The Pastoral Committee of the Presbytery of Northern New England has continued to exercise its responsibility to work on behalf of the presbytery with the session of Christ Church Presbyterian (CCP) of Burlington, Vt., as required by the Londonderry decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly. In that decision, the GA-PJC directed the presbytery to work pastorally with CCP to assist it in fulfilling its obligation to comply with all provisions of the Constitution, including G-6.0106b, the section that the Session had earlier announced, by public statement, that it would ignore.
In Jun, 2002, CCP informed the presbytery that it had set aside its earlier statement. In November 2002, it issued a new statement. This statement has caused considerable comment, including charges in the press that the session of CCP has “defiantly” claimed to be a “law unto itself.”
With the Londonderry decision and these accusations in mind, the Pastoral Committee met on Feb. 15, 2003, to study the November statement of the CCP session. The committee concluded that almost all of the statement falls within the boundaries of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Constitution. The statement acknowledges the authority of the Constitution, the courts of the church, the presbytery, and the Pastoral Committee acting on behalf of presbytery. It states that CCP has found that it can comply with G-6.0106b, the provision it earlier said it would not apply.
The bulk of the statement is an interpretation of G-6.0106b. Interpretation is an activity that the Londonderry decision not only permits but requires. Indeed, it is a regular duty of decision-making bodies in a constitutional system. In carrying out that duty, any governing body may make statements about how it believes the Constitution should be interpreted. As these interpretations are put into practice in making actual decisions, they may be reviewed by higher judicatories. CCP, by acknowledging that it has been instructed by the Assembly, the synod’s and Assembly’s judicial commissions, the presbytery, and the presbytery’s Pastoral Committee, seems well aware that its right to interpret the Constitution is subject to the authority of other bodies within the PC(USA).
Overall, the Pastoral Committee found the November, 2002 statement of CCP not only to be in order but also remarkable for its clarity and care of expression. The Pastoral Committee did, however, identify several sentences that seemed inconsistent with the statement as a whole, in that they did not clearly state that they are expressions of the session’s opinion and beliefs, subject to review. A representatives of the Pastoral Committee met with the CCP Session on March 2, 2003. The session agreed to amend the statement to take into account the concerns of the Pastoral Committee.
At the same time that the Pastoral Committee reports the compliance of the CCP session with the requirements of the Constitution, the Pastoral Committee thinks it is appropriate, because the focus of our attention is a statement by a governing body, to call attention to a long-standing principle: no session or other governing body is empowered to interpret a constitutional provision in the abstract and for all time. Statements like the one adopted by CCP, though in order, are of limited usefulness, because the proper time to interpret and apply any constitutional provision, including G-6.0106b, is when a particular candidate is being examined for office. The Pastoral Committee trusts that CCP will make the same good faith effort to apply all relevant provisions of the Constitution as it examines those elected to office that it has shown in the preparation of its present statement. It should also be noted that if others differ on how CCP’s session interprets or applies G-6.0106b in a particular case, the Constitution provides both administrative and judicial means to challenge that action.
The committee is satisfied that CCP’s statement, as modified, is a thoughtful attempt to state the session’s understanding, perspective and views. It is our opinion that the statement does not defy or violate the Constitution.
The committee asks that presbytery accept this report, forward it to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly as the final report on the presbytery’s compliance under the Londonderry decision, record that its work has been completed, and dismiss the committee.
The Pastoral Committee: Elder B. J. Lates, chair, Elder Darryl Johnson, Elder Katherine Lynn, Elder Deborah Malone, Elder Kay Shields, Elder Herbert Spencer, the Rev. John Van Ness and the Rev. Dwight White.
