April 6, 2005
by Evan Silverstein

LOUISVILLE – The Rev. Parker T. Williamson, chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and editor in chief of its publications, got some good news and some bad news this week from the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC).

The goods news was that the April 4 ruling sustained his argument that Western North Carolina presbytery did not provide adequate written criteria for evaluating validated ministries before it moved last year to withdraw its validation of Williamson's.

The bad news was that the commission did not sustain a number of other allegations of error he'd made in his appeal – that the presbytery was wrong to consider the history and past editorial policies of the Lay Committee's publication, The Layman, in reaching its decisions; that presbytery officials refused to read and consider relevant materials he had provided; and that the evidence presented was simply insufficient to warrant the invalidation of his ministry.

Williamson's Lay Committee ministry came under dispute in late 2003 when the presbytery's Committee on Ministry (COM) recommended against a renewal of his validation.

In January 2004, the presbytery voted 150-106 to withdraw the validation and change Williamson's status to member-at-large.

Williamson appealed the decision to the synod PJC and eventually to the General Assembly PJC, the highest church court.

The GA commission ruled that its synod-level counterpart was wrong to order the presbytery to take no action regarding the validation of Williamson's ministry for one year. It said that order improperly prevented the presbytery from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities.

"The development and use of written criteria is mandatory," the ruling said. "Presbytery has not complied with this requirement because it did not develop or utilize written criteria." The presbytery policy said only that the criteria to be used "shall be the pertinent references in the Book of Order." The GA PJC said that was "not sufficient."

Williamson, a member of the presbytery since 1971, was happy with the ruling on written criteria, which he called a "key issue."

"I was delighted that we won on the key issue in our appeals," said Williamson, who was pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Lenoir, NC, before going to work for the Lay Committee in 1989. "Namely that a presbytery must have written criteria. That was the most important element about our appeal, and while we wish we could have won on every procedural detail, that one was pivotal."

Williamson appealed the presbytery's decision to the synod PJC in March 2004. That put the presbytery's action and his status on hold.

That September, the synod court found that Western North Carolina Presbytery had failed to provide Williamson "adequate due process and fundamental fairness" (a finding that the presbytery did not appeal), and ordered the presbytery and Williamson to work together in developing a presbytery-wide plan of reconciliation.

The presbytery appealed the reconciliation order and asked to be permitted to start a new validation inquiry in the meantime.

The Rev. James E. Aydelotte, interim stated clerk of the presbytery, conceded that the process was flawed. "Once it was decided not to validate his ministry, we should have provided him with a concise statement of ‘why not,' and we should have given it to him as soon as possible, and we shouldn't have raised any issues after that," he said. "We thought we were being very fair, and we tried to be, but they (the PJC) felt that it would be best to do those extra things. So we will do them in the future."

Aydelotte said the presbytery has suspended all validation reviews until a task force has time to draft new evaluation guidelines.

"Surely we will be able to get that done in two or three months, I would think," he added.

The GA PJC's ruling did not sustain Williamson's claim that the synod judicial commission had erred in its handing of the case.

Williamson argued that the synod commission should have ruled that the presbytery acted improperly after the Lay Committee published a "Declaration of Conscience" that urged church sessions to "prayerfully consider" withholding per-capita and mission funds from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), on the grounds that its leaders have not been faithful to Biblical standards.

He argued that the recommendation against his ministry was based, not on evidence, but on opinion – especially about the "Declaration," which the board of the Presbyterian Lay Committee approved and signed in October 1993.

Williamson argued that his endorsement and support of the document is "constitutionally protected speech."

But the GA PJC said: "This argument is not persuasive in view of the finding by the SPJC that presbytery's action was not based on any opinions Williamson may have expressed or on any respectful dissent he may have offered."

The commission also said in its ruling that "no retaliatory action" was taken against Williamson; that the "editorial policy espoused by The Layman is not consonant with presbytery's mission," and that "The Layman is an institution wholly unrelated to the PC(USA), and not subject to its discipline."

The commission rejected the presbytery's argument that the synod commission didn't have the authority to order a presbytery-wide process of reconciliation and had overstepped its "constitutional bounds."

It said the synod court "clearly had authority to order a plan for a process of reconciliation."

Because Williamson based much of his argument on the issue of freedom of conscience, the court addressed the issue directly, saying: "One of the historic and widely quoted statements of the PC(USA) is ‘That God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are anything contrary to his Word ... in matters of faith and worship.'"

However, it said, G-6.0108b of the Book of Order says: "It is to be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (USA) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church. ... Every Presbyterian minister should remember that by his ordination he has voluntarily limited his freedom."

It said Williamson "may exercise his freedom of conscience only within the bounds prescribed by the covenant community."

The PJC said in conclusion: "The burden is ... on the minister seeking validation to demonstrate that his or her ministry is ‘consonant with the mission of the presbytery.' ... Thus, COM and presbytery were not bound by a ‘preponderance of the evidence' standard, as Williamson argues."

Presbyterian News Service