Ecclesiastical Judicial Cases of the
Presbyterian Church in America
1995 - 2004
Jump Links : |
|
Frequently used abbreviations : |
| BCO = Book of Church Order; OMSJC = Operating Manual of the Standing Judicial Commission [see BCO link]; M__GA = Minutes of General Asssembly. RAO = Rules of Assembly Operation [see BCO link]; RE = Ruling elder; SJC = Standing Judicial Commission; TE = Teaching elder (i.e., pastor or minister); WCF = Westminster Confession of Faith. |
1995-11 Landrum v. Mississippi Valley.[M26GA (1998): 222-227]. Sustained, in part 16-0. Summary: Alleged MVP erred by ordaining a man holding certain views on "tongues" & "prophecy." SJC's recommended judgment against sustaining was not approved by 25th GA (vote 229-423). Special Commission of 10 TEs and 10 REs was then appointed by moderator to re-hear, and it reported the decision below in 1998. Statement of the Issues: 1. Did MVP err in approving TE Blaha's theological examination in relation to his view of tongues? 2. Did MVP err in approving TE Blaha's theological examination in relation to his view of prophecy? 3. Did MVP err in not holding that TE Blaha's views violate BCO 7-1? The Judgment: 1. No. TE Blaha's view and practice of tongues (as private prayer language) are within the bounds of the 1974 Pastoral Letter adopted by the 2nd General Assembly. 2. Yes. Based on TE Blaha's particular view of prophecy as recorded in Record of the Case, the MVP erred in approving his theological examination without exception (WCF 1.1 and 6). 3. This issue is not within the purview of this Commission. First, the Record of the Case does not provide sufficient argumentation on this issue. Second, we recognize that in the PCA there are and have been different interpretations of BCO 7-1 with regard to cessation of certain spiritual gifts. Unless or until there is an allencompassing statement by a General Assembly, we believe that the decisions of previous General Assemblies, including judicial cases and the 1974 Pastoral Letter, provide adequate guidelines in this area (BCO 14-7). |
1996-06 Williams v. South Texas [M27GA (1999): 77]. Judicially out of order because parties could not agree on the Record of the Case. |
| 1997-01 Felton v. Grace [M26GA (1998): 103]. Withdrawn. |
1997-02 Appeal of Nickoley v. Rocky Mountain [M26GA (1998): 122]. Sustained 17-0. Summary: TE alleged he was convicted and deposed w/o proper process. Issue: Did Rocky Mountain Presbytery err in receiving and immediately acting upon a motion to cite Rev. Bruce Nickoley for contumacy and rendering the judgment to depose him from the ministry without giving him reasonable opportunity to defend himself under the due process provisions for a trial as outlined in the BCO? Judgment: Yes. This case is remanded to Presbytery with the recommendation that it either (a) institute a prosecution against Rev. Nickoley as a case under process on the charge of contumacy and/or other charges under the due process provisions of the BCO for a trial, beginning with BCO 32-3. Or (b) revoke the judgment of deposition from the ministry against Rev. Nickoley and reinstate him as a member of Rocky Mountain Presbytery in good standing. |
1997-03 Nickoley v. Rocky Mountain [M26GA (1998): 129}. Administratively out of order because complaint involved a matter on which an appeal was pending. |
1997-04 Conrad v. Central Carolina.[M26G (1998): 122]. Not sustained 21-0. Summary: Alleged S erred by removing her and others from membership roll. Issue: Did the Central Carolina Presbytery act unconstitutionally on January 25-26, 1997, in denying the complaint of July 22, 1996? Judgment: No. The CCP did not act unconstitutionally in denying the complaint. |
1997-05 Session of Mt. Carmel v. New Jersey [M26GA (1998): 103]. Not sustained 12-9. C-Op 12, Min Rep 9, Obj Summary - Alleged NJP erred by adopting 15 Affirmations and Denials on Creation. Nine SJC members filed Minority Report, but it was not adopted on GA vote. SJC's judgment was then adopted by GA. Issue - Did the New Jersey Presbytery err in adopting the resolution of its ad hoc committee on creation? Judgment - No. New Jersey Presbytery acted within its constitutional authority (BCO 11-4). |
1997-06 Appeal of Fitzsimmons v. Evangel Presbytery [M26GA (998): 131]. Sustained 17-0. Summary: Deacon alleged Session erred in trial procedures on charges of his having falsely accused the Session. (He was excommunicated.) Presbytery judged his appeal out of order. SJC sustained appeal and remanded for hearing. Issues: 1. Did Presbytery hurry to a decision before reviewing all of the evidence in the case, or before all the testimony was taken, or without affording the accused the opportunity to meet with his accusers and defend himself? 2. Did the Session hurry to a decision before reviewing all of the evidence in the case, or before all the testimony was taken, or without affording the accused the opportunity to meet with his accusers and defend himself? 3. Did the Session refuse to set a date and time when appellant could be present at trial, and if so, did it violate appellant's rights under BCO 42-3? 4. Was the Session manifestly prejudiced? 5. Did the Session err by inflicting upon appellant the harshest censure of excommunication under the record of this case? Judgment: 1. Presbytery erred (a) in failing to notify the appellant of the time, date and place for hearing the appeal and (b) in failing to adjudicate the appeal, once the appeal was found to be in order. This case is remanded to Evangel Presbytery under BCO 42-9. 2. We make no ruling as to Issues 2, 3, 4 and 5, which are properly the subject of the disposition of this case by Evangel Presbytery on remand. |
1997-07 Farris v. Central Florida [M26GA (998): 133]. Judicially out of order. Person was not a member of a PCA church. |
1997-08 Bridie v. Central Florida [M26GA (1998): 134]. Judicially out of order. Person was not a member of a PCA church. |
1997-09 Appeal of Dr. Shive v. Central Carolina.[M26GA (1998): 134]. Sustained 16-3 (See subsequent Case 1999-06.) Summary: Alleged 5 errors. SJC sustained on one, ruling S erred by excommunicating instead of imposing a lesser censure. Remanded for imposition of indef susp from sacraments. Issue: 1. Was it reversible error, under these particular circumstances, for the Session of Christ Covenant Church to have instituted judicial process against Dr. Shive prior to allowing personal contact between Dr. Shive and the ladies against whom he sinned in an effort to seek the reconciliation of these parties? 2. Did the Session of Christ Covenant Church commit reversible error in not recusing several members of the court who had stated an opinion concerning the case and was there a reversible prejudice present in this case? 3. Was it reversible error, under these particular circumstances, for the prosecutor of the charges filed against Dr. Shive, who was also a member of the court, to be involved in the court's deliberations? 4. Were there procedural and substantive errors committed by Central Carolina Presbytery in this case which require a remand in this case? 5. Did Central Carolina Presbytery err by affirming the decision of Christ Covenant Church Session's infliction upon Dr. Robert M. Shive the highest censure based on the Record of the Case? Judgment: 1. No. The Session acted under its authority of BCO 31-7 when it instituted the judicial process without allowing a personal meeting between Dr. Shive and the ladies against whom he committed sin. 2. No. The record does not reflect that the actions mandating recusal under BCO 32-17 occurred. Furthermore, two of the three members of the court complained of by Dr. Shive voluntarily recused themselves from the court prior to the court's final deliberations as to the judgment and censure to be imposed. 3. No. While we believe it was an error of judgment and an error of application of BCO 31-7, especially in light of BCO 32-19, for the prosecutor to have been a part of the court during its deliberations, we do not believe that this error requires a reversal of the judgment and a remand for a new trial in this particular case. 4. No. We do not find that errors were committed by Central Carolina Presbytery requiring reversal and remand. 5. Yes. Central Carolina Presbytery erred in affirming, and the Session of Christ Covenant Church erred in going straight to, the highest censure of excommunication in light of the lack of compelling evidence in the Record of the Case to reflect that Dr. Shive is contumacious or impenitent. See BCO 30-4 and 33-3. Pursuant to BCO 42-9, we reverse that portion of the judgment by the Session of Christ Covenant Church inflicting the censure of excommunication on Dr. Shive, and we remand the matter back to the Session of Christ Covenant Church for it to impose the censure of indefinite suspension from the Sacraments upon Dr. Robert M. Shive in accordance with BCO 36-5, and with the instruction that, until satisfactory evidence of repentance is given to the Session of Christ Covenant Church, to impose such conditions concerning Dr. Shive's involvement in the life of Christ Covenant Church as the Session may find. |
| 1997-10 Larsen v. Pacific [M26GA (1998): 103. Withdrawn by Complainant. |
1997-11 Appeal of Larsen v. Pacific [M26GA (1998): 144]. Administratively out of order. Did not submit to a trial. Deposed for contumacy. |
| 1997-12 Larsen v. Pacific [M26GA (1998): 103]. Withdrawn by Complainant. |
1997-13 Session of Harvestwood v. New River [M26GA (1998): 144]. Sustained 17-0 Summary: Alleged P erred by rendering a decision on a Reference that was only seeking advice. Issue: Did P err in making final disposition of a matter when it had come to the P only as a reference seeking advice? Judgment: Yes |
1997-14 George v. Central Florida [M26GA (1998): 148]. This case was deemed abandoned due to death of Complainant without heirs. |
1997-15 George v. Central Florida [M26GA (1998): 148. This case was deemed abandoned due to death of Complainant without heirs. |
1997-16 Session of Bible PCA v. Central Carolina [M26GA (1998): 148]. Not sustained 11-7. D-Op 1, D-Op 4 Summary: Alleged Pby erred by ruling an inactive RE could not serve on Pby committee without his Session's approval. Presbytery was aware the Session had a policy prohibiting such. Issue: 1. Did Presbytery err in accepting the ruling of its moderator to declare the ruling elder's confirmation to the Presbytery committee to be null and void since there was no sessional approval? 2. Does the record reflect that Presbtery's action of April 26, 1997 creates the "appearance of prejudice" against Ruling Elder Dollar? Judgment: 1. No 2. No |
1997-17 Lebo v. Susquehanna Valley [M27GA (1999): 77. Not sustained 19-1. Summary: Alleged Session erred by allowing congregation to adopt a motion regarding one part of the budget. Issue: 1. Did the Susquehanna Valley Presbytery err in denying a complaint that alleged that the congregation of Carlisle Reformed Presbyterian Church acted unconstitutionally when it approved a motion to supplement the Assistant Pastor's Fund from the 1996-1997 budget carry-over? 2. Did Susquehanna Valley Presbytery affirm the allegation that the Session had ceded approval of the church budget to the congregation? Judgment: 1. No 2. No |
| 1998-01 Snapp v. James River M27GA, 1999 Louisville, p. 70. Reheard by entire SJC. Not Sustained 15-6. D-Op 5 Summary: Alleged P erred by sustaining ordination exam of man holding anthropomorphic days view of Genesis creation days. See also case 1998-05 Long v. James River. Issue: Did P err at its October 1997 meeting when it sustained the examination of TE Andrew Conrad? Judgment: No Key Words: creation, days, Genesis, Adam, anthropomorphic, doctrine, ordination, exam, views, WCF 1:9, WCF 4:1 |
| 1998-02 St. Paul Session v. Central Florida M27GA, 1999 Louisville, p. 79. Not sustained 17-1. D-Op Summary: Alleged P commission erred by declining to find strong presumption of guilt of minister when 1/3 of Session filed charges. Issue: 1. Did Central Florida Presbytery err in sustaining the report of the commission examining matters related to Christ Church, Jacksonville, FL? 2. Did Central Florida Presbytery err in sustaining the report of the commission examining matters related to Rev. John Hutchinson? Judgment: 1. No 2. No Key words: allegations, charge, strong presumption of guilt, process, investigation, jurisdiction, notice, witnesses, reasonable indulgence, prejudice, commission, BCO 31-2, 32-2 |
| 1998-03 Appeal of Williams v. South Texas M27GA, 1999 Louisville, p. 90. AOO |
| 1998-04 Yelton v. Westminster M27GA, 1999 Louisville, p. 90. AOO 19-0. Appellant joined RPCNA. |
| 1998-05 Long v. James River M27GA, 1999 Louisville, p. 73. Reheard by entire SJC. Not Sustained 13-8. D-Op 5 Summary: Alleged P failed to instruct a minister, post-ordination, not to teach or preach his anthropomorphic days view of Genesis creation days. See also case 1998-01 Snapp v. James River. Issue: Did P err when it instructed TE Andrew Conrad not to teach or preach his views on creation and "anthropomorphic days?" Judgment: No Key words: teach, preach, creation, days, Genesis, Adam, anthropomorphic, doctrine, ordination, exam, views, WCF 1:9, WCF 4:1, BCO 39-3, 43-3 |
| 1998-06 Appeal of Kim v. Korean Southwest M27GA, 1999 Louisville, p. 90. AOO. Appellant withdrew from PCA |
| 1998-07 Appeal Chong Ho Yi v. Korean Capital M27GA, 1999 Louisville, p. 91. AOO. Appellant did not properly file. |
| 1998-08 Appeal of Beverly Smith v. Southwest M28GA, 2000 Tampa, p. 218. Sustained 21-0. Summary: Convicted on charges of divisiveness, gossip, contumacy, and breaking membership vows. Issue: Did Southwest Presbytery clearly err when it did not sustain the appeal of Mrs. Beverly Smith? Judgment: The Presbytery clearly erred in judgment by not sustaining the appeal and by not reversing the judgment of the Session The Session clearly erred in both judgment and procedure Therefore, the finding of guilt is reversed and the discipline of suspension from the sacraments is annulled Key words � charge, evidence, witness, contumacy, divisive, letters, vows, prejudice, indulgence, suspension, BCO 33-4, 39-3, 42-6 |
| 1998-09 Appeal of Baer v. Illiana M28GA, 2000 Tampa, p. 229. Not sustained 19-0. Summary: Minister convicted on charges of violating 4th and 7th ordination vows, 9th commandment, and 3rd installation vow. Issues: 1. Did Illiana Presbytery err in concluding that Appellant violated the 9th commandment, the 4th and 7th ordinations vows, and the 3rd installation vow by erroneously informing the congregation of WPC that the Session had "demanded" his resignation six weeks before the congregational meeting? 2. Did Illiana Presbytery commit such irregularities, manifest such prejudice, and commit such actions by their judgment and censure of the Appellant as to deprive him of the due process of the Book o f Church Order and of righteous and Biblical judgment as is required by Scripture and the Constitution of the PCA? Judgment: (1.) No; (2.) No |
| 1998-10 Reference of Complaint of Curtis v. Eastern Carolina M28GA, 2000 Tampa, p. 236. Declined 14-5. Summary: A minister ordained by E. Carolina sought to transfer to Ascension P. Ascension denied transfer, based on his creation views, but gave permission to labor in its bounds as asst. professor of Biblical Studies at Geneva College. ECP then set up a committee to investigate his view, but ECP later sustained a complaint against that action, and the committee was dissolved. A motion failed that sought to prohibit Curtis from "teaching his exceptions." TE Black complained against ECP not adopting that motion. ECP sustained Black's complaint and Curtis then complained against ECP's teaching prohibition. ECP sought to refer Curtis' complaint to the SJC but it declined to accept the Reference and instructed P to hear the C. Key words: teach, creation, days, doctrine, transfer, exam, views |
| 1999-01 Western Carolina v. Tennessee Valley M28GA, 2000 Tampa, p. 238. AOO 17-3. M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 70. SJC declined to indict. 17-0. C-Op 6, C-Op 1, C-Op 1 Summary: Western Carolina, Calvary and Ascension Presbyteries requested SJC to assume original jurisdiction over TE John Wood in TVP whom they alleged "allowed women to fill the pulpit in a PCA church." SJC initially ruled the matter AOO, stating BCO 34-1 didn't apply because SJC judged TVP did not "refuse to act." The Tampa GA overruled the AOO ruling and instructed SJC to follow BCO 34-1. (At that time, the GA, without debate, approved or disapproved all SJC decisions.) The following year the SJC reported its investigation to the 29th GA in Dallas and its decision declining to indict due to lack of a strong presumption of guilt. Dallas GA approved that decision. Key words: women, preach, teach, assume original jurisdiction, investigation, strong presumption of guilt, BCO 34-1 |
| 1999-02 Tan v. South Texas M28GA, 2000 Tampa, p. 241. AOO 22-0. Fax not acceptable. Subsequent mailing not timely filed BCO 43-3. |
| 1999-03 Appeal of Gatis v. Northeast M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 82. Withdrawn |
| 1999-04 Appeal of Fitzsimmons v. Evangel M28GA, 2000 Tampa, p. 242. AOO 21-0. Not timely filed per BCO 42-2. |
| 1999-05 Appeal of Rountree v. Covenant M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 82. Not Sustained 15-0 Summary: Alleged P erred by divesting TE w/o censure after 7 years w/o call. Issue: Did P err in its divestiture without censure of TE Lawrence Rountree? Judgment: No. P acted within its constitutional prerogatives in divesting without censure. Key words: demit, BCO 13-2, 34-10 |
| 1999-06 Appeal of Shive v. Central Carolina M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 85. Not sustained 17-1. (See previous Case 1997-09.) Summary: Alleged S erred by (1) misinterpreting a previous SJC Decision [1997-09] and (2) by increasing censure from indefinite susp from sacraments to excommunication. Issues: 1. Did P err by affirming the S interpretation of the Judgment of SJC Case 1997-09 (Shive v. CCP) that the guilt of Dr. Shive was not reversed but affirmed as to the 4 charges of (1) sexual immorality, abuse and licentiousness (2) premeditated sexual exploitation, (3) lying and bearing false witness, and (4) scandalous living? 2. Did P err by affirming the S decision to increase Dr. Shive's censure from indefinite suspension to excommunication? Judgment: 1. No. There is no mention in the Judgment in Case 1997-09 (26th GA Min. p. 137) that the guilt of Dr. Shive was reversed on any charge. Thus the guilty verdict of Christ Covenant Session stands unchanged on all 4 charges. The penalty of excommunication was recommended to be changed to indefinite suspension from the sacraments. Hence the guilty verdict of the S in SJC Case 1997-09 remained unchanged. 2. No. The Judgment in SJC Case 1997-09 gave the S these instructions: "... that until satisfactory evidence of repentance is given to Session of Christ Covenant Church, to impose such conditions concerning Dr. Shive's involvement in the life of Christ Covenant Church, as the Session may find." Thus P did not err in affirming the action of the S in imposing the censure of excommunication on Dr. Shive after the S determined that Dr. Shive had not given "satisfactory evidence of repentance." P properly followed BCO 39-3(2) in giving "great deference to a lower court regarding these factual findings which the lower court is more competent to determine." We do likewise. |
| 1997-07 Black v. Eastern Carolina M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 98. Not sustained 13-3. D-Op Summary: Alleged P failed to consider C, and erred by ruling the licentiate had "not taken an exception to WCF regarding creation." Issues: 1. At its October 1999 meeting, by failing to either sustain or deny TE Black's complaint, did P fail to consider his complaint? 2. Did P err in July 1999 when it ruled that licentiate Inman had "not taken an exception to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism regarding creation" in light of the specific written views contained in the Record of the Case? Judgment: 1. No. Presbytery did not fail to consider the complaint. While the complaint was not explicitly denied, it was essentially denied and therefore the Complainant had proper right to complain to this higher/broader court. It should not be remanded simply because of the Presbytery's failure to either sustain or deny. 2. No. P did not err when it ruled in July 1999 that the licentiate's view on the length of the creation days did not constitute an exception to the Westminster Standards. Key words: creation, days, Genesis, doctrine, exam |
| 2001-01 Morrison v. Philadelphia M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 114. Not sustained 18-0 Summary: Alleged P failed to constitutionally handle a "Memorial" alleging a S was guilty of a "grossly unconstitutional proceeding" involving a dispute between two REs not on the S. Issue: Did P act in an unconstitutional manner in adopting the report of Commission? Judgment: No Key words: memorial, investigation, BCO 40-5, 31-2 |
| 2000-02 Adams v. Northeast M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 122. AOO 18-1, C-Op Summary: SJC ruled AOO because "it is a complaint about a matter that is the subject of an appeal in another case (BCO 43-1) and because the complaint requests the relief that an accused be retried on matters he has been acquitted of by his presbytery." Key words: acquittal, retrial |
| 2000-03 South Coast Memorial M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 124. Withdrawn |
| 2000-04 Staley v. North Texas M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 124. AOO 19-0. Complainant lacked standing; was not a member of the PCA. |
| 2000-05 King v. Evangel M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 124. Abandoned. |
| 2000-07 Stadick v. Northern Illinois M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 125. AOO 19-0. Not timely filed per BCO 43. |
| 2000-08 Session of Korean Presbyterian Church of Washington v. Korean Capital M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 125. AOO 15-0. Prematurely filed. P had not completed its action on the C. |
| 2000-09 Sung Keon Kim v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 109. Sustained 17-3. Summary: Alleged P erred by "replacing" Session with a P commission w/o congregational approval. (Two groups claimed to be rightful Session.) Issue: Did P err in its action of October 9, 2000 "... to suspend the functions of the Korean Presbyterian Church of Washington Session and have the Presbytery (commission) replace the functions" (of the KPCW Session) without the prior consent of the congregation? Judgment: Yes. Therefore, the subsequent actions of the Commission acting as Session of KPCW are annulled. Key words: preliminary principle, act for, BCO 13-9, 16-2 |
2000-10 Tinsley v. Southeast Alabama M29GA, 2001 Dallas, p. 126. AOO 14-0. Not timely filed per BCO 43-3. |
| 2001-01 Appeal of Charles Kim v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 115. Sustained 16-1. Summary: Alleged P commission did not have jurisdiction to conduct the trial of an RE. Issue: Was P and/or its Commission appointed on October 9, 2000 the proper court to assume original jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate the charges against the Appellant Charles C. Kim? Judgment: No, such original jurisdiction should be with the Session; therefore, the P's action, and/or the Judicial Commission of P's actions, in this matter are reversed. Key words: preliminary principle, BCO 16-2, 31-1, 33-1 |
| 2001-02 Appeal of Sang Roo Ryoo v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 124. Sustained 19-0 Summary: Alleged P commission did not follow BCO procedures in judicial process. Remanded for new trial in compliance w/ BCO 32. Issue: Did the Judicial Commission follow BCO procedures in instituting and conducting judicial process? Judgment: No, the commission did not follow the procedures of BCO 32; and, therefore, the case is remanded to Presbytery for a new trial in compliance with BCO 32. Key words: charge, citation, indictment, BCO 32-3 |
| 2001-03 Appeal of Sung Keon Kim v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 124. Sustained 17-0 Summary: Alleged P commission did not follow BCO procedures in judicial process. Issue: Did the Judicial Commission follow BCO procedures in instituting and conducting judicial process against the appellant? Judgment: No, the commission did not follow the procedures of BCO32 and 34; and, therefore, the case is remanded to P for a new trial in compliance with BCO 32 and 34. |
| 2001-04 Appeal of Moon K. Ham v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 127. Sustained 16-1 Summary: Alleged P commission did not have jurisdiction to conduct a trial of an RE. Issues: Was P and/or its Commission appointed on October 9, 2000 the proper court to assume original jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate the charges against Appellant? Judgment: No, such original jurisdiction should be with the Session; therefore, the P's action and/or the Judicial Commission of P's actions, in this matter are reversed. |
| 2001-05 Ham v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 108. Withdrawn |
| 2001-06 Sang B. Kim and Chan S. Kim v. Korean Eastern M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 194. Sustained 15-3 Summary: Alleged P Commission improperly called congregational meeting to vote on REs. Issue: 1. Did the Administrative Commission, duly appointed by Korean Eastern Presbytery (KEP) on Sep. 19, 2000 violate BCO principles in calling and facilitating a congregational meeting of Cheltenham Presbyterian Church (CPC) on 2/18/2001 for purposes of voting on ruling elders and church trustees, and in recognizing a church session on the basis of that meeting? 2. Did KEP violate BCO principles in approving, on March 2, 2001 the Administrative Commission's actions taken on February 18, 2001? Judgment: 1. Yes. Therefore, the lower court's decision is reversed in whole, and the Complaint is sustained. 2. Yes. Therefore, the lower court's decision is reversed in whole, and the Complaint is sustained. Key words: BCO 13-9, 25-2. |
| 2001-07 Andy Lee v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 133. Sustained 15-2 Summary: Alleged P erred by appointing commission to act as the Session and that all actions of that commission should be annulled. Issue: 1. Did the Korean Capital Presbytery (KCP) err in its action of October 9, 2000, in suspending the Session of the Korean Presbyterian Church of Washington (KPCW) and appointing a Commission to act for the KPCW Session without the prior consent of the congregation? 2. Are the subsequent actions of the commission, acting as the KPCW Session, in accordance with the BCO? Judgment: 1. Yes 2. No, therefore, all subsequent actions of the commission acting as the Session of KPCW are annulled. Key words: reference, preliminary principle, BCO 13-9, 16-2 |
| 2001-09 Appeal of Charles Kim v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 137. Sustained 17-0 Summary: Alleged P commission did not have jurisdiction to conduct trial of an RE. Issues: Was P and/or its Commission appointed on January 8, 2001 the proper court to assume original jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate the charges against Appellant? Judgment: No, such original jurisdiction should be with the Session; therefore, the P's action and/or the Judicial Commission of P's actions, in this matter are reversed. |
| 2001-10 Appeal of Charles Kim v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 139. Sustained 15-1 Summary: Alleged P commission did not have jurisdiction to conduct trial of an RE. Issues: Was P and/or its Commission appointed on January 8, 2001 the proper court to assume original jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate the charges against Appellant? Judgment: No, such original jurisdiction should be with the Session; therefore, the P's action and/or the Judicial Commission of P's actions, in this matter are reversed. 2001-11 Byung Han Yoo v. Korean Northwest M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 140. AOO. Not timely filed per BCO 43-2. |
2001-12 Appeal of Peter Lee v. Korean Capital |
| 2001-13 Appeal of Samuel Hong v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 142. Sustained 16-1 Summary: Alleged P commission did not have jurisdiction to conduct trial of a Deacon. Issues: Was P and/or its Commission appointed on January 8, 2001 the proper court to assume original jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate the charges against Appellant? Judgment: No, such original jurisdiction should be with the Session; therefore, the P's action and/or the Judicial Commission of P's actions, in this matter are reversed. |
| 2001-14 Appeal of Moon Ham v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 144. Sustained 15-1 Summary: Alleged P commission did not have jurisdiction to conduct trial of an RE. Issues: Was P and/or its Commission appointed on January 8, 2001 the proper court to assume original jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate the charges against Appellant? Judgment: No, such original jurisdiction should be with the Session; therefore, the P's action and/or the Judicial Commission of P's actions, in this matter are reversed. |
| 2001-15 Appeal of In Mo Chung v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 146. Sustained 16-1 Summary � Alleged P commission did not have jurisdiction to conduct trial of an RE. Issues � Was P and/or its Commission appointed on January 8, 2001 the proper court to assume original jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate the charges against Appellant? Judgment � No, such original jurisdiction should be with the Session; therefore, the P's action and/or the Judicial Commission of P's actions, in this matter are reversed. |
| 2001-16 Appeal of Joo Bok Suh v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 147. Sustained 16-1 Summary: Alleged P commission did not have jurisdiction to conduct trial of an RE. Issues: Was P and/or its Commission appointed on January 8, 2001 the proper court to assume original jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate the charges against Appellant? Judgment: No, such original jurisdiction should be with the Session; therefore, the P's action and/or the Judicial Commission of P's actions, in this matter are reversed. 2001-17 Appeal of Choon Soon Lee v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 149. Sustained 15-1 Summary: Alleged P commission did not have jurisdiction to conduct trial of an RE. Issues: Was P and/or its Commission appointed on January 8, 2001 the proper court to assume original jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate the charges against Appellant? Judgment: No, such original jurisdiction should be with the Session; therefore, the P's action and/or the Judicial Commission of P's actions, in this matter are reversed. |
| 2001-18 Appeal of Sang Roo Ryoo v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 151. Sustained 17-0 Summary: Alleged P commission did not follow BCO procedures in judicial process of a TE. Remanded for new trial in compliance with BCO 32 and 34. Issues: Did the Judicial Commission follow BCO procedures in instituting process and conducting judicial process against the appellant? Judgment: No, the commission did not follow BCO procedures in instituting and conducting judicial process against the appellant. |
| 2001-19 Appeal of Sung Keon Kim v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 154. Sustained 18-0 Summary: Alleged P commission did not follow BCO procedures in judicial process of a TE. Remanded for new trial in compliance with BCO 32 and 34. Issues: Did the Judicial Commission follow BCO procedures in instituting process and conducting judicial process against the appellant? Judgment: No, the commission did not follow BCO procedures in instituting and conducting judicial process against the appellant. |
| 2001-20 Dae Hee Lee v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 109. Withdrawn |
| 2001-21 Ha Oak Kim v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 109. Withdrawn |
| 2001-22 Moon Ham v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 109. Withdrawn |
| 2001-23 Dae Hee Lee v. Korean Capital M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 109. Withdrawn |
| 2001-24 Williams v. Eastern Carolina M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 109. Withdrawn |
| 2001-25 Dallison v. Northern Florida M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 156. Not sustained 15-0 Summary: After being indefinitely suspended from office for 3 years, a TE alleged P erred by increasing his censure to deposition. Issues: 1. Did the Presbytery of North Florida err constitutionally or procedurally when it acted on January 12, 2001 to depose Anthony Dallison from the office of Teaching Elder, and to suspend him from the sacraments of the Church without instituting fresh process against him? 2. Did the Presbytery of North Florida err when on January 12, 2001 it determined Anthony Dallison to be impenitent with respect to his originally confessed sin, and increased the original censure to that of deposing him from the office of Teaching Elder, and suspending him from the sacraments of the Church? Judgment: 1. No. Where a Teaching Elder has confessed guilt to presbytery under BCO 38-1, Presbytery has the authority to impose the censure here imposed on January 12, 2001 without initiating new charges and conducting a new trial. 2. No. Presbytery's determination of impenitence and the imposition of additional censure based upon that determination were within the sound discretion of presbytery, and within Presbytery's authority, under BCO 37-3, 37-4, 37-8, and 34-4b. |
| 2001-26 Price v. Northern Illinois M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 109. Abandoned |
| 2001-27 Price v. Northern Illinois M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 109. Abandoned |
| 2001-28 Ball v. Westminster M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 162. Not sustained 17-1. Summary: TE alleged P erred when it adopted a plan to leave the PCA at a future date. Issue: Did P err when it denied the complaint of Larry Ball against the decision of P to withdraw from the PCA pursuant to procedures adopted at its May 15, 2001 meeting? Judgment: No. Thus the complaint of TE Larry Ball against the decision of P to withdraw from the PCA pursuant to the procedures adopted at its May 15, 2001 meeting is denied. Key words: BCO 25, 25-11, preliminary principle |
| 2001-29 Yates v. South Texas M30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 109. Withdrawn |
| 2001-30 Session of Third Presbyterian v. Evangel M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 101. JOO 19-0 Summary: Lease dispute between church and school (separate corporations). P acted as Arbitrator in a legally binding arbitration. Reasoning: "The SJC does not have jurisdiction in this case... While we applaud Presbytery's desire to assist two Christian parties in a dispute, PCA courts should not serve as civil arbitrators, even if both parties are under the jurisdiction of the PCA. Evangel Presbytery should not have accepted that role in the first place. Since it is not within the jurisdiction of a church court to serve as a civil arbitrator, then it is not within the purview of the SJC or the Presbytery to conduct appellate review of legally binding arbitration judgments either. In resolving disputes, church courts should only function in the role assigned by Scripture - as "ecclesiastical arbitrators" (1 Cor. 6, Exodus 18:21-22, Matthew 18, etc.). However, in such a role, the decisions of the church have no civil effect. And if the parties disagree with the decision, they may ask the broader/higher church courts to review it via the complaint process of BCO 43." |
| 2001-31 Appeal of Jeansonne v. Eastern Carolina M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 105. JOO 19-0. Per decision in Case 2001-33, this was remanded to the Session. |
| 2001-32 Session of Christ Covenant v. Central Carolina M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 107. JOO 18-0 Summary: S indicted a woman on charges of divorcing without Biblical grounds, but she was acquitted at trial. Husband complained and S denied his complaint. But P sustained the husband's complaint and then the S complained to the SJC against P's ruling. SJC eventually held that the S should not have considered the husband's original C in the first place, since it was filed after the BCO 43 deadline. SJC held that P erred by not ruling that way also. Key words: divorce, filing 2001-33 Marshall v. Eastern Carolina M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 109. Sustained 19-0 Summary: Presbytery sustained deacon Jeansonne's appeal, but the Prosecutor complained. P sustained prosecutor's complaint (thus voiding its decision on the appeal.) C alleged this reversal was procedural error and claimed the sustaining of the appeal should be reinstated. Issue: Did P err in sustaining the complaint of RE Keith Williams at its July 21, 2001 stated meeting, which had the effect of rescinding its judgment of April 21, 2001 to wit: reversing in whole the judgment of the Christ Presbyterian Church Session against Deacon Neil Jeansonne? Judgment: Yes. The judgment of Eastern Carolina Presbytery of July 21, 2001 is reversed and the judgment of April 21, 2001 stands [sustaining the appeal] and thereby the case is remanded to the Session of Christ Presbyterian Church [for a new hearing or withdrawal of the charges]. Reasoning excerpt: This case deals with the judicial propriety of a presbytery hearing and acting on a complaint where an appeal was taken... BCO 43-1 prohibits a complaint in a judicial case where an appeal "is taken." The words, "is taken," have reference to an appeal on a case whether past, current or pending. It does not mean just a current case under appeal. Once an appeal has been taken in a judicial case, no complaint is allowable. |
| 2001-34 Nichols & Couch v. James River M33GA, 2005, pages 72, 98, 146. Sustained parts 13-3. C-Op 2. Obj p. 146 Summary: Three judicial cases arose out of conflicts between the Session and congregation regarding a minister. There were 17 separate complaints rolled into these three cases. Cases 2002-02 and 2002-03 were answered by reference to the SJC decision in this case. This complaint alleged P erred by not dissolving a pastor's call after the congregation voted 52-42% to dissolve (with 5% abstaining). Presbytery declined to do because it deemed the congregation's "reasons... were insufficient" (BCO 23-1). P later filed an Objection after the SJC Decision, which the GA answered by referencing the C-OP. Issue: 1. Were all 17 of the complaints in Judicial Cases 01-34, 02-02, and 02-03 judicially in order? 2. Did James River Presbytery err, at its April 21, 2001 meeting and subsequent meetings when it declined to approve its Ministerial and Church Relations Committee's (MCRC) recommendation to grant the constitutional request of West End Church to dissolve the relationship between TE Robert Wilson, its pastor and West End Presbyterian Church? 3. Did James River Presbytery err in approving a motion, at its July 28, 2001 presbytery meeting, to make a gift equivalent to full salary and allowances to TE R. C. Wilson for a period of 3 months, pending a refusal of West End Presbyterian Church to continue payments to him? Judgment: 1. No. Not all 17 complaints within Judicial Cases 2001-34, 2002-02 and 2002-03 were judicially in order. The following complaints were not judicially in order, to-wit: Complaint 07-01, Judicial Case 2001-34; Complaint 10-01, Judicial Case 2002-02; Complaint 13-01, Judicial Case 2002-02; Unnumbered Complaint - Judicial Case 2002-02; Complaint 16-01, Judicial Case 2002-03; Complaint 18-01, Judicial Case 2002-03; Complaint 19-01, Judicial Case 2002-03. All the other complaints in these cases were in order. 2. Yes. James River Presbytery had no constitutional basis at its Presbytery meetings in 2001beginning with its April 21, 2001 meeting, permitting it to delay granting a proper constitutional request by West End Presbyterian Church to dissolve the relationship between the local church and its pastor. 3. No. This gift was within the discretion of James River Presbytery to determine its own benevolent giving. |
| 2001-35 Moon Ham v. Korean Capital 30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 172. AOO. Summary: Dealt with allegations presented to P but not in the form of a C against a P action or inaction. BCO 43-1. |
| 2001-36 Moo S. Lim v. Korean Capital 30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 172. AOO. Ruled moot per Cases 2000-09 and 2001-08. |
| 2001-37 Moo S. Lim v. Korean Capital 30GA, 2002 Birmingham, p. 172. AOO. Summary: Not properly before the P or the SJC because due to not being filed with and acted upon first by the Session. BCO 33-1. |
| 2002-01 Appeal of Sang Bai Kim & Chan Soo Kim v. Korean Eastern M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 112. Sustained part 2, 18-1. Summary: Alleged P erred in denying men's appeal of Session conviction. Also alleged P erred by increasing censure. Issue: 1. Did P err in denying the Appeal of the Appellants and sustaining of the judgment of Cheltenham Presbyterian Church? 2. Did P and its judicial commission err in proceeding under BCO 42-9 and 32-6, b, to increase the severity of censure due to contumacy? Judgment: 1. No. Therefore, the specified errors of failing to follow the BCO are not sustained and the decision of the P is affirmed in whole. 2. Yes. P erred by increasing the censures from suspension from sacraments and office to deposition and excommunication. |
| 2002-02 Nichols & Couch v. James River M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 85. OOO. See Case 2001-34 |
| 2002-03 Nichols & Couch v. James River M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 146. OOO. See Case 2001-34 |
| 2002-04 Judicial Reference from Evangel M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 93. Not acceded to by the SJC. |
| 2002-05 Plowman v. Philadelphia (refiled) M32GA, 2004 Pittsburgh, p. 59. Sustained 18-0. C-Op Summary: Alleged P erred by not hearing appeal. (See also 2004-02.) Issues: 1. Did Philadelphia Presbytery err in its interpretation of BCO 42-2 and as a result did not accept Mrs. Plowman's Appeal dated July 31, 2002 against the judgment of the Session of Lehigh Valley Presbyterian Church taken on July 1, 2002? 2. Did the Philadelphia Presbytery, at its January 18, 2003 meeting, err in its interpretation of BCO 43-1 in finding Mrs. Plowman's Complaint of October 19, 2002 out of order because it was not timely filed? Judgment: 1. Yes. The case is remanded to Philadelphia Presbytery to hear the Appeal as originally filed on July 31, 2002. 2. Yes. BCO 43-1 states that a Complaint cannot be filed where an Appeal is pending. There was an Appeal pending and the Complaint was timely filed after the Appeal was renamed as a Complaint. Once the Appeal was renamed as a Complaint, on the suggestion of the chairman of the Judicial Business Committee, the Complaint was timely filed. 2002-26 Appeal of Wright v. Northern California M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 93. OOO and Withdrawn |
| 2002-27 Nichols v. James River M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 93. OOO. |
| 2002-28 Gardiner v. North Georgia M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 93. OOO. |
| 2002-09 Appeal of Merriam v. Tennessee Valley M32GA, 2004 Pittsburgh, p. 67. Not sustained 17-0 Summary: Merriam previously filed an appeal, which the SJC sustained and remanded for new trial (Case 1995-10). P then sought to Reference the trial to the SJC, which the SJC declined (Case 1996-07). P declined to conduct a new trial on those charges, but eventually conducted a trial on three new charges, found the TE guilty on each, and suspended him from office indefinitely. He then appealed, alleging P erred in trial procedures and judgment. Issue: Did Tennessee Valley Presbytery err in its procedures or judgment in finding the Appellant guilty of the charges? Judgment: No. Key words: BCO 39-3.2 |
| 2002-10 Goerig v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery. M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 116. Sustained 17-0 Summary: S removed name from roll per BCO 38-4. Complaint alleged P should have sustained C and remanded to S. Issue: Did Pacific Northwest Presbytery err in denying the complaint filed by Carolyn Goerig on December 23, 2001 against the decision of Faith Presbyterian Church Session of September 13, 2001? Judgment: Yes, because Faith Presbyterian Church Session did not follow the provisions of BCO 38-4 with regard to Carolyn Goerig's membership, Pacific Northwest Presbytery should have remanded the case to the Session of Faith Presbyterian Church. Key words: BCO 46-3 |
| 2002-11 Abshire v. Pacific Northwest M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 119. Sustained 16-0 Summary: Two REs filed charges against their pastor (Abshire). Two members of the congregation then filed charges against those two REs. The pastor and other RE on Session administratively suspended the two REs from office. P formed a judicial commission to look into the matter and it eventually annulled the suspensions and dismissed the charges against the two REs. TE Abshire complained against the commission's actions, alleging the P Commission failed to follow BCO 43 in handling complaint from two REs who were suspended from office. Issue: 1. Did Presbytery err by appointing a Judicial Commission prematurely? 2. Did the Commission exceed its authority as granted by the charge of the Presbytery? 3. Did the Commission err by creating an unconstitutional remedy - exhortation? 4. Did the Commission err by entering an immediate ruling on the Complaint of REs Lynch and Rooney, without hearing argument? 5. Did the Commission err when it took various other actions? Note: Complainant asserted a sixth issue, which the SJC Panel hearing the Complaint ruled to be not properly before the Panel at this time, as that issue was filed with P on May 25, 2002 as a separate Complaint and has yet to be acted upon by P. Judgment: 1. No 2. No 3. No 4. Yes, and the Lynch/Rooney Complaint is remanded to Presbytery. 5. No |
| 2002-12 Gardner v. North Georgia M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 93. OOO |
| 2002-13 Lachman v. Philadelphia M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 93. OOO |
| 2002-14 Appeal of Lachman v. Philadelphia M32GA, 2004 Pittsburgh, p. 71. Not sustained 19-0. C-Op Summary: Alleged reversal was warranted because no witness testified to prove his guilt, per BCO 35-13. But the SJC held the following in its Reasoning: "The fact remains that there were multiple witnesses to the Appellant's guilt in these matters. There is the witness of the documents; and there is the witness of the Appellant acknowledging that those documents were written by him." Issue: Did the Presbytery of Philadelphia err when it sustained the ruling of the Session of Calvary Presbyterian Church, Willow Grove, PA? Judgment: No. |
| 2002-15 Bjork v. Philadelphia M31GA, 2003 Charlotte, p. 93. OOO. |
| 2002-16 Session of Delhi PCA v. Louisiana M32GA, 2004 Pittsburgh, p. 78. Sustained 18-3. Three D-Ops. Summary: P assumed original jurisdiction over a member of Delhi, indicted, and convicted him of contumacy. SJC ruled the Session had "acted" and therefore BCO 33-1 did not apply and therefore P erred. Issues: 1. Was the Complaint against the censure of Mike Holland timely filed? 2. Is the exercise of original jurisdiction over Mike Holland by LAP an act that is within the scope of the SJC's appellate review in this case? 3. Did LAP err in finding Mike Holland guilty of contumacy? Judgment: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes. Thus the Complaint of DPC Session is sustained, and the judgment of the LAP, for lack of jurisdiction, is a nullity. Therefore, Mr. Holland is subject to the jurisdiction of DPC Session and its decisions. Key words: BCO 31-1 |
| 2002-17 Appeal of Sung K. Kim v. Korean Capital M32GA, 2004 Pittsburgh, p. 103. JOO 18-0. Appellant did not submit to a trial. (TE deposed for contumacy.) |
| 2002-18 Herzor & Morrison v. Philadelphia M32GA, 2004 Pittsburgh, p. 104. JOO. Filed against the actions of a judicial commission only, not the completed actions of the Presbytery. |
| 2003-01 Appeal of Chavalas v. Northern Illinois M32GA, 2004 Pittsburgh, p. 105. JOO 18-0. Summary: Per BCO 42-7, SJC partially sustained the appeal and suspended the judgment and censure of appellant because of incomplete transcript of testimony due to recording malfunction. BCO 35-7, 42-7 |
| 2003-02 Thornton v. Westminster M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 99. Sustained in part, 18-1. C-Op. D-Op. Summary: Complaint alleged P did not conduct a complete BCO 31-2 investigation on allegations of TE's Frank Smith's secret taping of a phone conversation with TE Dewey Roberts. Issues: 1. Did P err in not conducting a complete BCO 31-2 investigation the secret taping done by TE Smith? 2. Did P err in not conducting a proper BCO 31-2 investigation of TE Smith and in not instituting process against TE Smith in the matter of the allegation of lying to and threatening of TE Roberts? 3. Did the complainant prove that P acted with partiality in its dealing with TE Smith's secret taping of a phone call? 4. Did the complainant prove that P established an unbiblical criteria for determining whether or not secret taping is wrong? Judgment: 1. Yes. The matter is remanded back to P for a new hearing with the instruction that P is to conduct a new BCO 31-2 investigation of the secret taping of TE Smith. The P investigation needs to pursue the testimony of witness TE Roberts and any other available witnesses. The P investigation needs to research the legal ramifications of a secret tape of a phone conversation being reduced to writing and the legal consequences of the secret tape being destroyed by the party after the taping. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. |
| 2003-03 Appeal of Paul W. Lee v. Korean Southwest M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 107. Sustained 19-0 Summary: Alleged P erred in process and judgment in a TE's trial on three charges. He was laboring out of bounds at the time. Issue: 1. Did the KSWP err in the verdict of guilty on the charge TE Lee failed to comply with the citations of the Officers Committee? 2. Did KWSP err when it held TE Lee liable for rejecting the admonitions of the Admonition Committee? 3. Did KWSP err in the manner in which its JC conducted the trial of TE Lee? 4. Did the KSWP err in imposing the censure of definite suspension upon TE Lee? 5. Did the KSWP err in imposing the additional censure of automatic indefinite suspension after one year if TE Lee failed to repent? Judgment: Yes on all five Issues. Key words: investigation, citation, admonish, cross-examine, BCO 31-2, 32-3, 32-15, 32-17, 35-7 |
| 2003-04 Chin v. Covenant M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 113. Not sustained 14-7. D-Op 6 Summary: Complainants alleged S in Tennessee erred by declining to interview their 6-yr old twins for admission to Lord's Supper when the family transferred from a church in Louisiana. The children had previously been communicant members of another PCA church. (BCO 57-1, 57-2) Issues: 1. Did the Session of Covenant Presbyterian Church err in its understanding and application of BCO 57-2 in denying the request of Dr. and Mrs. Frank Chin to examine their young children for admission to the sealing ordinances? 2. Did Covenant Presbytery err in its denial of the Complaint of Dr. and Mrs. Frank Chin? Judgment: (1.) No; (2.) No Key words: paedocommunion |
| 2003-05 Thornton v. Westminster M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 99. See Case 2003-02. |
| 2003-06 Wright v. Eastern Carolina M32GA, 2004 Pittsburgh, p. 106. JOO 17-1. D-Op Summary: Session sent BCO 41 Reference on theological question. C was against P's answer. SJC ruled answer was only advice and thus not a complainable P action. |
| 2003-07 Tan v. South Texas M32GA, 2004 Pittsburgh, p. 113. AOO 19-0. Prematurely filed. P had not yet considered. |
| 2004-01 Westminster Presbyterian Church v. Westminster M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 71. Withdrawn |
| 2004-02 Appeal of Plowman v. Philadelphia M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 118. Sustained 21-0 Summary: Alleged S had manifestation of prejudice in various aspects of the judicial process. Alleged S erred by stopping a trial and convicting her of contumacy for refusing to have her 14 and 16 yr. old children testify in a trial related to marital separation. See also 2002-05. Issues: 1. Did the Presbytery err in ruling that the trial of Mrs. Plowman may be resumed by the Session of Lehigh Valley Presbyterian Church with a new TE moderator chosen by the Session (Summary of The Facts 12.d)? 2. Did the P err in not lifting all the suspensions of Mrs. Plowman from the Lord's Table? 3. Did P err in finding no manifestation of prejudice by the Session of LVPC in the handling of this case? Judgment: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes. Therefore the appeal is sustained and all judgments and censures are set aside. Key words: children, witness, testimony, divorce, BCO 42-2, 42-6 |
| 2004-03 Harris v. Heritage Presbytery. M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 123. Not sustained 14-7. D-Op 6 Summary: Alleged S erred by not publishing each minister's salary in the budget and not asking the congregation to approve all changes in terms of call. Issue: 1. Did Heritage Presbytery err when it ruled, "There is nothing either implicit or explicit in the BCO stating that changes in a pastor's call be approved by vote of the congregation"? (Record of the Case, p. 17) 2. Does the Book of Church Order require that changes in the terms of a pastor's call be publicized to the congregation? Judgment: (1.) No; (2.) No Key words � BCO 12-5.b, 20-1, 20-6, |
| 2004-04 Appeal of Jerguson v. Western Carolina M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 130. AOO 20-0. Case was being reheard by P. BCO 42-2. |
| 2004-05 Blevins v. Westminster M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 131. Sustained 20-0. C-Op Summary: Alleged P erred when it ruled a C was not timely filed that related to S denial of request for a new trial asserting "new testimony." BCO 35-13, BCO 43-1, 43-2 Issue: Did Presbytery err in its commission's ruling of February 3, 2004 (received by Presbytery on April 17, 2004) that the Blevins/Seufert Complaint was not timely filed? Judgment: Yes. The Blevins/Seufert Complaint, filed on June 8, 2003 against Westminster PCA Session's action of May 30, 2003 denying Mrs. Clark's April 24, 2003 request for the removal of her censures and a transfer of her church membership, was timely filed. Therefore, the denial of the Blevins Complaint by Westminster Presbytery is in error, and Westminster Presbytery should rehear the Westminster Session and Warhurst Complaints with the merits of the Blevins/Seufert Complaint being duly considered. |
| 2004-06 Appeal of Tan v. Houston Metro M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 131. AOO 22-0. Appellant did not submit to a regular trial. BCO 42-2. |
| 2004-07 Session of First Presbyterian Augusta v. Savannah River Presbytery. M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 138. Sustained 18-1 Summary: Alleged P erred when it sustained a C alleging, (1) S erred by adding items to docket of congregational meeting and (2) S erred by recommending a course of action to congregation. Issues: 1. Did the P err in rejecting the Session's right to add items to the agenda of a congregational meeting called in response to a petition from members of the congregation [BCO 25-2]? 2. Did the P err in rejecting the Session's right to inform the members of the congregation of the rights afforded to them by BCO 24-6 and to recommend that the members of the congregation exercise those rights; and then in annulling the subsequent actions of the Session as indicated in Statement of the Facts 7:c and d? Judgment: 1. Yes. BCO 25-2 does not prohibit a S from adding additional agenda items to a congregational meeting conducted pursuant to a petition from the congregation, and as announced in the call for the meeting. 2. Yes. BCO 24-6 does not prohibit a S from placing a congregation's right to seek dissolution of its official relationship with certain ruling elders before the congregation through a recommended course of action, nor to take subsequent action based on that vote. Key words: dissolution, office, divest without censure, dissolve official relationship |
| 2004-08 Thornton v. Westminster [M34GA (2006): 85. Sustained (SJC vote not recorded in GA Minutes). C-Op 7. C-Op 4. Obj. Summary: Alleged that Presbytery erred by not approving a congregation's call to a TE who had been w/o call (BCO 20-10) and instead began divestiture process of BCO 34-10. Seventeen Westminster Presbytery members filed an objection to the SJC Decision that ruled Presbytery erred. (cf. Cases 2003-02 & 2003-05). Issues: 1. Did Presbytery err on July 17, 2004 in denying the complaint against its action taken on April 17, 2004, by declining to place the call from Memorial PCA into the hands of TE Jim Thornton? 2. Did Presbytery err on July 17, 2004 in denying the complaint against its action taken April 17, 2004, by beginning the process of divestiture without censure against TE Thornton per BCO 13-2 and BCO 34-10? Judgment: (1.) Yes; (2.) Yes. |
| 2004-09 Appeal of RE Robar v. Central Carolina M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 144. OOO 17-4. D-Op Not properly filed in accord with BCO 42-4. |
| 2004-10 Appeal of Merriam v. Tennessee Valley M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 71. Withdrawn. |
| 2004-11 Appeal of Scott v. Northern California M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 71. Moot |
| 2004-12 Hunt v. Western Carolina M33GA, 2005 Chattanooga, p. 72. OOO |
| 2004-13 Zaepfel v. Central Carolina M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. Abandoned. |
Jump Links : |
|