,” even though he protested that he did not want that status and considered it an “oily compromise.” The presbytery gave as its reason for not validating Williamson’s work with the publication its concerns about the Layman’s approach to journalism, which one member of the presbytery’s Committee on Ministry, Tom Philips of Banner Elk, N.C., described as the Layman’s “ongoing tone of insult, innuendo and what often appears to be slanted reporting which discredits and demeans sisters and brothers in Christ.”

The Committee on Ministry originally proposed removing the validation of Williamson’s ministry, which would have put him on inactive status, but the presbytery instead voted to make him a member-at-large — a status he told the presbytery he did not want and would not accept. He promptly filed a remedial case with the synod.

The synod’s permanent judicial commission conducted a three-day trial in Richmond, Va. during the last week of September and issued its ruling Sept. 29 — concluding by a 10-0 vote that the presbytery did not give Williamson proper due process or fundamental fairness. The commission sustained Williamson’s complaints on 7 of the 26 points on which it ruled.

The judicial commission ruled 10-0 that the presbytery’s Committee on Ministry did not adequately specify its reasons for recommending that Williamson’s ministry with the Layman not be validated, and that he “was not notified in a timely, clear and concise manner the specific reasons for taking the action not to validate his ministry.” 

During the presbytery meeting, members of the Committee on Ministry used both oral remarks and a PowerPoint presentation to make their case. But the judicial commission ruled that the presbytery should have “prepared a short, clear and concise statement of its concerns” in writing, communicated that to Williamson as early as possible before the presbytery meeting, and, in its presentation at the presbytery meeting, “raised no matters not already contained in the written statement.”

The judicial commission ruled that some of the background information provided was “too unclear and verbose,” but “the substance of the concerns expressed there formed a constitutionally acceptable basis for bringing the recommendation to presbytery.”

It also voted 10-0 to sustain Williamson’s contention that statements were made about him at the Jan. 31 meeting that were “false and unsubstantiated” and which he heard for the first time during the meeting, not giving him a chance to prepare a detailed response.

The judicial commission cited two instances of comments made at the presbytery meeting regarding the Layman’s coverage — one involving former General Assembly moderator Syngman Rhee, the other regarding Alex Metherell, a California elder and physician — that were “based probably upon a misunderstanding or a misattribution,” and about which no substantiating information was provided. But the Committee on Ministry “has a responsibility to be scrupulously accurate in any statements it makes in official presentations,” the judicial commission ruled.

The judicial commission also stated, however, that the presbytery’s new policy on validating ministries — which was adopted in October 2002 and which was considered in deciding whether to continue validating Williamson’s work with the Layman — “was well-conceived, and conscientiously implemented.” Those involved from the presbytery “devoted much time, thought and effort to the process, and considered all the issues with seriousness and sincere concern for the good of the whole church,” the judicial commission wrote.

And the commission did not sustain 19 other allegations that Williamson made regarding the presbytery’s actions. Among them: it concluded that the presbytery’s policy for deciding whether particular ministries should be validated was not overly broad and the presbytery did not err by refusing to allow videotaping of the proceedings or a court reporter to make a transcript, as Williamson had requested.

It said, by a vote of 10-0, that the presbytery did not fail to follow its own precedent by declining to validate Williamson’s ministry when it had validated the work of another Presbyterian Lay Committee employee, Steve Strickler, concluding that the job descriptions for the two men’s work are not similar.

The commission decided, by a 10-0 vote, that the presbytery did not err in designating Williamson as a member-at-large, even though he hadn’t asked for that designation and didn’t want it. When Williamson asked to have his ministry with the Layman validated for another year, that request “signals his desire to continue as an active member of presbytery” and it becomes the Committee on Ministry’s responsibility, with the presbytery’s approval, to decide what status to grant, the commission wrote. Some presbyteries in the synod automatically grant member-at-large status to ministers who lose the status of having a validated ministry, it pointed out.

It determined, by a 9-1 vote, that the presbytery was not wrong to consider the Presbyterian Lay Committee’s “Declaration of Conscience” — which declares that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s unrestricted mission budget is not worth supporting — in making its decision. The commission ruled that the presbytery had not retaliated against Williamson for holding any particular opinions or expressing dissent. But the Committee on Ministry found “the editorial policy espoused by The Layman, an institution wholly unrelated to the PC(USA) and not subject to its discipline, was not consonant with presbytery’s mission,” so Williamson’s work with the Layman couldn’t be considered a validated ministry.

It determined that both the presbytery Committee on Ministry and its Validated Ministry Task Force “did all that was required of them by the constitution and that Williamson had been invited to meet with them both, although because of a scheduling conflict (he was already committed to an out-of-state business trip) he did not meet with the Committee on Ministry.

The judicial commission ruled, by a vote of 7-2, with one abstention, that the Committee on Ministry and the Validated Ministry Task Force did invite Williamson to attend meetings where his situation would be discussed and did give him adequate notice.  But it also said it would have been appropriate for the Committee on Ministry to delay its decision until Williamson was able to be present, and doing so would have indicated “a good faith attempt to go the extra mile” and work towards resolution of the dispute.

In a minority report on that point, however, commissioners Lawrence L. Willis and Youngil Cho wrote that not rescheduling the meeting so Williamson could attend amounted to a “rush to judgment” and showed “a lack of pastoral care and wisdom” by the Committee on Ministry.

William Taber, stated clerk and executive presbyter of Western North Carolina presbytery, was out of the office and could not be reached immediately for comment on the ruling.

Williamson, in a telephone interview, said: “I thank God for the decision of the court to order the presbytery to set aside that decision, and I’m deeply grateful to all the people who prayed for us during this ordeal.” Williamson said he was disappointed by what the presbytery did, in the Validated Ministry Task Force, in the Committee on Ministry, and “at that terrible presbytery meeting on the 31st of January. That was a real low point in my ministerial career. But I’m very grateful for the Presbyterian system of government and for our judicial system. I do think in this case that the system worked.”

Asked about the prospects for reconciliation in the presbytery, Williamson said there are difficult issues to deal with, but “surely because we believe the gospel we believe that reconciliation is possible.” He said of those who spoke against him:  “I believe they were wrong but I don’t think they’re evil people. I think they’re fellow Christians . . . I’m certainly willing to do my part” to seek reconciliation.