Ecclesiastical Judicial Cases of the
Presbyterian Church in America
2005 - 2014
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. |
| 2005-01 Appeal of Chastain v. Heritage [M34GA (2006): 99]. Not sustained 20-1. D-Op. Obj. Protest Summary: Alleged charge was unlawful, verdict was wrong, censure was unjust, and reversible errors in process. After SJC Decision, an Objection was filed by the TE who assisted in TE Chastain's defense. Protest filed by 8 TEs and 1 RE, from 8 Presbyteries. Issues: 1. Was Heritage Presbytery's charge a lawful charge? 2. Was Appellant's behavior divisive in the Church? 3. Was the censure unjust? 4. Were there errors in the process? Judgment: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. Yes, but none that would require the P's Judgment to be reversed or the case remanded. |
| 2005-02 Andrino v. Southern Florida M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. Out of Order. |
| 2005-03 Session of Living Word v. Pacific Northwest M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO. |
| 2005-04 Session of Hudson Korean APC v. Korean Eastern M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO |
| 2005-05 Wichter Memorial Re: Case 2004-05 Blevins v. Westminster M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. "Was found in order but the SJC officers determined not to hear it." |
| 2005-06 Andrino v. Southern Florida M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO |
| 2005-07 Andrino v. Southern Florida M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO |
| 2005-08 Appeal of Peter B. Kim v. Korean Eastern. M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 113. Not sustained 17-1. D-Op Summary: Convicted of being "contumacious against the authority of Presbytery." Deposed and excommunicated. SJC upholds conviction but reduces excommunication to indefinite suspension from sacraments. Issues: 1. Shall the judgment against TE Peter B. Kim "of being continually contumacious against the authority of the presbytery" be sustained? 2. Shall the censures of deposition and excommunication of Peter B. Kim be sustained? 3. Shall the judgment against TE Peter B. Kim of threatening two ruling elders of the Hudson Presbyterian Church with a civil lawsuit in a letter written by his attorney on December 28, 2004 be sustained? Judgment: 1. Yes. 2. Yes in part. The censure of deposition is sustained. The censure of excommunication is not sustained but is changed to indefinite suspension from the sacraments. 3. No. This particular letter of December 28, 2004 is alluded to several times in the Record of the Case, but is not itself in the ROC. Therefore, it cannot constitutionally be considered by the SJC in determining the judgment on this charge. Key words: contumacy, vow, subject to brethren, BCO 32-6, 39-3.3, 46-8 |
| 2005-09 Peter B. Kim v. Korean Eastern. M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 113. Not sustained 17-1. C-Op 3. D-Op. Summary: SJC agreed P erred in denying his complaint, but that did not justify his refusal to obey P's directive. And in light of the deposition and failed appeal in 2005-08, no remedy is necessary or possible. Issues: 1. Did KEP err in denying the complaint dated June 1, received June 7, and heard on August 9? 2. Did KEP err in denying the complaint of TE Peter B. Kim at a called meeting on August 9, 2005? Judgment: 1. Yes, but this unconstitutional action at the beginning of this process does not justify TE Kim's refusal to obey the directive of presbytery and, in light of his deposition from office (Case 2005-8), further action on this matter is moot. 2. Yes. See Judgment 1. Key words: BCO 43-2, 15-1, 15-3 |
| 2005-10 Memorial of Southern Florida M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO. |
| 2005-11 Andrino v. Southern Florida M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO. |
| 2005-12 Peter B. Kim v. Korean Eastern M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO. |
| 2005-13 Zaepfel v. Central Carolina M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO. |
| 2006-01 Andrino v. Southern Florida M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO. |
| 2006-02 Memorial of Central Carolina v. Louisiana. M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 75. Sustained 17-0 and 20-0. Summary: C. Carolina filed a BCO 40-5 allegation that Louisiana Presbytery had not done an adequate BCO 31-2 investigation into allegations of theological error by TE Steve Wilkins. SJC concurred and instructed LAP to investigate. This matter was dealt with by the SJC over an extended period of time and in several stages. LAP later filed an Objection to the SJC decision and the SJC answered the OBJ. Part 1 - SJC vote 17-0 in October 2006. Issues: 1. Does the Memorial raise questions of sufficient gravity that we are led to conclude that the allegations, if true, are likely "hostile to the system of doctrine" and "strike at the vitals of religion?" (BCO 20-4) 2. If so, does the Memorial sufficiently represent the relevant writings of TE Wilkins on the matters at hand so as to raise appropriately the concerns that are alleged in the Memorial? 3. If so, then it is incumbent on Louisiana Presbytery to show how it investigated those views; how and on what basis they concluded those views were consistent with The Westminster Standards and the published declarations of Louisiana Presbytery; and how, to the extent necessary, they demanded corrective action and sought to make sure that any erroneous views that were previously published are clarified, thus protecting the peace and purity of the Church. Judgment: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. It is the conclusion of the Standing Judicial Commission that Louisiana Presbytery has not demonstrated either by formal records or informal recollections that it has "with due diligence and great discretion" (BCO 31-2) dealt with the allegations that TE Wilkins' views are out of accord at key points with the system of doctrine as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, which are "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice." (BCO 29-1, 39-3) As a result, Presbytery has not met its responsibilities under BCO 13- 9.f and 40-4, 5, and thus has not adequately protected the peace and purity of the Church. Part 2 - SJC vote 20-0 in October 2007. Issues: 1. Did Louisiana Presbytery comply with the directive of the Standing Judicial Commission that it, "with due diligence and great discretion" (BCO 31-2) deal with the allegations that TE Steven TE Wilkins' views are out of accord at key points with the system of doctrine as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, which are "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice" (BCO 29-1, 39-3) by carrying out the amends specified by the Standing Judicial Commission in Section II of the "Reasoning, Opinion, and Amends" portion of Part I of this report? 2. Did Louisiana Presbytery reach a decision consistent with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America when it found "no strong presumption of guilt in any of the charges contained [in the Central Carolina Memorial] and exercise[d] its prerogative not to institute process regarding [those] allegations?" Judgment: 1. Yes. 2. No - See the judgment, reasoning and opinion in case 2007-8, TE James Jones Jr., et al., vs. Louisiana Presbytery, in particular Judgment 2. Amends: Pursuant to BCO 40-5 the Standing Judicial Commission hereby cites Louisiana Presbytery to appear "to show what it has done or failed to do in the case in question." To implement this process, RE Samuel J. Duncan is hereby appointed to: a) serve as prosecutor in this matter and conduct the case, which is designated as Case 2007- 14; b) select Assistant Prosecutors from members of the General Assembly to assist him with this matter; c) draw an indictment to be served upon Louisiana Presbytery, with the circumstances and specifications therein not being limited to those raised in 2006-02 and 2007-8; d) prepare a citation instructing Louisiana Presbytery to respond, in writing or at a called meeting of the Standing Judicial Commission, to the indictment and to enter its plea to the matters contained therein not later than February 1, 2008. (BCO 40-6, 31-2, 32-3) If Louisiana Presbytery enters a plea of "not guilty," then Louisiana Presbytery is directed to appear, through its representatives, for trial in this matter before the Standing Judicial Commission on March 5, 2008 (BCO 40-5, 40-6, 31-2, 32-3). Key words: paedocommunion, children, Lord's Supper, Federal Vision. |
| 2006-03 Memorial of Calvary v. Louisiana M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO. Requested SJC assume original jurisdiction of TE Wilkins. BCO 34-1. |
| 2006-04 Peffley v. Heritage M34GA, 2006 Atlanta, p. 84. OOO. |
| 2006-06 Ehrlich v. North Georgia [M35GA (2007): 77]. Not sustained 18-0 (Decision draft by TE Aquila.) Summary: Complaint by two members against their Session's warning and instruction that the members not distribute a letter to the church critical of the pastor and Presbytery. Issue: Did North Georgia Presbytery err on April 18, 2006, in denying the Ehrlich complaint, and in so doing sustain the action of the Intown Community Church Session of November 5, 2005, which instructed Devin and Tracey Ehrlich not to distribute their "open letter" to the church (ROC, p. 72)? Judgment: No. The complaint is denied. Excerpt from Reasoning: "5. In this instance, the Session did not require that Complainants have implicit faith in a doctrine or theological formulation that was contrary to the Word of God, nor did the Session require a blind obedience to an act of worship not governed by the Word of God. Rather, the Session gave its wise counsel and instruction in response to a request by Complainants with the exhortation to Complainants not to breach their membership vows to preserve the peace of the Church and to submit to the government of the Church. 6. While liberty of conscience rules out implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience to the Church, believers who have voluntarily submitted to the oversight of the Church through their membership vows, have a moral obligation to follow the lawful injunctions of the Church as long as they remain members of the Church... Under these circumstances, therefore, the Session was within its authority to instruct Complainants not to disseminate the letter, which it believed would disturb the peace of the church. 7. When Complainants joined Intown Community Church, they had taken vows to "submit to the government and discipline of the church," that is exercised through the Session (BCO 12-5), and "to study the purity and peace of the Church" (BCO 57-5, q. 5). 8. Complainants asserted that their proposed open letter was consistent with their duty to maintain the "peace of the Church." The Session argued, however, that the Presbytery had investigated the allegations against TE Sherman and found that the investigation did not "result in raising a strong presumption of guilt" (BCO 31-2) on "chargeable offenses" (BCO 29-1 - 4), and the protection of the "purity of the church" regarding the orthodoxy of ministers lies with the Presbytery. Inasmuch as NGAP found no adequate basis at that time to prosecute [the pastor] on charges of heresy, for the Ehrlichs then to circulate a letter to the Church rehearsing the same allegations would be disturbing the peace of Intown Church. 9. The ICC Session and NGAP judged that the proposed open letter reiterated and rehearsed the same allegations that the Presbytery had investigated against TE Sherman, and found that they did not "result in raising a strong presumption of guilt" (BCO 31-2) on "chargeable offenses" (BCO 29-1 - 4). The repetition of the accusations by means of an open letter to the church would be a disruption of the peace of the church. Key words: letter, peace, membership vows |
| 2006-07 Appeal of Chastain v. Heritage M35GA, 2007 Memphis, p. 82. JOO 15-3. C-Op. D-Op 3. Obj. Summary: Out of order because Appellant renounced PCA jurisdiction on May 8, 2006. "Therefore, all proceedings after May 8, 2006, in this matter are moot, and the decision in SJC 2005-1 remains in effect." |
| 2007-01 Elliot Lee v. Korean Eastern. M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 92. AOO 19-1. See later Cases 2007-06 ad 2007-07. Summary: Complaint ruled moot because P's actions were taken at a meeting without a quorum. Issues: 1. Did P err when it determined that only those actions at the 71st Stated Meeting on 10-03-06 dealing with Hudson Korean Presbyterian Church were invalid? 2. Did P err when it clarified that TE Lee's call as "interim pastor" for one (1) year or "until the [TE Peter B. Kim] litigation in the civil court can be resolved" was that of stated supply and limited to one (1) year, unless renewed by the S and P, pursuant to BCO 22-6? 3. Did P err when it appointed its Pulpit (Stated Supply Approval) Commission? 4. Did P err when it appointed its Judicial Commission? Judgment: 1. It is moot since all actions taken at the 71st Stated Meeting of P on October 3, 2006, are null and void. 2. No. Interim pastor and stated supply are the same and limited by BCO 22-6 to one (1) year, unless renewed by Presbytery. Further, since HKPC withdrew its request to extend the stated supply term of TE Lee, there is no such request pending, and TE Lee's term as Stated Supply ended on or about October 3, 2006. Accordingly, the HKPC pulpit has been vacant since that time. 3. No. 4. No. In regard to judgments 3 and 4, the SJC is only ruling that the Commissions were properly appointed. There are complaints presently pending with KEP concerning actions taken after these Commissions were appointed. These complaints have not been considered by the SJC at the time this Decision was rendered, and this Decision should in no way be deemed an approval or disapproval of those actions by the SJC. |
| 2007-02 Malone v. Metro NY. M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 99. Sustained in part. 19-0 Summary: Involved interpretation of BCO 38-1 and cases without process. Complaint alleged P investigative commission erred by assuming authority it did not have. SJC vacated judgment and censure. From SJC Reasoning: "The letters exchanged between the commission's chairman and TE Malone are insufficient to make a showing of TE Malone's intent to have the commission, or presbytery, render judgment against him without process." Issues: 1. Did the P, at its meeting on May 13, 2006, authorize its commission to fully adjudicate matters related to TE Malone? 2. Could the P, on the basis of the record prepared by the commission, proceed against TE Malone in a case without process under BCO 38? 3. Where a judgment and censure are properly imposed, does a P exceed its authority and improperly bind the conscience or conduct of an offending member by stating actions the offending member must undertake in order to demonstrate true repentance? Judgment: ( 1.) No; ( 2.) No; (3.) No. TE Malone's Complaint is sustained in part, and the judgment and censure of the P are vacated, without prejudice to further proceedings consistent with the Reasoning and Opinion set out below (BCO 43-10). Key words: allegations, investigation, authority, repentance, BCO 15-2, 15-3 |
| 2007-03 Segallis v. Central Florida M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 75. OOO. |
| 2007-04 Engel v. Evangel. M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 108. Sustained 17-0. Summary: Complainant filed series of complaints with S on its policy disallowing single or divorced men to stand for office. The S declared that such behavior was evidence of the sin of contentiousness and rebellion against the Session and suspended the Complainant from the Sacraments until he provided satisfactory evidence of repentance. Complainant sought higher court review of this verdict and censure. There was some confusion as to whether his filing with the higher court was a complaint or an appeal. SJC eventually ruled P erred by not remanding the C to the Session with instructions for S to conduct a trial or dismiss the charges. Issues: 1. Did Evangel Presbytery err by determining not to declare the Complainant innocent or guilty of the sins for which he had been censured by his Session? 2. Did Evangel Presbytery err by failing to send back the Complaint with instructions for a hearing, according to the provisions of BCO 43-10? Judgment: 1. No, the Presbytery had no record of the evidence from the lower court proceedings upon which to base a determination of guilt or innocence since the Session did not conduct a trial. 2. Yes, in view of the fact that the Session brought serious charges against the Complainant and moved directly to impose the censure of suspension from the Lord's Supper upon him without a trial or a confession of sin on his part, the Presbytery should have remanded the case to the Session, according to the provisions of BCO 42-9, with instructions either to initiate process in accordance with BCO Chapters 31, 32, 33, 35, and 36, or to formally dismiss all charges against the Complainant, in addition to having lifted the wrongly imposed censure. According to the provisions of BCO 43-10, we therefore send this matter back to the Presbytery with instructions to rehear Mr. Engel's Complaint in view of our determination of error as set forth above. |
| 2007-05 Appeal of Mitchell v. Evangel M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 75. Withdrawn. |
| 2007-06 Eliot Lee v. Korean Eastern M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 92. Not sustained 19-0. See previous Case 2007-01 and 2007-07 Summary: Alleged P meeting was improperly called. Also alleged "interim pastor" is different that "stated supply." |
| 2007-07 Sae H. Han v. Korean Eastern M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 92. Not sustained 19-0. See Cases 2007-06 and 2007-01. Summary: Alleged P cannot appoint commission to approve stated supply. |
| 2007-08 Jones v. Louisiana. [M36GA (2008): 113]. Sustained 22-0. Summary: Alleged P erred in not finding a strong presumption of guilt RE TE Wilkins. Jones was joined by seven other complainants. Issues: 1. Did Louisiana Presbytery fail to apply the correct Constitutional standard when it sought to determine whether TE Wilkins "may differ with The Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions?" (BCO 21-4, RAO 16-3.e(5)) 2. Does the record support a probable finding that Louisiana Presbytery erred, and thereby violated BCO 13-9.f, 40-4, and 40-5, when it failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Steve Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitutional standards? Judgment: (1.) Yes; (2.) Yes. Therefore the complaint is sustained; Presbytery's action of April 21, 2007, to deny the complaint of TE Jones is annulled (BCO 43-10); and the Memorial from Central Carolina Presbytery remains before the Standing Judicial Commission. [See the judgment in 2006-2 for additional amends.] |
| 2007-09 Eliot Lee v. Korean Eastern. M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 132. Sustained 20-0. C-Op Summary: Alleged P erred by authorizing P commission to act on behalf of S and erred by approving actions of committee that filed civil action, including restraining order, against Complainant. Issue: 1. Did KEP err when it empowered and authorized the Pulpit (Stated Supply Approval) Commission to act on behalf of Hudson Korean Presbyterian Church session at the 01-26-07 Called Stated Meeting? 2. Did KEP err when it approved and ratified actions of the KEP Executive Committee, the actions of the Pulpit (Stated Supply Approval) Commission, and when it filed a civil action against TE Lee seeking among other things a restraining order against TE Lee and to adjudicate ecclesiastical matters? Judgment: 1. Yes. All actions and decisions made by the Pulpit (Stated Supply Approval) Commission in regard to its acting on behalf of the HKPC session (and Church) are annulled, and any HKPC funds so expended should be returned to HKPC by KEP, if the congregation so requests. 2. Yes. The Complaint filed by KEP and the Pulpit (Stated Supply Approval) Commission, acting on behalf of the HKPC Session (and Church), in the New Jersey state court sought to adjudicate ecclesiastical matters that are clearly within the jurisdiction and oversight of the courts of the PCA, i.e. who was the rightful pastor of HKPC and authorizing the Pulpit (Stated Supply Approval) Commission to act as the Session of HKPC. |
| 2007-10 Eliot Lee v. Korean Eastern. M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 132. See Case 2007-09. |
| 2007-11 Appeal of Eliot Lee v. Korean Eastern. M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 144. Sustained 20-0. Summary: SJC ruled P erred in proceeding to trial and reversed the deposition and excommunication. Issue: Did KEP err when it proceeded to the trial of TE Lee? Judgment: Yes. KEP's disposition and excommunication of TE Lee is reversed and rendered. As pastoral counsel (and not in any way to be construed as a formal Censure), the Standing Judicial Commission encourages TE Lee to be more circumspect, charitable, open minded, and humble in dealing with his brethren in the future. Key words: citation, notice, BCO 31-2, 32-3, 32-7 |
| 2007-12 Grady v. Southwest Florida. M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 125. Sustained 12-2. C-Op. Summary: SJC ruled P erred by including in its Minutes a Committee report with a finding of sins and errors of a TE. SJC ruled that action essentially imposed censure of Admonition without due process. Issue: Did Southwest Florida Presbytery err when it read into its minutes of the May 8, 2007, stated meeting the Shepherding Committee's report which contained a finding of "sins and errors" concerning TE Grady? Judgment: Yes. Southwest Florida Presbytery erred by reading into the minutes of its May 8, 2007, stated meeting the report of the Shepherding Committee which contained a finding of "sins and errors" based on unsubstantiated and unproven opinions about TE Grady in violation of his due process. Therefore, SWFP is directed to expunge the Shepherding Committee's report from their minutes for May 8, 2007. Reasoning (whole): In this particular case, the actions of SWFP on May 8, 2007 effectively imposed the censure of admonition without due process (BCO 30-2). We recognize that a committee of Presbytery may reach, without judicial process, an opinion that a teaching elder has engaged in "sins and errors" (see for example BCO 31-2), and we recognize that such an opinion may even be included in the minutes of Presbytery as the opinion of the committee. However, in this case Presbytery appeared to adopt or endorse the findings of the committee by "concur[ring]" in the recommendation of the committee, "effectively making it the recommendation of presbytery as a whole." Further, P directed that the committee report be read to the teaching elder's congregation. In so making the committee's recommendation the action of P and in making the report public, without making clear that Presbytery had not adopted the portions of the report alleging sin by the teaching elder, Presbytery has effectively admonished the teaching elder without due process. |
| 2007-13 Kniseley v. Rocky Mountain. M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 150. Not sustained 15-4. C-Op. D-Op 4 Summary: Alleged P erred by allowing a church to title a female staff person as Minister of Church Life. Issue: 1. Did Rocky Mountain Presbytery err when it "acknowledge[d] that the title 'minister' as used in the BCO is synonymous with 'pastor' and 'teaching elder,'" 2. Did Rocky Mountain Presbytery err, that it also 'acknowledge[d] that the title 'minister' has been used in a general or generic manner and in this general way may be used for unordained church staff members." Judgment: 1. No. The BCO uses the title "minister" in a specifically defined manner 2. No. The PCA BCO is silent on the general use of the title "minister" for non-ordained staff. Key words: women, ordination 2007-14 PCA vs. Louisiana Presbytery (Trial) M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 128. Admonition 16-1. O-Op. Obj. Summary: See Cases 2006-02 and 2007-08. Charge 2: P pled guilty prior to trial and SJC imposed censure of Admonition. Charge 1 dismissed after trial. Specification 1 - After the trial, Specification 1 was dismissed by the SJC for reasons noted below. Specification 2 - The Presbytery's guilty plea having previously been entered on Specification 2, the SJC voted to proceed to the imposition of the censure of admonition (BCO 32-3, para 3; 36-3) for the reasons noted [in the Reasoning]. Key words: Wilkins, paedocommunion, |
| 2007-15 Sang C. Choi v. Korean Central M36GA, 2008 Dallas, p. 75. OOO. |
| 2007-16 Appeal of Grady v. Southwest Florida. M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 163. Sustained in part, 13-2. Summary: TE guilty at trial on three charges and indefinitely suspended from office. Appeal alleged seven specifications of error. SJC sustained convictions but vacated suspension and dissolution of call and remanded to P for reconsideration of both. Issue: 1. Did Presbytery err in its judgment by using documents not introduced into evidence? 2. Did Presbytery err in its judgment by committing irregularities and refusing reasonable indulgence to the appellant? 3. Did Presbytery err in its judgment by suspending TE Grady under BCO 31-10? 4. Did Presbytery err in its judgment in application of BCO 35-3, 35-10, and 32-20? 5. Did Presbytery err in its judgment by manifesting prejudice against the appellant? 6. Did Presbytery err in its judgment in its interpretation of "subjection to the brothers?" 7. Did Presbytery err in its judgment in allowing inappropriate questions? Judgment: 1. No. Specification 1 is answered in the negative. 2. Yes. Specification 2 is answered in the affirmative but the error was not materially prejudicial to the accused. 3. Specification 3 is not properly before the SJC. 4. Relative to Specification 4: No (regarding BCO 32-20 and 35-3), and Yes (regarding BCO 35-10, but the error was not materially prejudicial to the accused). 5. No. Specification 5 is answered in the negative. 6. Yes. Specification 6 is answered in the affirmative. 7. No. Specification 7 is answered in the negative. The judgments of Southwest Florida Presbytery in this case are affirmed in part and reversed in part (BCO 42-9), and the case is remanded to Presbytery with the instruction that Presbytery reconsider the censure in light of the following: - The Standing Judicial Commission sustains three of the appellant's seven specifications of error, but, of those three, only in specification 6 was there an error on the part of Presbytery of such magnitude that it materially prejudiced the outcome of the case. We conclude that Southwest Florida Presbytery had sufficient evidence to find TE Grady guilty of the three charges leveled against him (see BCO 39-3 [2, 3]), although not as to all specifications under each charge. - However, Presbytery's misunderstanding and misapplication in this case of the power granted to Presbytery by BCO 13-9.c (which Presbytery argued "necessarily [gives it] the power to direct TE Grady to tender his resignation" (emphasis in the original) is of such magnitude, and had such an impact on the outcome and censure in this matter, that we reverse Presbytery on this finding and consequently the matter of censure. The censure of indefinite suspension from office and the dissolution of the pastoral relationship are vacated (BCO 34-9). The matter is remanded to Presbytery to determine an appropriate censure in light of the decision of this court. Pending further judicial proceedings by Presbytery to determine an appropriate censure, the appellant remains suspended from the functions of his office under Presbytery's previous action according to BCO 31-10 [an administrative suspension that is not a censure]. |
| 2008-01 Session of Crossroads Community v. Philadelphia. M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 176. Not sustained 10-3. C-Op 2. D-Op 3. Summary: Alleged P erred by licensing a man with his view that women can serve as deacons (but would not practice or implement his view). Also alleged P erred by later ordaining him. Issue: 1. Did Philadelphia Presbytery err when it approved for licensure a candidate who (1) stated a difference with the Book of Church Order as to a woman's eligibility to serve in the office of deacon, but who (2) affirmed that he would conduct his ministry in accordance with the form of government established by the Book of Church Order? 2. Did Philadelphia Presbytery err when it approved for ordination as a teaching elder, a candidate who (1) stated a difference with the Book of Church Order as to a woman's eligibility to serve in the office of deacon, but who (2) while stating some qualifications, affirmed that he would conduct his ministry in accordance with the form of government established by the Book of Church Order? Judgment: ( 1.) No; (2.) No. SJC Reasoning concludes with: Our Book of Church Order is conclusive on the question of whether women may be ordained to the office of deacon. They may not (BCO 7- 2, 9-3). The candidate in this case expressed his willingness to operate in accordance with that form of government, and we find no reason in the record of the case not to defer to the Presbytery's judgment that his affirmation of Ordination Vow Three was credible. Key words: views, women, office, deacons, diaconate, ordination, exceptions, difference, BCO 21-5 |
| 2008-02 Hofland v. Eastern Carolina M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 131. Withdrawn |
| 2008-03 Acree v. Chesapeake M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 131. OOO. |
| 2008-04 Acree v. Chesapeake M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 131. OOO. |
| 2008-05 Acree v. Chesapeake M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 131. OOO. |
| 2008-06 Acree v. Chesapeake M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 131. OOO. |
| 2008-07 Acree v. Chesapeake M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 131. OOO. |
| 2008-08 Soh v. Philadelphia M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 131. OOO. |
| 2008-09 Session of Red Mountain v. Evangel Presbytery. M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 193. Sustained 19-0 Summary: Husband complained to P that S failed to indict his wife for pursuing an alleged unbiblical divorce. P sustained complaint. Session then filed complaint to SJC. Issue: 1. Did P err when it determined that in response to Dr. Carl Walker's charge of March 7, 2007, the Red Mountain Session failed to rule biblically, specifically, and authoritatively on whether or not the divorce suit brought by Melanie Walker violated the Scripture? 2. Did P err when it determined that the Red Mountain Session improperly based its decision, in part, on a finding that there was no strong presumption of guilt that Mrs. Walker's suit violated the Scripture? 3. Did P err in the way it handled its judicial commission report to the presbytery. 4. Did P err when, by its adoption of the Presbytery Commission's revised report, it found that Melanie Walker did not have biblical grounds for divorce? Reasoning (final para.): The Standing Judicial Commission accordingly sustains all four elements of the complaint and hereby reverses the action of the Presbytery in accordance with 43-10. By our ruling, we are neither affirming nor denying that Mrs. Melanie Walker had biblical grounds for her divorce from Dr. Carl Walker. What we are affirming is that on March 7, 2007, when Dr. Walker asked for a ruling from his Session on whether his wife's pursuit of a divorce was biblical or not, the Session acted in such a way that no clear error is manifested that would lead a higher court rightly to sustain a Complaint against that action in accordance with BCO 39-3, paragraphs 2, 3. Judgment: - (1.) Yes; (2.) Yes; (3.) Yes; (4.) Yes. |
| 2008-10 Grasso v. Philadelphia. M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 176. See case 2008-01. |
| 2008-11 Broadwater v. Chesapeake Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 130. Sustained 18-3. Summary: Alleged P erred by granting a BCO 33-1 petition from three Sessions and appointing a Commission to assume original jurisdiction over a church. Issue: 1. Did Chesapeake Presbytery err when it appointed a commission empowered (1) to take original jurisdiction over Grace Reformed Presbyterian Church of Relay, MD for those matters requested by two or more sessions in the Presbytery, (2) to charge the commission with conducting investigations, instituting process, and conducting other proceedings as duly required by our constitution, (3) to require the commission to take sworn testimony of those parties and witnesses pertinent to its investigation as a matter of record for its proceedings, and (4) to rule on each matter ad seriatim? 2. Did Chesapeake Presbytery err when it appointed a commission empowered to receive the Reference from Grace Relay and include it into the mandate for the new commission? Judgment: 1. Yes, with respect to that portion of the Commission's assignment to proceed under BCO 33-1 (Statement of Facts 3A), that portion of the Presbytery's action is vacated. 2. No, with respect to that portion of the Commission's assignment dealing with the Reference (Statement of Facts 3B), that portion of the Presbytery's action stands. Reasoning (excerpt): The letters from the three churches to Presbytery contained no specific allegations that the Session of Grace Reformed Presbyterian Church had refused to act in this particular matter. The Presbytery, in appointing the commission, made no preliminary finding of fact that the Session had refused to act in a case of process, nor did they explicitly charge the commission with making such a determination before proceeding under BCO 33-1... The Presbytery, through its commission, assumed original jurisdiction over the matter without any showing or finding (based upon the record of the case) that the Session had refused to act in a case of process. |
| 2008-12 Appeal of Malone v. Metro New York M37GA, 2009 Orlando, p. 131. Out of Order. |
| 2008-13 Meyerhoff v. Chesapeake Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 133. Moot 21-1. In light of decision in Case 2008-11. |
| 2008-14 White v. Siouxlands Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 135. Sustained 22-1. C-Op 6. D-Op. Summary: Alleged P erred by not appointing a BCO 31-2 committee to investigate a minister's alleged Federal Vision view. Issue: Did Presbytery of Siouxlands err when it denied a Complaint seeking the appointment of a committee to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation? Judgment: Yes, and the matter is sent back to Siouxlands Presbytery with instructions to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation as to whether or not TE Greg Lawrence holds or is preaching/teaching views with respect to the Covenant of Works or other doctrines associated with the so-called Federal Vision theology that are contrary to the doctrinal standards of the PCA. Note: Eleven Cases follow, between Cases 2008-15 and 2009-10, which arose out of related circumstances in Western Carolina Presbytery. All Decisions were reported to the 38th GA in Nashville. |
| 2008-15 Morton Smith v. Western Carolina. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 156, 170. Sustained 21-0. Summary: Alleged five errors. SJC sustained two due to an illegitimate congregational meeting. Issue: 1. Did P err at its called meeting on June 17 when it appointed the Inman Commission to consider and handle the Reference from the Session? 2. Did P err at its called meeting on August 19 when it considered requests from the congregation arising from a congregational meeting on August 7? 3. Did P err at its called meeting August 19 when it approved a motion to declare in its Minutes that the August 6 Session action canceling the August 7 congregational meeting was not "wise, equitable or suited to promote the welfare of the church"? 4. Did P err at its called meeting August 19 when it declined to adopt a motion to cite the Session to appear and answer per BCO 40-5? 5. Did P err at its called meeting August 19 when it appointed the Sealy Commission? Judgment: (1.) No; (2.) Yes; (3.) No; (4.) No; (5.) Yes. Reasoning excerpt: [Regarding Judgments 2 and 5] Therefore, all actions taken by the congregation on August 7, 2008 are invalid. This means: a) RE Linton's call is not dissolved b) RE Pellom's call is not dissolved c) TE Neville has not been called by the congregation, d) subsequent Presbytery actions related to these 3 votes at the Aug 7congregational meeting are voided, and e) unless the congregation has taken subsequent action, the FPC Session is now as it was on August 6, 2008: TE Bulkeley, RE Linton and RE Pellom... Since the August 7 congregational meeting was illegitimate, there was no valid dissolution request for Presbytery or its Sealy Commission to consider. So the October 23 decision of the Commission declining to dissolve the calls of REs Linton and Pellom is voided, as are all other Presbytery actions and any Complaints related to it. For example, the congregation's Complaint against the decision of the Sealy Commission, which was sustained on November 7, is voided since there never was a valid congregational request to dissolve the calls in the first place. |
| 2008-16 Hutchinson & Bulkeley v. Western Carolina M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 173. Not sustained 21-0. Summary: Alleged P erred in how it handled an REs confession. (Case was referred to P by S.) Issue: Did Presbytery err at its stated meeting August 2 in how it handled RE Payne's confession? Judgment: No Key words: confession, statement, case without process, BCO 38-1 |
| 2008-17 Hutchinson & Bulkeley v. Western Carolina M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 174. Not sustained 21-0. Summary: Alleged P erred by not suspending RE from sacraments in addition to imposing indefinite suspension from office (in a BCO 38-1 case without process). Issue: Did Presbytery err at its stated meeting August 2 by not also suspending RE Payne from the Sacraments, in addition to indefinitely suspending him from office? Judgment: No Key words: BCO 30-3, 36-5, 37-3, 38-1, 58-2 |
| 2008-18 Hutchinson & Bulkeley v. Western Carolina M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 178. Not sustained 21-0. Summary: Alleged P erred in its Commission's opinion regarding an RE's views related to race and IQ in an email. Issue: Did Presbytery err in its Commission's opinion regarding the views of Mr. Payne, specifically, those expressed in his November 26, 2007 e-mail? Judgment: No |
| 2009-01 Morton Smith v. Western Carolina M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 179. Answered by reference to Decision in Case 2008-15. |
| 2009-02 Morton Smith v. Western Carolina M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 182. Not sustained in main part 21-0. Summary: P investigated views published by an RE on race and IQ. Initially found no strong presumption of guilt, but later sustained a Complaint and reversed the finding. This new Complaint alleged the reversal was error. SJC remanded to P for process. Issue: Did Presbytery err on November 18, 2008 when it sustained the Hutchinson complaint, to wit: By this Complaint I am requesting that we correct our error by reversing the action and judgment of the Commission, publicly declaring, at the very least, that the view, "that relative average intelligence quotient can be correlated to race on a continuum, with 'Oriental' as superior, followed by 'White' then 'Brown' (Hispanic) then 'Black' in descending order," is indeed out of accord with the Constitution of our Church; and publicly declaring that holding to such a view is indeed a violation of Christian liberty, destroying the very purpose of the liberty Christ has purchased for believers under the gospel, whereby there is neither Jew nor Gentile, for we are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28)." ? Judgment: Yes, in part, and No, in part. We do not find Presbytery erred in its November 18 decision to reverse its previous decision, which did not find a strong presumption of guilt on the matter of views. This is a matter of discretion and judgment on which the higher court must afford great deference (BCO 39-3.3). However, the SJC is not hereby rendering any opinion on the merits of that decision or the reasoning in the Hutchinson Complaint. We find Presbytery erred procedurally by immediately adopting a judgment against RE Payne's views without process. The SJC annuls the declaration made by Presbytery regarding RE Payne's views, and remands the case to WCP for adjudication. Key words: investigation, presumption of guilt, BCO 15-3, 31-2 |
| 2009-03 Leissing v. Western Carolina M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 180. SJC 21-0. See Case 2008-15. Issue: Did Presbytery err at its stated meeting on November 7, 2008 when voted to reverse the October 23 decision of its Sealy Commission, thereby granting the congregation's August 7 request and dissolving the calls of REs Linton and Pellom? Judgment: This Complaint is answered by reference to the SJC decision in issue 5 in Case 2008-15, when it ruled Presbytery erred when it appointed the Sealy Commission. |
| 2009-05 Payne v. Western Carolina Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 180. Not sustained 21-0. Summary: Alleged P erred procedurally in a 31-2 investigation of a TE and erred in not fining a strong presumption of guilt. Issue: 1. Did Presbytery err in how it conducted the 31-2 investigation of accusations related to TE Bulkeley? 2. Did Presbytery err at its stated meeting on February 28, 2009 when it judged there was not a strong presumption of guilt related to accusations made against TE Bulkeley? Judgment: (1.) No; (2.) No. |
| 2009-06 Bordwine v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 208. Sustained 17-2. C-Op 6. D-Op. Obj. Summary: Alleged P erred by declining to indict TE Peter Leithart after investigation into the views he expressed related to the Nine Declarations adopted by the 37th GA in Orlando, recommended by the study committee on federal vision. SJC essentially instructed P to indict and proceed to trial. Issue: Did P err in its handling of the Reports from the P Study Committee appointed to examine Leithart's fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder? Judgment: Yes. The Complaint is sustained, and the case is sent back to P with instructions to proceed according to the Reasoning and Opinion of this Decision. Reasoning (excerpt) - In light of these findings, PNW is directed to proceed, as follows: (1) Pursuant to BCO 31-7, PNW may counsel TE Leithart that the views set forth above constitute error that is injurious to peace and purity of the church and offer him pastoral advice on how he might recant and make reparations for those views or, if he is unwilling or unable in conscience to do so, that he is free to take timely steps toward affiliation with some other branch of the visible church that is consistent with his views; (2) If said pastoral advice is not pursued or fails to result in TE Leithart's recanting or affiliating with some other branch of the visible church before the Fall Stated Meeting of PNW, then PNW shall take steps to comply with its obligations under BCO 31-2. This matter is remanded to PNW for further actions consistent with this opinion. Key words: federal vision |
| 2009-07 Urish v. Rocky Mountain Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 235. Not sustained 20-0. C-Op 3. Summary: Alleged P erred by ordaining a man who held that women could, under Session authority, do any teaching in a church other than preaching. (Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12) Issue: Did Rocky Mountain Presbytery err in sustaining a candidate for ordination's theological examination when that candidate would in various ministries of the church, exclusive of preaching, allow a woman to teach from Scripture to men and women, all under the authority of the Session? Judgment: No. Reasoning (excerpt): While many of us have questions about the candidate's exegesis of I Timothy 2:11-15, we do not find sufficient evidence in the record or arguments to require the conclusion that Presbytery erred in not finding the expressed views call into question his ability to affirm the first ordination vow. Further, the candidate in this case expressly rejected the following that a woman could serve as an elder; that a woman could preach in public worship; and, that a woman could teach the Scriptures in any church ministry context outside of the express oversight and authoritative governance of the church session. With these express limitations of a woman's role in place, the presbytery examined the candidate as to the basis for his exegesis of I Tim. 2:11ff. essentially that Paul forbids "authoritative teaching" (such as preaching), and does not prohibit other forms of teaching that may occur in the ministry life of the church (Sunday school, small groups, breakfast meetings, seminars, etc.). At the conclusion of a discussion of his view, presbytery voted to sustain his theological exam. There was no motion made to find his view as to a woman teaching out of accord with our system of doctrine. Applying the above standards to the matter before us, we find no basis in the Record of the Case to conclude that the presbytery committed clear error in affirming the theological examination of the candidate at issue. We find, therefore, no constitutional basis to set aside the judgment of the presbytery and so affirm its denial of the Complaint. Key words: exegesis, BCO 39-3 |
| 2009-08 Linton v. Western Carolina Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 180. Combined with and answered by Decision in Case 2009-05. |
| 2009-09 Lyons v. Western Carolina Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 180. Combined with and answered by Decision in Case 2009-05. |
| 2009-10 Woodward v. Western Carolina Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 180. Combined with and answered by Decision in Case 2009-05. |
| 2009-11 Edison v. Southwest Florida Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 242. Sustained 15-3. D-Op 2. Summary: P sustained transfer exam of TE. Complaint filed against that action, and it was sustained. The TE was reexamined, but he did not pass. This new Complaint alleged the reexamination was unconstitutional. Issue: 1. Did SWFP err when it acted "to sustain the Complaint filed against the actions of Presbytery in sustaining the theological exam of Mr. Gregory on February 14, 2009"? 2. Did SWFP err: (a) when it acted as if sustaining the Complaint against its actions with respect to the theological exam of Mr. Gregory on February 14, 2009, of itself, had the effect of rescinding its previous action in sustaining the theological examination and approving the call of TE Gregory, and (b) when it therefore determined "that T.E. Gregory be sent back to the Presbytery as a whole in order to undergo a theological reexamination"? 3. Did SWFP err when it determined "that the Presbytery of Southwest Florida must correct its record of the reception of Bryan Gregory into its membership, and recognize that Presbytery does not have constitutional grounds to approve his call to a church which is a member of our Presbytery... Therefore the mentioned actions which have been determined to have been made in error are now reversed."? Judgment: ( 1.) No; (2.) Yes; (3.) Yes Reasoning (excerpt): Accordingly, the actions of SWFP at the special meeting of March 24 are hereby annulled and the action of SWFP at the special meeting of March 14 with respect to the appointed reexamination of TE Gregory is annulled. Further, SWFP is directed to meet and undertake what appropriate remedies there may be in light of having on March 14 approved the complaint against Presbytery's action to sustain the theological examination of TE Gregory on February 14, 2009. Key words: Robert's Rules, RONR, amend, rescind, annul, reexamination, BCO 14-7, 19-6, 43-10, |
| 2009-12 Armes v. Southwest Florida M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 529. Sustained 23-0. Summary: Prior to the SJC Panel Hearing, the parties agreed to a remand to Presbytery for a hearing. See Case 2009-21. Issue: Did Southwest Florida Presbytery err, by its actions on April 1, 2009 (through its Stated Clerk) and on May 12, 2009, when it ruled Out of Order the Complaint of Paul Armes and denied a hearing to Paul Armes with respect to his Complaint of March 8, 2009, filed against the Session of Covenant Presbyterian Church of Lakeland, Florida, complaining of the Session's action of February 15, 2009, Excommunicating Paul Armes? Judgment: Yes. This Case is remanded to Southwest Florida Presbytery. |
2009-13 Johnson v. Southwest Florida |
| 2009-14 Session of Ellisville Presbyterian v. Grace M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. Withdrawn. |
| 2009-15 Robinson v. Metro New York M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. JOO |
| 2009-16 Eliot Lee v. Korean Eastern M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. AOO |
| 2009-17 McNeil v. Chesapeake M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. AOO. Also Cases 2009-18, 2009-19 and 2009-20. |
| 2009-21 Armes v. Southwest Florida M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 530. Sustained 21-1. D-Op. Summary: S excommunicated a man who then alleged P erred by ruling his complaint out of order. SJC remanded the matter to P. Issue: Did Southwest Florida Presbytery err, by its actions on September 12, 2009, when it denied the second Complaint of Mr. Armes as being Out of Order in that it was simply a restatement of his original Complaint then under consideration as SJC 2009-12? Judgment: Yes. This Case is remanded to Southwest Florida Presbytery. |
| 2009-22 McNeil v. Chesapeake M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 535. Not Sustained 18-0 Summary: S found man guilty at trial of sins in a marriage and imposed Admonition. During process, he charged wife with sin, but S declined to indict. He complained against that declining. Issue: Did the Lower Court err in denying the Complaint against the September 19, 2009 action of Chesapeake Presbytery? Judgment: No. Key words: divorce, civil magistrate, BCO 31-8, 39-3 |
| 2009-23 Koerkenmeier v. Illiana M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 538. Sustained 20-0. Summary: Alleged P erred by appointing Commission (at the request of the pastor and an RE) to investigate matters at a church (BCO 13.9.f), and alleged P erred by adopting its report. SJC sustained, but it was harmless error and thus no remedy needed. Issue: Did Illiana Presbytery err when it appointed a Commission to "deal with matters at Center Grove Presbyterian Church" and in adopting the Commission Report on October 17, 2009? Judgment: Yes, but it was harmless error for which no remedy is necessary. Reasoning (excerpt): In this Case, the Complainants concede that the Commission did not exercise this broad grant of power (to deal with the matters). There is no evidence in the Record that the Commission exercised this broad grant of power and authority and only acted as would be expected of any Committee, i.e. investigate and make recommendations to the Court. Key words: BCO 15-1, 15-3 |
| 2009-24 Phelps v. Pacific M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 543. Not Sustained 23-0. Summary: A censured OPC minister eventually became a PCA Ruling Elder. In it's annual review of Session minutes, P re found no constitutional error when reviewing that Session's records. Complaint alleged P erred by not citing S with an error. Issue: Did PP err when it denied the Complaint of RE Roger Phelps, dated May 14, 2009? Judgment: No. Reasoning (excerpt): The Complainant contends that because P declined to accept Irons as a candidate for the gospel ministry (per BCO 18-3), Irons was disqualified for the Office of RE at New Life Burbank. This contention is incorrect. P was not required to find Irons unqualified for the Office of RE in this specific instance... A central claim of the Complainant in this matter is that because the Office of Elder constitutes "one class of office" and because "ruling elders possess the same authority and eligibility to Office in the Courts of the Church as teaching elders" (BCO 8-9), there must be an identical standard for eligibility of a man to the Office of Ruling or Teaching Elder. But this is simply not the case. |
| 2009-25 Brown v. Northern California (also Case 2009-26 Grace Session v. N. California). M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 548. Sustained 20-0. C-Op 3. Summary: P adopted a recommendation to permit 6 different views and practices related to the diaconate. Complaint alleged some of the views and practices were error. Issue: Did Northern California Presbytery err when it adopted an abstract statement of what views with respect to the Office of Deacon that Ministers or Sessions may hold and practice while being "in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity"? Judgment: Yes. Reasoning (excerpt): At the heart of this matter is the belief that Northern California Presbytery, by adopting the recommendations of its Procedural Committee, determined which views related to the Diaconate may be held and practiced by Ministers, Sessions, and Member Churches of Presbytery. This belief is incorrect. No Court of this Church is authorized to issue an authoritative decree outside of the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. (See, e.g., BCO 11-4, BCO 12-5, 13-9, 14-6, 31-1, 40-1). No decree of a Court of this Church has binding effect except over those who are expressly under the jurisdiction of the Court when it issues the decree. (See, e.g. BCO 14-7 and OMSJC 19.3)... Accordingly, the actions of Presbytery against which the Complaints were made are annulled (BCO 43-10). This Judgment neither expressly, nor by implication, renders Judgment on the fidelity, or lack thereof, of the six views set forth in the actions of Presbytery. Key words: deacons, deaconesses, ordain, BCO 9-7 |
| 2009-27 Cutler v. Platte Valley M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. OOO. |
| 2009-28 Ruff v. Nashville. M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 567. Sustained 20-0. C-Op. Summary: Alleged P did an inadequate BCO 31-2 investigation of a TE and erred in declining to indict. Issue: 1. Did P err by failing to conduct an adequate investigation pursuant to BCO 31-2 after receiving an adverse report concerning the character of one of its members? 2. Did P err when, on the basis of the evidence before it, it failed to find a strong presumption of guilt as to offenses allegedly committed by one of its members? Judgment: (1.) Yes; (2.) Yes. Conclusion of Reasoning - For these reasons, the Complaint is sustained and the matter is remanded to the Presbytery for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Key words: strong presumption of guilt, |
| 2009-29 McNeil v. Chesapeake M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. AOO. (Also Cases 2009-30 and 2009-31) |
| 2009-32 Warren v. Chesapeake M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. AOO. |
| 2010-01 McNeil v. Chesapeake M40GA, 2012 Louisville, p. 522. Abandoned 18-0. Complainant did not appear at the SJC Panel hearing and did not submit a brief. |
| 2010-02 Cutler v. Platte Valley M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. AOO. |
| 2010-03 McNeil v. Chesapeake M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 575. AOO 15-0. Summary: P commission found strong presumption of guilt and indicted a man. He declined to appear or plead at two arraignments. P suspended him from sacraments. The Appeal is judicially out of order because "only those who have submitted to a regular trial are entitled to an Appeal" (BCO 42-2). If the Appeal is properly understood to be a Complaint, it is judicially out of order because it was not first made to the Court (i.e. CP) whose act or Decision is alleged to be in error (BCO 43-2). The defect of such Complaint cannot be cured, as the time limit of thirty (30) days (per BCO 43-2) has already passed. Because McNeil is no longer a communing member of the Church in good standing (BCO 43-1), any Complaints, other than a Complaint related to the highest censure (BCO 30-4), received after the date the notification of McNeil's censure (January 16, 2010) will be judicially out of order. This will remain so until the censure is removed (per BCO37-3) and McNeil is once again a communing member of the Church in good standing. If an individual is found guilty by a Court and is censured by suspension from the Sacraments or excommunication then that person is no longer "a communing member of the Church in good standing." As such, the individual may no longer Complain "against an act or decision of a Court of the Church." (BCO 43-1) Of course, as the individual was in good standing at the time the censure was imposed, he or she has the right to Complain (or Appeal, as appropriate) against the censure and/or the acts of the Court that lead to that censure. However, BCO 43-1 is clear that no Complaint from the one under censure against any action of a Court that occurred after the imposition of the censure can be in order unless or until the Complaint (or Appeal, as appropriate) is upheld then the subsequent Complaint(s) may proceed, with the time limits of BCO 43-2 being calculated from the date of notification of the Decision of the Higher Court. (SJCM 20.9 and 20.10) Finally, if the original censure was suspension from the Sacraments, and if the Court later determines to impose the censure of excommunication (see BCO 30-4, 33-3, 34-4) then Biblical standards of justice would demand that the individual be allowed to Complain (or Appeal, as appropriate) against that Decision. This is because the excommunication would necessarily involve additional action by the Court against the individual. (See BCO 33-3, 36-3) |
| 2010-05 Cutler v. Platte Valley Presbytery. M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. Administratively Out of Order. |
| 2010-05 Carpenter v. Siouxlands M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 528. Withdrawn |
| 2010-06 Yuan: An appeal to the SJC alleging a "minister's heresy" M38GA, 2010 Nashville, p. 129. Administratively Out of Order. |
| 2010-07 Sang C. Choi v. Korean Central Presbytery. M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 528. Administratively Out of Order. |
| 2010-08 McNeil v. Chesapeake Presbytery. M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 528. Judicially Out of Order. Also Cases 2010-09, -10, -11, -12, -13, -14. |
| 2010-14 Sartorius v. Siouxlands Presbytery. M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 578. Not sustained 19-1. C-Op 8. D-Op. Summary: Alleged P erred in BCO 31-2 investigation of a TE and in failing to find a strong presumption of guilt. Issue: 1. With respect to certain reports concerning TE Joshua Moon, was Siouxlands Presbytery sufficiently diligent and careful in compliance with its responsibilities under BCO 31-2? 2. With respect to certain reports concerning TE Joshua Moon, did Siouxlands Presbytery err in finding TE Moon's testimony a satisfactory explanation concerning the reports and finding no strong presumption of guilt in TE Moon related to the reports? Judgment: ( 1.) Yes; (2.) No. Reasoning excerpt: Complainants hold that TE Moon's defense of certain views of TE Lawrence, as views within the permissible latitude afforded by the PCA's standard for subscription, implies that TE Moon shares in the alleged errors of TE Lawrence. But this is a non sequitur. It may be illustrated as follows: it is widely held that paedocommunion is a permissible minority view within the PCA, but it does not follow that all who consider it permissible, hold to the position of paedocommunion. Complainants hold that certain views expressed by TE Moon, capable of a heterodox interpretation, must be so interpreted. But this violates the Judgment of charity, that if a view can be interpreted in an orthodox fashion, it ought to be so interpreted until one is forced to do otherwise. Complainants hold that certain of TE Moon's views imply heterodox doctrines, and therefore impute those doctrines to TE Moon. But this is a non sequitur as well. One cannot properly impute implications that are drawn from a position to a person who expressly denies the implication. Key words: BCO 39-3 |
| 2010-16 Lyons v. Western Carolina M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 594. Not sustained 23-0. C-Op 2. Summary: Alleged P erred by dismissing charges against a TE. (SJC did not sustain.) Also alleged P erred in ruling his Complaint AOO (SJC sustained, but error not prejudicial.) Issue: 1. Did Presbytery err in dismissing the "Charges and Specifications against Teaching Elder Craig Smith Bulkeley" brought by Kirk Lyons on Feb. 27, 2010? 2. Did Presbytery, on May 4, 2010, err in ruling Administratively Out of Order the Complaint of Kirk Lyons against Presbytery's action on Feb. 27, 2010? Judgment: 1. No 2. Yes, but the error was not prejudicial. Reasoning excerpt: Presbytery erred in its Judgment on May 4, 2010, because it failed to see that Complainant gained standing to complain by the filing of charges (BCO 32-2). With respect to this filing, Complainant came under the jurisdiction of the Presbytery, and thus met the standards of BCO 43-1. However, that error notwithstanding, nothing is lost in the cause of the Complainant, since there has been no showing of clear error as to the underlying action of Presbytery. Therefore, the Complaint is denied. Key words: BCO 31-8, 32-20, 34-2, 38-4 |
| 2010-17 Sarafolean Letter M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 594. AOO Summary: TE Sarafolean (a minister in Great Lakes Presbytery) requested GA to cite Siouxlands for alleged failures. TE Sarafolean believed he could do this via a BCO 40-5 letter. |
| 2010-18 PCA v. Gulfstream M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 523. Satisfactory 19-0. Summary: After repeated failures to respond to GA regarding exceptions of substance in past annual records, P was cited to appear before the SJC. P responded, and SJC found responses satisfactory. |
| 2010-19 PCA v. Korean Central M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 601. Satisfactory 20-0. Summary: After repeated failures to respond to GA regarding exceptions of substance in past annual records, P was cited to appear before the SJC. P responded, and SJC found responses satisfactory. |
| 2010-20 PCA v. Korean Northwest M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 524. Satisfactory 18-0. |
| 2010-21 PCA v. Korean Southeast M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 601. Satisfactory 20-0. Summary - SJC received P's delinquent Minutes and forward to RPR for review. |
| 2010-22 PCA v. Korean Southeast M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 601. Satisfactory 20-0. SJC received P's delinquent Minutes and forwarded to RPR |
| 2010-23 PCA v. Pacific M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 601. Satisfactory 20-0. Summary: After repeated failures to respond to GA regarding exceptions of substance in past annual records, P was cited to appear before the SJC. P responded, and SJC found responses satisfactory. |
| 2010-24 Laura Wood v. Northwest Georgia M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 525. JOO 16-6. D-Op 3. This Case is Judicially Out of Order in view of the fact that Northwest Georgia Presbytery (NGP) has rescinded the action complained against (OMSJC 10.5.c). From the Minutes of NGP, dated January 29, 2011: "MSP: that part # 2 of the complaint of Laura Wood against the Session of Grace Covenant PCA, dated September 9, 2009 be affirmed as being 'in order' in accordance with BCO 43-8, and a commission established to hear the complaint." The September 9, 2009 complaint part #2 was as follows: "Allowing my husband, Mark Wood, to abandon my daughter and I [sic] and to file for divorce without holding him accountable for his behavior against his family and the Church of Jesus Christ." Further the defects in this Case cannot be cured, and the Case is dismissed because there are no longer any grounds for the Complaint (SJC Manual 10.5.c). Key words: standing, divorce, OMSJC 10.5, OMSJC 10.6 |
| 2010-25 Yuan v. South Coast M39GA, 2011 Virginia Beach, p. 528. AOO. |
| 2010-26 Eliot Lee v. Korean Eastern. M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 530. Sustained 19-2 Summary: Alleged P erred by dismissing charges the TE brought against two other TEs. Issue: Did P err on 10/5/10 in "dismissing" TE Eliot Lee's complaint against the P, thereby affirming P's decision on 6/2/09 to dismiss TE Lee's charges against the two TE members of P without a trial? Judgment: Yes, and this matter is remanded to P for action consistent with this Decision. Reasoning excerpt - In sum, once a Presbytery receives, from one who had the right to file charges, properly drawn charges against one or more teaching elder members of Presbytery, the Presbytery must proceed to accept and adjudicate those charges under the provisions of BCO chapter 32 unless it can show that one or more of the situations spelled out in BCO 29-1, 32-20, 34-2 and 31-8 applies. But if a Presbytery determines to dismiss charges on the basis of the above provisions, the burden of proof is clearly on the Presbytery. It may constitutionally dismiss such charges only with reasoning that is documented in the record and subject to review by the higher court (see BCO 40-2 and 43-1). KEP has not met this standard. It is not clear on which, if any, of the aforementioned standards KEP was relying in dismissing the charges, nor is it clear from the record that there was sufficient evidence to warrant such a dismissal. In view of KEP's failure to demonstrate constitutional grounds for dismissing the charges, KEP was required to begin process (BCO 32-2), appoint a prosecutor, order an indictment drawn (including the names of witnesses known to support the charges), and cite the accused to appear to answer the charges (BCO 32-3)... This case is remanded to the Presbytery for actions consistent with this opinion. |
| 2010-27 Ruff v. Nashville. M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 538. Judicially Out of Order. 18-0. Objection (from an absent SJC member). |
| 2010-28 Gonzales v. Great Lakes M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 542. Sustained 23-0. C-Op. Summary: Alleged P erred in approving five recommendations from a Commission conducting a 31-2 investigation of a TE. SJC ruled it was error to put on record P's intent to decline to recommend the TE for any of the following: transfer, dismissal, or installation in a call. Issue: Did Great Lakes Presbytery err when it, at its September 18, 2010 Stated Meeting, approved the recommendations presented by its Judicial Commission erected to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation of TE Stephen Gonzales? Judgment: Yes. The Complaint is sustained with regard to Presbytery's approval of recommendation five (see Summary of Facts dated 9/18/2010), and that action is hereby annulled (BCO 43-10). Key words: minutes, admonition, without call, divest, BCO 13-2, 34-10 |
| 2011-01 Sang C. Choi v. Korean Central M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 542. AOO 17-1. Prematurely filed. |
| 2011-02 Gonzales v. Great Lakes M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 551. Sustained Issue 1, 23-0. Summary: Alleged P erred by ruling his C out of order. Also alleged P erred by not investigating his charges against the TE who chaired the Commission that conducted a 31-2 investigation of the complainant. Issue: 1. Did Great Lakes Presbytery err when it ruled Out of Order on January 8, 2011, TE Gonzales's Complaint stating "that Presbytery has already dealt with all the issues"? 2. Did Great Lakes Presbytery err when it ruled Out of Order on January 8, 2011, TE Gonzales's Complaint regarding its failure to investigate TE Dupee? Judgment: ( 1.) Yes; (2.) No |
| 2011-03 Sagan v. Covenant M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 554. Not sustained 20-0. See also Case 2011-04 Gunn v. Covenant. Summary: Alleged P erred when it received and acted on report and recommendations of its MNA committee concerning joint committee on RUF (with Mississippi Valley P). SJC determined the cases centered on the proper role and scope of a committee of Presbytery. Complainants alleged a committee exceeded the scope of its authority. Issue: Did Covenant Presbytery err at its October 2010 meeting when it received and acted on the report and recommendations from its MNA Committee (MNA-CP) concerning the Mississippi Joint Committee on Campus Work (MJCCW)? Judgment: No, and the Complaints are denied. |
| 2011-04 Gunn v. Covenant M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 554. Not sustained. Answered in the Decision on Case 2011-03. |
| 2011-05 Young B. Kim v. Korean Capital M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 560. AOO. Not timely filed. |
| 2011-06 Sawyers v. Missouri M41GA, 2013, Greenville, p. 552. Sustained 14-1. But further action mooted. Summary: Nine members of P alleged P erred by not finding a strong presumption of guilt regarding a minister's views. Issue: Did MOP err in failing to find a strong presumption of guilt that TE Jeffrey Meyers holds views contrary to the Westminster Standards (BCO 34-5) when it conducted its BCO 31-2 investigation of his views and writings? Judgment: Yes. Reasoning (entire): We find that MOP erred in failing to find a strong presumption of guilt that TE Meyers holds views contrary to the Westminster Standards (BCO 34-5) when MOP conducted its investigation. The appropriate remedy for a failure to find a "strong presumption of guilt that views represent offenses that could properly be the subject of Judicial Process (BCO 31-2, BCO 29-1 & 2)" would be to "take steps to comply with [Presbytery's] obligations under BCO 31-2" (see SJC 2009-06). However, during the pendency of this Case before the Standing Judicial Commission, MOP conducted a trial of TE Meyers in accordance with BCO 31-2 on April 13 and 14, 2012. Therefore, since MOP has already accomplished the applicable remedy for this Case, any further action on this Case is moot. Key words: federal vision, doctrine |
| 2011-07 PCA v. Warrior M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 561. Satisfactory 19-0 Summary: After repeated failures to respond to GA regarding exceptions of substance in past annual records, P was cited to appear before the SJC. P responded, and SJC found responses satisfactory. |
| 2011-08 Sherfy v. James River M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 562. JOO 18-0. C-Op 2. Summary: Not timely filed and thus judicially out of order, even though P clerk gave complainant incorrect filing advice. Decision included the following statements: "The Complaint of Mr. Sherfey against JRP was filed with the Clerk of Presbytery on June 15, 2011, but was not filed with the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly until July 8, 2011, thus failing to meet the thirty (30) day filing period of BCO 43-3. Though this failure was in part because Mr. Sherfey received incorrect advice from the Stated Clerk of JRP, Mr. Sherfey himself was finally responsible to read, understand, and comply with the Rules of Discipline. The SJC reminds Presbyteries that when a Presbytery acts in reviewing the decisions of lower courts, it should consider Appendix H of the BCO." |
| 2011-09 Jennings v. North Florida M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 565. Sustained 19-1. D-Op. Summary: Alleged P erred in process whereby it restored a TE who was previously deposed. Issue: Did North Florida Presbytery err in the process by which it acted to restore Mr. Scott from deposition? Judgment: Yes. Reasoning excerpts: Hence, in this instance, a general sentiment that finds a strong favor, while not providing a quantifiable amount in the Presbytery, requires at the very least more than a mere majority, even though a majority vote prevails. NFP's vote of 19-17 to restore Mr. Scott did not meet a reasonable test of the standard of"a strong favor." ... The question of the necessity of re-ordination in the process of restoration from deposition is not a settled matter. Until there is further clarification, the statement for restoration in BCO 37-5 can be considered sufficient. Key words: deposition, general sentiment, BCO 30-5, 34-8, 37-8, 37-9, 46-8 |
| 2011-10 Testa v. South Florida M40GA, 2012 Louisville, p. 580. AOO 19-0. C against S action not yet considered by P. |
| 2011-11 Hahn v. Philadelphia Metro West. (also Cases 2011-12 and 2011-15) M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 500, 509. Not sustained 18-0 Summary: These three Cases all arise out of substantially the same set of facts (and Case 2011-16 is a duplicate of 2011-15). In Case 2011-11, he alleged P erred by ruling it was permissible for the S to prohibit him from attending worship at Christ the King PCA until he had undergone psychiatric evaluation. Issue: Did Philadelphia Metro West Presbytery err on September 17, 2011, when it found that the CTKPC Session did not unlawfully prohibit Hahn from attending worship? Judgment: No. |
| 2011-12 Hahn v. Philadelphia Metro West. (also Cases 2011-11 and 2011-15) M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 513. Not sustained 18-0. Summary: Alleged P erred in finding him guilty of violating the 5th and 9th commandments and the second great commandment. Issue: Did Philadelphia Metro West Presbytery err in finding Hahn guilty of violations of the 9th Commandment, violations of the 5th Commandment, and violations of the 2nd Great Commandment? Judgment: No. |
| 2011-13 Appeal of Spann v. Oak Mountain Session M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 580. AOO 18-0. No record of Session making the alleged judicial decision or of any Appeal to P. SJC instructed P to inquire of the S. |
| 2011-14 Reese & Bech v. Philadelphia Presbytery. M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 528. Sustained 18-1. C-Op. D-Op. Summary: Two REs alleged P erred by declaring their C out of order, which alleged P erred by not allowing questions to be raised when considering a minister's new call. BCO 21-1, 21-10 See also 2008-01 and -10. Issue: Did Philadelphia Presbytery err at its September 21, 2011 meeting when it declared the Complaint of RE Reese and TE Bech to be out of order? Judgment: Yes. Reasoning (excerpts): Philadelphia Presbytery erred in ruling the Complaint out of order on the basis of a misapplication of Robert's Rules of Order. We do, however, concur with Presbytery's conclusion that the amends sought by the Complainants are not appropriate. If anyone believes that a Teaching Elder or Session is not acting in accordance with the Constitution of the PCA (and in the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume that they are), he must deal with such error through the procedures found in BCO 31, 32, and 34. In particular, the complaint process cannot be used to remove a properly ordained and installed Teaching Elder from an approved call. Given that RE Reese and TE Bech (and perhaps other presbyters) were prohibited from asking questions they deemed necessary to determine whether the call was "for the good of the church," and given that Philadelphia Presbytery cannot now rescind TE Hsu's installation, there are at least four constitutional means for redress should anyone find it necessary: 1) If anyone believes that a minister is violating the BCO and thereby violating his vow to submit to his brethren, he should bring it to the attention of some minister of the presbytery (BCO 34-3), or the presbytery committee responsible for oversight of ministers (like a shepherding committee), or he should draft and file charges with presbytery on the matter. 2) If anyone believes a session is violating the BCO or is guilty of an "important delinquency" or a "grossly unconstitutional proceeding" he should take advantage of the avenue provided in BCO 40-5 and report it to the presbytery. 3) When Philadelphia Presbytery annually reviews session records, presbyters may insist that it give particular attention to how the City Line session is complying with the BCO with respect to the polity questions raised in the complaint. 4) Based upon the "reports" set forth in the Complaint, a presbyter may seek a BCO 31-2 investigation of TE Hsu. Key words: views, women, office, deacons, diaconate, ordination, exceptions, difference, BCO 20-10, 21-1, 21-5, 43-2 |
| 2011-15 Hahn v. Philadelphia Metro West. (also Cases 2011-11 and 2011-12) M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 515. Not sustained 18-0. C-Op Summary: Alleged P erred by not instituting process against three people against Issue: Did Philadelphia Metro West Presbytery err on September 17, 2011, in denying the institution of process against Lisa Ridenour, RE Ridenour, and TE Huber? Judgment: No. |
| 2011-16 Hahn v. Philadelphia Metro West. (identical to 2011-15) M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 516. |
| 2011-17 Smith v. Mississippi Valley M41GA, 2013, Greenville, p. 555. Not sustained 17-0. Summary: Alleged P erred in excommunicating a TE, erring in five ways in handling the TE's BCO 38-1 case without process, which led to deposition and excommunication. (BCO 30-4, 34-4, 32-6, 27.3.c) Complaint was against the excommunication only. SJC sustained part of one allegation of error. The TE (not the Complainant) had been on staff at First Presbyterian, Jackson, MS. Issue: Does the SJC sustain any of the five allegations of error asserted in the Complaint? Judgment: The SJC sustains part of one allegation, but does not sustain any part of the other four. Presbytery, according to the brief of the Respondent, judged the man to have "refused to appear." This judgment was in error. The SJC reverses this judgment. As there were other grounds for the excommunication, the SJC is not annulling the censure. Presbytery may consider whether any change in the censure is necessary in light of this ruling. |
| 2011-18 Ruff v. Nashville. M41GA, 2013, Greenville, p. 566. Sustained 18-0. Summary: Alleged P erred in three ways: (1) failed to comply with SJC directive in Case 2009-28, (2) erred in receiving a confession via BCO 38-1 that was not a full statement of the facts, and (3) erred in administering proper censure of TE. SJC sustained parts 2 and 3, but not part 1. SJC directed P to sponsor a meeting between the Complainant and the TE. Issue: 1. Did NP fail to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation with respect to reports concerning TE George Grant consistent with the opinion of SJC in 2009-28? 2. Did NP fail to comply with the provisions of BCO 31-2 with respect to reports concerning TE George Grant, consistent with the opinion of SJC in 2009-28, by concluding the matter as a Case Without Process under BCO 38-1? 3. Did NP err in receiving a confession under BCO 38-1 that did not adequately address all the matters raised under their BCO 32-1 investigation, consistent with the opinion of SJC in 2009-28? 4. Did NP fail to properly administer its censure in the Case Without Process with respect to the confession of TE George Grant? Judgment - 1. No. 2. No. 3. Yes. 4. Yes. |
| 2011-19 Testa v. Southern Florida M40GA, 2012, Louisville, p. 580. AOO. |
| 2012-01 Sherfey v. James River M41GA, 2013, Greenville, p. 570. JOO 13-5. D-Op 3. Obj 4 (on SJC member's relationship to the Case.) The action complained against is not in the Record of the Case. |
| 2012-02 Keating v. Warrior M41GA, 2013, Greenville, p. 575. Sustained 18-0. Summary: Alleged P erred procedurally when it divested him, without censure, after being without call for over 3 years. BCO 34-10 and 42-3 Issue: Did Presbytery err when it divested TE Keating on January 17, 2011? Judgment: Yes. Presbytery failed to comply with BCO 34-10 and therefore the Appeal is sustained on procedural grounds and the divestiture is voided. Mr. Keating remains a PCA minister in good standing. But Presbytery is not precluded from proceeding in accord with BCO 34-10 at another meeting. If Presbytery divests, TE Keating would be entitled to Appeal. This Decision does not address the merits of any divestiture, but only the procedure followed by Presbytery. ... The decision of Warrior Presbytery is reversed and this case is remanded to Presbytery for such action as it considers appropriate. Key words: divestiture, BCO 13-2 |
| 2012-04 Dunn v. Philadelphia Metro West M41GA, 2013, Greenville, p. 582. AOO 19-0. |
| 2012-05 Hedman v. Pacific Northwest. [M41GA (2013): 583. Not sustained 15-2. C-Op 3. C-Op. D-Op 2. Summary: Alleged P erred by not convicting TE Leithart at trial involving doctrinal views. Issue: Did the Complainant demonstrate, based on the record in this Case, that the Pacific Northwest Presbytery violated the Constitution of the PCA when it concluded that the accused was not guilty of holding and teaching views that are in conflict with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards? Judgment: No. Reasoning excerpts: In short, our review in this Case is constitutionally limited to the information developed in the Record dealing with this specific Case. Thus, nothing in our Decision or Reasoning should be understood as rendering any judgment on any "school of thought" within or without the PCA. Our review could focus only on: (a) whether the Complainant demonstrated that the Presbytery committed procedural errors in its handling of this matter; (b) whether the Complainant demonstrated that Presbytery misunderstood TE Leithart's views; and (c) whether the Complainant demonstrated that TE Leithart's views are in conflict with the system of doctrine. Finally, we reiterate that nothing in this Decision should be construed as addressing (or thereby endorsing) in general TE Leithart's views, writings, teachings or pronouncements. The Decision is based on the specific issues raised in the indictment and the Record of the Case as developed at the trial. Our conclusion is simply that neither the Prosecution nor the Complainant proved that TE Leithart's views, as articulated at the trial or otherwise contained in the Record of the Case, violate the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards. |
| 2012-06 Bethel v. Southeast Alabama M41GA, 2013, Greenville, p. 614. AOO 18-0. The Case is Administratively Out of Order in that it was not filed within the thirty (30) day time period (BCO 43-2; OMSJC 18.10.b). Additionally, the Complainant, as a Deacon who was not a commissioner to Presbytery on the date of the action complained against, did not have standing to file the Complaint (BCO 43-1). 2012-07 Appeal of Mitchell v. Ascension M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 544. Sustained 20-0. Summary: An RE who was the former clerk of his Session, alleged S erred in imposing his involuntary sabbatical. P sustained C and directed S to hold reelection. S then charged RE and Referred trial to P. Mitchell was then convicted of breaking 5th and 9th commandments and was indefinitely suspended from office. Issue: 1. Did the Presbytery err in sustaining Specification No. 2 of the Charges and Specifications? 2. Did the Presbytery err in sustaining Specification No. 6 of the Charges and Specifications? Judgment: 1. Yes, the judgment on Specification No. 2 is vacated and remanded to the Presbytery to consider if a new trial is warranted. 2. Yes, the judgment on Specification No. 6 is reversed, and the Specification is dismissed. |
| 2012-08 Sartorius v. Siouxlands M43GA, 2015 Chattanooga, p. 528. Sustained in part, 18-1. C-Op 9. C-Op 3. C-Op 2. Summary: Alleged P procedurally erred in a doctrinal trial of TE Lawrence. Also alleged error in the not guilty verdict. SJC ruled error in procedures and instructed new trial. Issue: Did the Presbytery of the Siouxlands err on September 22, 2011 in approving their Judicial Commission's recommended judgments? Judgment: Yes. Presbytery of the Siouxlands erred because its Judicial Commission made serious procedural errors that undermined the legitimacy of the Judgments proposed. The disposition to be made of this Complaint is that PS is instructed to undertake a new trial of TE Lawrence according to the instructions that follow (BCO 43-9, -10). Reasoning excerpt: Upon review of the Record of the Case (ROC), it is clear that the JC erred by receiving what was essentially testimony from the defendant while at the same time allowing the defendant to decline to testify. In so doing the JC admitted testimony contrary to BCO 35-5... However, TE Lawrence did not simply say "guilty or not," but submitted the four page "Defendant's Plea" pleading not guilty to the charges and providing written testimony with respect to each charge as to why he was not guilty... The Judicial Commission treated these statements as testimony, quoting from them in articulating the reasons for its decision. The court should not have admitted such exculpatory material from the defendant, written after Presbytery voted to indict, unless he was waiving his right to decline to testify... The JC clearly erred in receiving the post indictment exculpatory statements offered by TE Lawrence without also requiring that TE Lawrence to be subject to cross examination with respect to those statements... [W]e order a new trial with the following instructions...[eight instructions listed] Key words: federal vision, self-incrimination |
| 2012-09 Bennett v. Missouri M41GA, 2013, Greenville, p. 615. AOO 15-2. Summary: Alleged P erred in finding TE Myers not guilty in a doctrinal trial. Complaint was ruled AOO in that, although the TE Complainant was a PCA member when he brought his original C to P, he was later received by OPC and therefore did not have standing to continue Complaint later to the SJC. |
| 2012-10 PCA v. Korean Capital M41GA, 2013, Greenville, p. 616. Satisfactory 20-0. Summary: After repeated failures to respond to GA regarding exceptions of substance in past annual records, P was cited to appear before the SJC. P responded, and SJC found responses satisfactory. |
| 2012-13 Appeal of Tarter v. Evangel M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 539. Sustained 15-0. Summary: TE was laboring out of bounds in Ireland. P instructed him on accountability, but he declined requests. Eventually indicted for failure to submit to P authority, found guilty of two charges at trial, and deposed. He appealed. Remanded to P. Issue: Did Evangel Presbytery, at its meeting of February 14, 2012, err in approving the report and judgment of its Judicial Commission in the case of The PCA vs. TE Chuck Tarter (Appellant)? Judgment: Yes, and the case is remanded to Evangel Presbytery for process consistent with the Reasoning and Opinion set forth herein, or for dismissal, whichever course may appear wiser to Presbytery. Key words: BCO 15-1, 32-8, 32-13, 34-5, 35-5, 35-7, 42-3 |
2013-01 Dunn & Pesnell v. Philadelphia Metro West |
| 2013-04 Session of Hope Community v. Central Carolina M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 560. Sustained 19-0. C-Op 2. Summary: Alleged P erred by adopting a Bylaw essentially disallowing multi-site churches by requiring each site to particularize within 5 years. Issue: Did Central Carolina Presbytery err on November 27, 2012 when it adopted a provision of Appendix 2 "Church Planting" of the "Manual of Central Carolina Presbytery," to wit: Paragraph 2.e. Recognizing the validity of the temporary form of government that multi-sites use, Central Carolina Presbytery does, however, require the multi-site session to eventually particularize a site and will review that question with the session and the site pastor after no more than five years through the Missions Committee. Judgment: Yes. Central Carolina Presbytery erred, and the requirement for particularization of a "multi-site" church is annulled, and that provision is stricken from the Presbytery Manual. Reasoning excerpt: Presbytery erred in adopting in its Manual a mandate requiring a Session to take steps to particularize one of its worship services as a new church. This requirement to particularize infringes on the province of ordering the time and place of worship specifically recognized by the BCO to reside with the Session... While a presbytery does have the power to devise measures for the enlargement of the church within its bounds, (BCO 13-9g), that general power cannot be construed so as to vitiate responsibilities specifically vested in the Session by BCO 12-5e... It is important to note, however, that both parties acknowledge that the decision with respect to the location of the second worship site vis-a-vis other congregations in the Presbytery is subject to Presbytery review under BCO 13-9(g)... Finally, however, it is important to recognize the narrow scope of this decision. In Presbytery's rationale for its denial of the Complaint, in its written brief, and in oral argument at the Panel hearing, Presbytery raised a number of serious and plausible biblical, theological and polity concerns with respect to a multi-site structure. These concerns included potential confusion with respect to the definition of the church, the replacement of Presbyterian with a quasi-episcopal form of governance, the potential denial of the rights of members in relation to the election of their officers, the potential loss of any real shepherding capacity by the officers, and the potential erosion of the jurisdiction of the Presbytery with respect to the churches under its care. These concerns with respect to the multi-site structure cannot be addressed in this decision. However, nothing in this decision should be understood to dismiss such serious concerns, nor prohibit those who share them from seeking remedies through appropriate Constitutional means. |
| 2013-05 Hahn v. Philadelphia Metro West M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 500. AOO. He requested SJC to assume original jurisdiction over the Presbytery. |
| 2013-06 Appeal of Gonzales v. Great Lakes M43GA, 2015 Chattanooga, p. 555. Sustained 15-0. C-Op. Summary: TE alleged P erred in divesting him from office without censure per BCO 34-10. Issue: 1. Did GLP err at its May 4, 2013 Stated Meeting by "receiving improper . . . evidence" (BCO 42-3) as evidences for a BCO 34-10 divestiture? 2. Did GLP err at its May 4, 2013 Stated Meeting by "... divest[ing] TE Steve Gonzales from office . . . without delay" without following the process required in BCO 34-10? 3. Did GLP err at its May 4, 2013 Stated Meeting by in failing to "... appoint a committee of 3 presbyters to meet with TE Gonzales with the view to dealing with issues that will lead to the place of full confidence"? 4. Did GLP err at its May 4, 2013 Stated Meeting by insisting that TE Gonzales "demit for not having his household in order" when there was no trial to prove this public accusation? 5. Did GLP err at its May 4, 2013 Stated Meeting by not assigning TE Gonzales "to membership in some particular church..." pursuant to BCO 46-8? Judgment: 1. Any Judgment on this Specification is rendered moot because of the error identified in Specification No. 2. 2. Yes. 3. Any Judgment on this Specification is rendered moot because of the error identified in Specification No. 2. 4. Any Judgment on this Specification is rendered moot because of the error identified in Specification No. 2. 5. Any Judgment on this Specification is rendered moot because of the error identified in Specification No. 2. Reasoning excerpts: Application of BCO 34-10 requires that Presbytery take several discrete steps and make several factual findings... Our examination of the Record of the Case reveals that GLP failed to follow these steps properly... It is not reasonable to expect that each of the conclusions in steps 1-3 outlined above will be examined, debated and proved on the record at the first stated meeting in the BCO 34-10 process. Rather, the structure of BCO 34-10 suggests that the most that can be determined at the first meeting is that it appears to Presbytery without hearing from the minister that steps 1-3 are satisfied. After all, the BCO requirement that the minister be heard in his own defense only applies by its terms to the second BCO 34-10 meeting, although nothing in BCO 34-10 suggests that the minister would or should be prohibited from speaking (assuming he is present) in the first BCO 34-10 meeting. This bifurcated structure suggests its own rationale: to give the minister in question and the presbyters of the Presbytery the opportunity to pray, prepare and reflect on the matter at hand before the second BCO 34-10 meeting. The weightiness of a divestiture of a TE, even without censure, fully justifies this precautionary approach. Nevertheless, it would appear that the Presbytery should at least make a preliminary determination in the first BCO 34-10 meeting that all of the elements of steps 1-3 above are satisfied before proceeding with step 4... We do not rule out the possibility of a Presbytery making summary findings without extensive evidence in the record at the first BCO 34-10 meeting, and then backing up those findings in the record at the second BCO 34-10 meeting. Key words: without call, BCO 13-2 |
| 2013-07 Session of First Presbyterian North Port v. Southwest Florida M42GA, 2014 Houston, p. 566. Sustained 20-0 (See also later Case 2013-11.) Summary: Session alleged P erred by remanding a Complaint from a female communicant member to the S after P had already (rightfully) declared it administratively out of order. S also alleged P erred by "directing" the S to do something, apart from due process of BCO 40-5, 6. Issue: 1. Did Presbytery err on September 8, 2012, when it remanded the matter raised by the woman's Complaint to the FPC Session, after it had declared that Complaint administratively out of order? 2. Did Presbytery err when it exercised authority over the FPC Session under BCO 40-4 by "directing" and "instructing" the FPC Session apart from the due process required in BCO 40-5 & 6? Judgment: ( 1.) Yes; (2.) Yes. Reasoning excerpt: The woman's original Complaint was out of order. BCO 43-2 (as then in effect) required that she file her complaint with the FPC Session "with the clerk of the court within thirty (30) days following the meeting of the court." Her Complaint was not timely filed and therefore did not meet the requirement of BCO 43-2. Almost five months elapsed between the time the civil trespass order was secured by the FPC Session and the time of her Complaint. Both the FPC Session and the Clerk of Presbytery had previously, within the 30 day time limit of BCO 43-2, informed her of her right to complain. For whatever reason, she chose not to file a complaint until well after the time limit had expired. Her Complaint, therefore, was out of order, and should not have been considered by the FPC Session. In fact, Presbytery did not. It ruled her Complaint to Presbytery out of order. That should have concluded the matter at this level. There was no other matter for Presbytery to carry forward, annul, or send back. Finally, we reiterate that CM remains a member of FPC, and any civil action taken by the FPC Session does not change CM's membership standing [a no trespass order]. |
| 2013-08 Jackson v. Northwest Georgia M43GA, 2015 Chattanooga, p. 568. JOO 17-0.42 Summary: RE Jackson was not a commissioner to the P meeting at which the action was taken and therefore did not have standing to file C against the action. However, SJC remanded to P matters raised in a letter judged to be a valid BCO 40-5 letter. Reasoning (entire): The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) finds the above-named Complaint Administratively Out of Order (OMSJC 9.1.a.), as upon further examination of the Record of the Case it is clear that the Complainant did not have standing to file a Complaint with Northwest Georgia Presbytery (NWGP) in this matter (BCO 43-1). RE Jackson was not a commissioner to the January 2013 meeting of NWGP and therefore did not have standing to file a complaint there. The source of a BCO 40-4, 40-5 report does not thereby gain standing with the court. As this defect cannot be put in order, the Complaint is dismissed (OMSJC 9.2.b., d.). However, the SJC finds that the correspondence from RE Jackson to NWGP dated January 10, 2013, and from RE Jackson to Midway Presbyterian Church Session dated October 15, 2012 qualifies as a credible report alleging an important delinquency (BCO 40-5) with respect to a court next below NWGP, the Session of Midway Presbyterian Church. NWGP failed to respond to that credible report. The SJC takes note of that important delinquency, and accepts jurisdiction with respect to the matter (RAO 17-2). The court alleged to have offended, NWGP, has appeared before the SJC in writing (8/7/2013, email from Greg King, Stated Clerk, Northwest Georgia Presbytery). In that email he acknowledged that NWGP failed to consider the above-cited BCO 40-5 communication from RE Warren Jackson, alleging an important delinquency on the part of the Session of Midway Presbyterian Church. The Clerk has apologized to Mr. Jackson and to the Presbytery for the oversight. It remains, then, for the SJC to remit the whole matter to NWGP (BCO 40-5) with the injunction that it take up the concerns of Mr. Jackson expressed in the Correspondence and dispose of them in a constitutional manner. |
| 2013-09 Appeal of Marshall v. Pacific [M42GA (2014): 500. Withdrawn as prematurely filed. |
| 2013-10 Appeal of Latimer v. Chicago Metro [M43GA (2015): 572-585]. Sustained 18-0. C-Op. C-Op. Summary: Minister alleged Presbytery erred by convicting him of pursuing a divorce without biblical grounds and also erred by deposing him. Issue: Shall the Appeal be sustained? Judgment: Yes. Specifications 1, 2 and 3 are sustained in part. Specifications 4, 5, and 6 are not sustained. After prevailing in an Appeal, an Appellant's status would normally be restored automatically to that which he held on the day of the trial. In this Case, the trial was 5/22/12 and on that day he was still serving a one-year definite suspension from office, but with only one day remaining. Therefore, since the one-year definite suspension expired on 5/23/12 (eleven months ago), the Appellant is today a member of Chicago Metro Presbytery, without call. Reasoning excerpts: Presbytery was focused on the following question, prior to indictment and at trial: "Did TE Latimer have biblical grounds for divorce?" Presbytery rightly answered: No. But that was not the most pertinent question. The most pertinent question, and the one on which our judgment to sustain in part rests, is: Did TE Latimer sin on June 27, 2012 when he filed a divorce petition with the State of Illinois? We do not find so and rule that Presbytery clearly erred in judging that he sinned in doing so. There is no indication in the record that TE Latimer ever had "grounds to divorce" his wife. But whether his June 27, 2012 filing constituted sin turns not on whether he had grounds to divorce, but on whether his filing, combined with other evidence in the record, can reasonably be read to indicate an intent on his part to divorce. In other words, was his true objective to get divorced, or was the divorce filing intended for other purposes entirely, such as the "protection of his children," as he argued? It doesn't matter whether the filing was a wise or well-advised means to achieve his objective, or whether the children needed protecting, none of which the SJC can evaluate. What matters is whether TE Latimer's intentions in filing were sinful. We find no conclusive evidence in the record that TE Latimer's intentions were sinful, and Presbytery clearly erred in finding otherwise. The primary evidence cited by Presbytery to oppose this conclusion is the fact that TE Latimer never withdrew his divorce filing. But no conclusion on his intent to divorce can be drawn from this fact because of his wife's counter-filing for divorce 12 days after his initial filing. Her counter-filing changed the circumstances, and the record doesn't speak to what TE Latimer's rights and responsibilities were in the divorce proceedings after her counter-filing. In potential and actual divorce proceedings, both spouses (including the guilty spouse) have rights with respect to the civil magistrate in resolving issues related to child custody, property, finances, alimony, child support, visitation, etc. In this decision, the SJC is not in any way criticizing Mrs. Latimer's behavior or her decisions. Nor is the SJC agreeing or disagreeing with the Appellant's contention that his June 27, 2012 filing was "required to protect the children" or his contention that a divorce petition was his only legal recourse. However, the record provides no conclusive evidence that TE Latimer filed for divorce immediately seeking a dissolution of the marriage or that TE Latimer had any intentions in the filing other than seeking what he believed was best for his children. Under the specific facts of this case, particularly the absence of evidence that his intentions were other than those he stated, to utilize civil process for such a purpose is not, of itself, sin. ... Finally, care should be exercised in referring to this decision as persuasive precedent, for the outcomes of divorce cases so often rest upon their unique facts. |
2013-11 Appeal of Session of First Presbyterian North Port v. Southwest Florida [M42GA (2014): 573-581. Sustained 20-0. (See also prior Case 2013-07) Summary: Session alleged P erred by convicting S of sin for not complying with a P directive. Issue: Did P err, at its September 14, 2013 meeting, in approving the report and judgment of its Judicial Commission in the case of The PCA vs. The Session of First Presbyterian Church of North Port, Florida? Judgment: Yes. The judgment is reversed. Reasoning excerpts: [A]s we held in SJC Case 2013-07... Presbytery alleges that it had the authority to direct the FPC Session to initiate process under the provisions of review and control for the "important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceedings" of the FPC Session (BCO 40-5). Presbytery cites the statements of members of the FPC Session that erroneously describe CM as not "a member of our church" as grounds to act under BCO 40-5. Even if we grant that the Presbytery received a credible report, it did not follow the steps of BCO 40-4 that require: [t]he first step shall be to cite the court alleged to have offended to appear before the court having appellate jurisdiction, or its commission, by representative or in writing, at a specified time and place, and to show what the lower court has done or failed to do in the case in question. The Appeal is sustained, the judgment against the FPC Session is reversed in whole, and the charges and specifications are dismissed. Finally, we note that this decision does not find fault with the legitimate concern presbytery sought to address. Rather, the SJC's concern is that presbytery failed to follow the steps required by BCO 40-5. Had it done so, there would have at least been an opportunity to settle this matter without the need for further process and censure. |
2013-12 Appeal of G.R. Marshal v. Pacific Presbytery [M43GA (2015): 585-586]. Sustained, w/concurring opinion. Summary: Alleged Presbytery erred in verdict in a judicial case. Since Presbytery failed to send up a material part of Record, the appeal was sustained. (Recording device failed at trial.) Reasoning: As the lower court failed to send up a material part of the Record of the Case, itself of injury to the Appellant, which failure cannot be remedied, the judgment from which the Appeal has been taken shall be suspended indefinitely, and as such, the case is dismissed. Pacific Presbytery is rebuked and urged to take greater care to preserve, transcribe, and transmit all testimony in any subsequent judicial proceedings (BCO 42-7). |
| 2014-01 TE D. Aven & TE D. Dively v. Ohio Valley Presbytery. [M43GA (2015): 527]. In process-see M44GA when available. |
Jump Links : |
|