Advertisement

General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission dismisses case against Advisory Committee on the Constitution

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) – the highest court in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) system – has dismissed a case against the denomination’s Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC).

The remedial case, filed in September 2014 by Cherokee Presbytery in Georgia and the sessions of four congregations in Michigan and Wisconsin, objected to advice that ACC representatives gave at the 2014 General Assembly as assembly commissioners were discussing a proposed authoritative interpretation involving same-sex marriage – an interpretation known at the assembly as Item 10-03, which the assembly ultimately passed by a vote of 371-238. That authoritative interpretation allows PC(USA) ministers to perform same-sex marriages in jurisdictions where such marriages are legal, although it does not require them to do so.

The complaint that the permanent judicial commission considered alleged that the ACC’s advice given during the assembly’s discussion on the overture was “conflicting or erroneous.”

According to the judicial commission ruling, the complaint asks that the commission “set aside or otherwise declare irregular an act or acts of the ACC.”

The commission’s Feb. 14 ruling, however, dismisses the case, determining that it “does not state a claim on which relief can be granted” and that the complaint does not present a constitutional issue.

The ACC’s written advice provided prior to the assembly stated in part that if the assembly desired to change the definition of marriage in the PC(USA)’s constitution, “such a change is better accomplished” by amending the denomination’s constitution “rather than by authoritative interpretation.”

The denomination’s 171 presbyteries currently are voting on a proposed constitutional amendment that would state in part that “marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman . . . ”

The PC(USA)’s Book of Order currently defines Christian marriage as being between one man and one woman. A majority of the PC(USA)’s presbyteries would need to approve the proposed constitutional amendment for it to take effect.

In its written advice to the assembly, the ACC acknowledged that the proposed authoritative interpretation was “contrary to the clear statement” of the definition of Christian marriage currently in the PC(USA) constitution. The ACC did not say, however, that the assembly could not consider the authoritative interpretation.

The judicial commission’s ruling states that “the ACC’s advice, in general, was that Item 10-03 was in order and when asked, said, ‘It is our opinion that it is within the rights of this Council to consider taking this action.’ ”

The judicial commission’s ruling states that under the denomination’s Book of Order, “the GAPJC does not act as the final arbiter of the Constitution in Presbyterian polity. This Commission’s role is restricted and it has no jurisdiction to directly declare an action of the GA unconstitutional. Direct challenges to actions of the GA do not fall within the GAPJC’s jurisdiction” in the type of complaint filed here.

The ruling states that “authoritative interpretations of the Book of Order may be provided by the GA or through a decision of the GAPJC in a remedial or disciplinary case. This is not a remedial or disciplinary case challenging an action performed under the authority of an AI (authoritative interpretation). Given the posture of this case, a constitutional issue is not before this Commission.

“By filing against the ACC, the Complainants seek to do indirectly what cannot be done directly in an action against the GA. During oral argument before this Commission, counsel for the Complainants conceded that bringing an action against the ACC was the only way Complainants could find to challenge the AI.”

The GAPJC ruling also states that “implicit in the Complainants’ argument is the assumption that different advice from the ACC would have led to a different result in the GA’s vote on Item 10-03. This Commission does not know and must not speculate on how the GA would have responded had the ACC advised the GA differently. After the GA considered the advice of the ACC, that advice was superseded by the GA’s action.”

Click here for the full text of the Feb. 14 ruling in the case.

The GAPJC also issued a ruling Feb. 14 in another case involving the 2014 General Assembly – this one involving the session of a California congregation which challenged “alleged irregularities” by the assembly’s Committee on Marriage Issues and Civil Unions and by the assembly itself in approving the authoritative interpretation on same-sex marriages.
The GAPJC affirmed a lower court ruling dismissing the case, ruling that it lacks jurisdiction over the General Assembly and “there is no provision in the Book of Order permitting a complaint to be filed against the General Assembly itself.”
 The GAPJC’s ruling in that case can be found here.

For more background, read Ed Koster’s Outlook commentary This is not a drill.

 

 

 

 

 

LATEST STORIES

Advertisement