The following letter was sent to Northeast Presbytery,
with a copy sent to the Clerk of Session of Affirmation Presbyterian
Church, dated November 12, 1997:
Fathers and Brothers,
We have been commissioned by Heartland Presbytery
(Heartland Presbytery Minutes, p.642, §97-40) to lay
before you a concern we as a presbytery have and to humbly request
your help. Several of our members and our presbytery as a whole
have been injured by the actions of one of your members and his
session and we believe it is proper to inform you about it.
On May 29, TE Frank J. Smith, acting in his capacity
as Editor of the Presbyterian International News Service (PINS),
wrote to the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records (CRPR)
through its Chairman (see Appendix A for the text of the letter)
alleging that Heartland Presbytery acted unconstitutionally in
adopting a standing rule that forbade the circulation of our minutes
beyond our membership (see Appendix B for the text of the rule).
Although Mr. Smith was aware of the our adoption of this rule
at least as early as the Fall of 1996, he did not send his letter
until 11 days before the CRPR met, so that our Presbytery could
not meet to formulate a response. Had the CRPR Chairman not distributed
the letter to the Committee members attending General Assembly,
which included the representative of our Presbytery, we would
have been unaware of the allegation until the time our minutes
were reviewed by the Committee, and would not have been prepared
to respond. Mr. Smith did not inform Heartland Presbytery directly
of his accusation against us. We believe this to be unethical.
This is not the first time an allegation against
our presbytery has originated with PINS or its publications.
An article on page 9 of the Spring, 1995, edition of the PCA
News (precursor of the Presbyterian and Reformed News)
made reference to the only judicial case in which presbytery was
a party. It left the impression that we suspended a minister
solely on the grounds that he failed to provide statistical reports.
We were compared to those in the PCUSA who prosecuted Dr. J.
Gresham Machen. When confronted at the 1995 General Assembly
by one of our members about this distortion of the record, the
editor refused to publish a retraction. He then repeated the
assertion that the minister was suspended because of failure to
provide statistical reports in the Summer, 1995, edition in an
article on p. 3. Thus a misleading report concerning our Presbytery
was widely disseminated by the PCA News and accepted by
its readership throughout our denomination. This report has been
given such credence that, in a personal conversation with one
of our commissioners at General Assembly this past summer, a commissioner
from another Presbytery referred to the case in question as the
"statistical reports case." Though the statements in
the articles in the PCA News were "technically"
true, they so misrepresented our position that, in the words of
the answer to WLC Question 145, they "perverted [the
truth] to a wrong meaning . . . to the prejudice of truth . .
.", thus breaking the ninth commandment.
In addition, our Presbytery Clerk was misrepresented
in the pages of the Winter, 1996, edition. That edition included
an article on the November, 1996, meeting of our Presbytery [NOTE:
The reference throughout the letter to the November, 1996, meeting
is erroneous-the reference has to be to the November, 1995, meeting--FJS],
which was clearly based on a copy of the presbytery minutes (there
were numerous verbatim citations of our actions). Included was
the following action we had taken at that meeting: "It was
moved that 'the request from the PCA News for Heartland
Presbytery minutes be answered in the negative.'" Our Clerk's
name appeared at the bottom of the article, leaving the impression
that he had supplied our minutes in direct violation of the action
of Presbytery. When our Clerk confronted the editor about this
misrepresentation, the editor refused to publish a clarification,
other than to include a small-print disclaimer, beginning two
issues later, stating that "The names and addresses of the
presbytery stated clerks are provided as a courtesy, and do not
imply that the clerk listed is responsible for the material."
When we observe the way actions of our presbytery
and its clerk have been misrepresented in this publication, it
causes us to wonder about the accuracy of other articles that
have been published; articles that we believe to have blemished
the reputations of MTW missionaries, the leadership of Covenant
College, the Interchurch Relations Committee, Redeemer Presbyterian
Church in Manhattan, the Standing Judicial Commission, and, most
recently, the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly. Even if it
were proper for us to investigate all the innuendoes scattered
throughout these articles and thus, perhaps, learn the whole story,
we lack the time and the resources to do so. We are confident
that the same is true of others who receive this publication,
and we are concerned that they may accept these innuendoes at
face value.
An additional concern of ours relates to the way
that Mr. Smith obtained our November, 1996, minutes, which involved
a further injury to one of our members. Mr. Smith contacted TE
Phil Kayser, a member of our presbytery who is a personal acquaintance
of his. He requested Mr. Kayser send him a copy of our minutes,
suggesting that he could obtain them from our Clerk but that it
might be easier for Mr. Kayser to send them. Mr. Kayser agreed
to do so. He was excused from our November, 1996, meeting due
to personal illness, and so was unaware of our action to deny
the PCA News' request for our minutes. Before reading
the minutes, he sent them to Mr. Smith. Upon reading the minutes,
and certainly realizing that Mr. Kayser had inadvertently violated
an action of Presbytery, Mr. Smith published an article drawn
from them, thus compromising the trust Mr. Kayser had placed in
him, and possibly damaging Mr. Kayser's reputation in our presbytery.
Then he had the temerity to request that Mr. Kayser send him
a copy of the minutes of the next meeting, in effect asking him
to disobey a directive of presbytery. Mr. Kayser refused. When
Mr. Smith asked him for a reason for his refusal, Mr. Kayser made
reference to the newly enacted standing rule forbidding it. Mr.
Smith demanded to see a copy of the rule, which Mr. Kayser then
provided. Mr. Smith published that rule in the Fall, 1996, issue,
fully cognizant of the fact that the rule was not a public document
under our rule. On his own initiative, Mr. Kayser expressed repentance
for his own wrong judgment on this issue which Presbytery has
accepted, and he has not sought to blame Mr. Smith. However,
we believe that Mr. Smith's action in this regard has injured
Mr. Kayser. Moreover, it has also caused us to question both
how he obtains what might otherwise be considered confidential
information (such as verbatim quotations on sensitive matters
reported to General Assembly Committees of Commissioners) and
his judgment in broadcasting such information to the whole church.
All of this has led us to reflect on the propriety and constitutionality of the whole enterprise of PINS, which is represented as a ministry of the Session of Affirmation Church. We believe this session, consisting of one teaching elder and one ruling elder (the smallest size allowed to constitute a session under BCO 12-1), has assumed the stance of investigative journalists-investigating the work of churches and agencies which function under the oversight of various higher courts of the church. We question whether this is proper conduct for a session or an individual member of Presbytery under the PCA Constitution. BCO 11-4 is very clear on the issue of jurisdiction:
"For the orderly and efficient dispatch of ecclesiastical business, it is necessary that the sphere of action of each court should be distinctly defined. The Session exercises jurisdiction over a single church, the Presbytery over what is common to the ministers, Sessions, and churches within a prescribed district, and the General Assembly over such matters as concern the whole Church. The jurisdiction of these courts is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution" (emphasis added).
BCO 40 further indicates that it is the higher courts that are responsible to review the actions of the lower courts:
"40-1. It is the right and duty of every court above the Session to review, at least once a year, the records of the court next below, and if any lower court fails to present its records for this purpose, the higher court may require them to be produced immediately, or at any time fixed by this higher court.
40-2. In reviewing records of a lower court the higher court is to examine:
In other words, the proper body to investigate the
actions of a lower court (agency, or committee) is the next highest
court.
Please note that, in our understanding, the issue
involved is not the propriety of an American citizen to act as
an investigative journalist under the provisions of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Rather, the issue
involves the propriety of a lower court of our church or an individual
member of Presbytery assuming the investigative authority which
the BCO reserves for the higher courts. It is our opinion
that, in the operation of PINS and its publication, the Presbyterian
and Reformed News, the Pastor and Session of Affirmation Church
have usurped this authority and are acting as independent
investigators in a manner analogous to the "vigilantes"
and "lynch mobs" of old.
It is for this reason we are writing to you. Fortunately,
under our system of government the Pastor and Session of Affirmation
Church are not permitted to act independently-their actions are
subject to your review. We call these matters to your attention
under the provisions of BCO 40-4 in a spirit of Christian
concern for our members and for the peace and purity of our denomination,
and request that you review them according to the provisions of
BCO 40-2 and 40-4.
You may wonder why we have delayed so long in bringing
these matters to your attention, as some occurred over two years
ago. This was not because of a lack of concern, but rather because
we attempted to handle the matter personally and informally instead
of rushing to take formal action. As time has passed, we have
found that individuals in other presbyteries are also concerned
about the actions of PINS and its editor. We have further concluded
that, in the terms used in BCO 32-20, their questionable practices
have become "flagrant" as time has progressed.
We will greatly appreciate your review of these situations.
Please notify us of any action you take.
Sincerely in Christ,
The Commission to Correspond with Northeast Presbytery
RE Don Boldt
TE Dan Dermyer
TE Tim Diehl
TE Larry Hoop
TE Larry Lunceford
RE Charles Meador
RE John Pink
RE Dwayne Sents
*It should be noted that as early as our third stated
meeting (August, 1989), Heartland Presbytery declined to send
its minutes to a publication that requested them (Minutes of
Heartland Presbytery, §89-99). It has been a long-standing
policy that we distribute our minutes only as outlined in Standing
Rule 2.8.
LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE ON REVIEW OF PRESBYTERY RECORDS
TWENTY-FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
May 29, 1997
Dear Fathers and Brethren:
As one who twice served on this Committee, including
being its secretary one year, I am very much aware of the hard
and thankless task in which you engage. I want to thank you up
front not only for your labors on behalf of the Assembly, but
also for your willingness to entertain my expressed concern.
I believe that the actions of several presbyteries
over the past couple of years have been blatantly unconstitutional
in denying us (i.e., the news service and the congregation which
officially sponsors it) access to the minutes of those courts.
In particular, I believe that the action of Heartland Presbytery
in amending its Standing Rules with regard to its minutes violates
our Constitution.
Last summer, Heartland adopted the following: "2.8
Distribution of minutes. The official minutes of Heartland
Presbytery are not published. Unofficial copies of the
minutes are circulated to members of and delegates to presbytery
for the convenience of presbytery under the terms of S.R.
4.3, F. Copies are sent to General Assembly for review in compliance
with BCO 13-19 [sic] and 40-1, and RAO 14. This
is not an act of publishing which makes them a public document.
All rights are retained by presbytery. Further dissemination
is not authorized, except for legitimate presbytery purposes
such as providing each member of a session with a copy."
I believe that this action violates our constitution in several
particulars.
First, it violates BCO 11-4, which states:
". . . These courts are not separate and independent tribunals,
but they have a mutual relation, and every act of jurisdiction
is the act of the whole Church performed by it through the appropriate
organ." This provision of our Constitution illustrates the
organic nature of the church. It specifically provides that,
in the exercise of jurisdiction, every church court is acting
on behalf of the church as a whole. (We could also illustrate
this point by noting that, with regard to judicial process, the
case is never "Local Church vs. John Doe" or "Presbytery
vs. John Doe", but always "Presbyterian Church in America
vs. John Doe"--that is to say, judicial process always involves
the entire church bringing charges against a person.) Since it
is true that "every act of jurisdiction is the act of the
whole Church performed by it through the appropriate organ",
any member of the whole Church has the right to see what action
has been taken on his behalf. The action by Heartland in refusing
to circulate its minutes to those not members of the court (or
members of one of its constituent sessions) therefore violates
this provision.
Secondly, Heartland's action violates BCO
34-1: ". . . if Presbytery refuses to act in doctrinal cases
or cases of public scandal, and two other Presbyteries request
the Assembly to assume original jurisdiction, the Assembly shall
do so." In many instances, the only way that other presbyteries
will have sufficient information to take the extraordinary action
envisioned in this paragraph is by having access to the official
minutes of the allegedly delinquent presbytery.
Third, Heartland's action violates BCO 43-1:
"It is the right of any communing member of the church in
good standing to make complaint against any action of a court
to whose jurisdiction he is subject. . . ." Any communing
member of a constituent congregation of Heartland Presbytery may
complain the actions of that court. However, the amendment to
the Standing Rules noted above allows for the dissemination
of minutes only to members of the court and/or members of sessions.
Removing from other communicant members the opportunity to have
access to the minutes of the Presbytery, in effect, renders inoperative
their opportunity to complain the court's actions.
(Some may contend that the words "to whose jurisdiction
he is subject" refers to "direct and immediate jurisdiction".
However, on that interpretation, no ruling elder, who is a member
of an organized church with its own session, could ever complain
the action of presbytery, since he is not subject to presbytery's
direct and immediate jurisdiction. Furthermore, the language
of BCO 43-1 comes from the Southern Presbyterian Book of
Church Order, which had a four-tiered polity [i.e., with synods
between General Assembly and presbyteries]: if the wording meant
"direct and immediate jurisdiction", then no one could
have ever complained to the Assembly, since neither churches nor
ministers were subject directly and immediately to the synods.
Moreover, at least a dozen cases through the years have been
heard by the PCA Assembly where the person was not subject to
the direct and immediate jurisdiction of a presbytery.)
Set forth above are the relevant portions of our
Constitution directly contradicted by Heartland's action. However,
there are other teachings that are also negatively affected by
the position assumed by Heartland, such as: the organic nature
of the church; and the notion of the church as the visible kingdom
of Christ.
Some might think that this controversy is all a tempest
in a teapot. However, whenever the church's Constitution is violated,
as it clearly has been by Heartland's action, it is always a serious
matter. It is also a serious concern when a church court goes
to great lengths to try to hide its actions from the scrutiny
of the rest of the church.
But even beyond that, there is a concern that, should
we publish information from the meeting or the minutes of Heartland
Presbytery, we may face judicial charges. Just over a year ago,
the Stated Clerk of Heartland, Lawrence Lunceford, telephoned
me, very upset about the fact that we had published a report of
his Presbytery based on a copy of the minutes which had been supplied
to us. (The gentleman who had mailed us a copy recently told
me that he got into all sorts of trouble for having sent us those
minutes.) Mr. Lunceford told me that he was recording our conversation,
and that he would be happy to give me a transcription of the conversation,
should I desire that. He was very upset over the fact that it
appeared that he had given us those minutes. I apologized to
him for that; and I believe I also said that it was our policy
to put the names and addresses of the presbytery stated clerks
at the bottom of the presbytery articles as a courtesy to our
readers as well as to the clerks.
As a second point, he in essence called me to repentance
for having "stolen" from Heartland Presbytery. He used
words to the effect that I had taken something that was not mine
and used it for my own purposes. On this point, I politely but
firmly denied that I had done anything wrong, and I stated that
I rejected his call to repentance. He seemed to indicate that
I would hear further from him on the matter. Although I have
not heard another word from him, Heartland, at its summer 1996
meeting, adopted the Standing Rule mentioned above. I believe
that should we report on Heartland Presbytery, even if we don't
directly use the minutes as typed by the Clerk, we could very
well face not only further unpleasantness, but also judicial charges.
The absurdity of this situation is seen by virtue
of the fact that, should a correspondent report on the action
of the Presbytery, and quote verbatim a motion as it is made on
the floor, has he violated the allegedly sacrosanct minutes?
If I understand the position of Heartland correctly, I believe
that a majority of that court would say, Yes.
I am therefore pleading with you to give protection
to us in our ministry of informing the denomination what is transpiring
in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and parts of Missouri. In doing this,
we would be acting in accord with the historic Presbyterian position,
that "The records of our church courts are public and not
private documents. . . " (PCUSA, Minutes 1879 GA, cited in
J. A. Hodge, What is Presbyterian Law?, pp. 222-23); and
in accord with the historic Presbyterian practice, which has been
for various publications to publish news of the church at large.
We would also be operating fully in accord with the Constitution,
as noted above.
Let me make clear that not necessarily everything
that is discussed in a church court gets into the minutes. In
this regard, one must make a distinction between the elders acting
in their joint capacity and in their several capacity.
Indeed, even in a judicial case, not everything that
may be revealed in testimony, even if recorded, may be part of
the minutes: the Constitution makes a distinction between the
minutes and the Record of a Case. In sensitive matters, church
courts can phrase things very delicately and carefully so as to
be both pastorally wise and Constitutionally obedient.
Also, please note that, even though we have framed
the debate philosophically in such a way that all minutes of a
court are open, one could argue that the minutes of an executive
session, for example, are privileged. We do not think so. For
one thing, all that a court would have to do in order to hide
its actions from scrutiny would be to go into and remain perpetually
in executive session. For another thing, Roberts' Rules of Order
provides that executive session makes privileged the discussion,
but not the action. However, apart from that philosophical debate,
it is abundantly clear that Heartland's proscription of the open
distribution of its minutes is overbroad and out of synch with
our Constitution, and therefore exception must be taken to this
action.
In this matter, you must choose one position or the
other--neutrality is not possible. We urge you to choose the
clearly Constitutional and Presbyterian position, by finding Heartland's
action to violate our standards. Thank you for your kind and
patient consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., Editor
Presbyterian Int'l. News Service
copies of the minutes are circulated to members of and delegates to presbytery for the convenience of presbytery under terms of S.R. 4.3, F. Copies are sent to General Assembly for review in compliance with BCO 13-19 and 40-1, and RAO 14. This is not an act of publishing which makes them a public document. All rights are retained by presbytery.
Further dissemination is not authorized, except
for legitimate presbytery purposes such as providing each member
of a session with a copy.
Mr. Don Boldt
416 Mitchell Street
Ackley, IA 50601
(515)847-2625
Rev. Dan Dermyer
1332 E. Sheridan Bridge Lane
Olathe, KS 66062-5721
(913)768-0875
Rev. Tim Diehl
924 First Avenue
Ackley, IA 50601-1607
(515)847-2085
Faith Presbyterian Church
10164 D Avenue
Ackley, IA 50601-8005
(515)847-3188
Rev. Larry Hoop
Colfax Center Presbyterian Church
18935 K Avenue
Holland, IA 50642-8022
(319)824-5231(o)/824-6423(h); email: larryhoop@juno.com
Rev. Larry Lunceford
5902 Blue Ridge Cutoff
Raytown, MO 64133-3728
(816)353-2421; email: 76656.3145@compuserve.com
Mr. Charles Meador
c/o Olathe Presbyterian Church
20100 W. 153rd Street
Olathe, KS 66062
(913)469-9487
Mr. John Pink
7650 Lackman Rd
Shawnee Mission, KS 66217-9422
(913)631-8498
Mr. Dwayne Sents
RR 1, #71
Wellsboro, IA 50680
(515)869-3429