Resources for Presbyteries

DOWNLOADS:

December 16, 2009
Dear Stated Clerk and General Presbyter of the Presbytery:

As a Minister Member of the Presbytery of San Francisco, I am asking for your moral support in a Remedial Case that is being filed with the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) against San Francisco Presbytery.

The story goes back a few years, but the immediate situation dates to an irregular action of the Presbytery to approve the ordination of Ms. Lisa Larges, a self-avowed and unrepentant lesbian woman, on November 10, 2009. In a four-page declaration presented during her examination for ordination, Ms. Larges refused to abide by the “fidelity and chastity” ordination standard of G-6.0106b. In effect, she cannot answer
“yes” to the fifth ordination question, “to be governed by our church’s polity.” By a vote of 156 to 138, the Presbytery approved her ordination anyway, but a protest was filed and a Stay of Enforcement has been secured until the matter can be adjudicated.

The Complainants (ministers and elders of San Francisco Presbytery) believe the action is so outrageous—and so out-of-covenant with our fellow presbyteries—that other presbyteries might wish to add their voices to the protest. As their representative, I am asking if you would be willing to guide a process through your presbytery to act before the 90-day filing period expires (D-6.0202a[5]) to become, basically, a co-complainant.
Because the Stay of Enforcement accompanied by a formal complaint must be filed within 45 days, our deadline is December 25 (D-6.0103a); but presbyteries have until February 8 to file the equivalent of a joinder.

I am asking for help from your presbytery specifically, for two reasons: You have a consistent voting record in support of G-6.0106b, and your next meeting is set for January or very early February, before the February 8 deadline. I realize that presbyteries are becoming increasingly pluralistic, especially on this issue, and that your presbytery’s support is not guaranteed. But I am hoping, if you think it worth the effort, you would try
to act in concert with us. To help your governing body deliberate, I or one of my colleagues would be happy to make a presentation to your Mission Council or the Presbytery to explain the situation and our need more fully. This action would not require you to do any legal writing, but merely to sign our complaint on behalf of your Presbytery, if it concurs.

My request is not primarily a request for financial support of the effort, but if you feel you want to contribute funds, we would be most appreciative. A separate letter specifically addressing the financial realities is included in our materials, and you can gain an appreciation for what it costs normal Presbyterians to accomplish a fair hearing within the PCUSA system. But even if you cannot donate to the kitty, your moral support in the form of a concurrence would go miles in getting the message to our Synod—and the GAPJC— that this isn’t just the complaint of a few disheartened individuals who lost a vote but the lament of a significant segment of the church.

In the web packet we have developed, you will find documentation that should help in your deliberations. All our materials are available at www.PCUSAStandards.org, under the “Resources for Presbyteries” tab, for this purpose. If you need anything else, please ask and we will do our best to provide helpful information.
Yours sincerely, in Christ,

(The Rev.) Mary Holder Naegeli
Counsel for the Complainants
(925) 935-4059

_____________

Financial Considerations
The request that your Presbytery identify itself as a co-complainant in the remedial case against San Francisco Presbytery is not automatically a solicitation for financial help. But if you are interested in the financial side of this process with the thought to contributing to the ongoing effort, we are happy to explain the situation to you. You can read more about “The Expensive Presbyterian Life” under the “Resources for Churches” tab on this website: www.PCUSAStandards.org

Naegeli v San Francisco Presbytery was funded by tax-deductible donations from approximately 70 individuals and 48 churches around the country. They became aware of the need either by direct contact from our team (through our personal ministry networks), by the Presbyterian Coalition’s publicity on its website, or by direct mail sent to all Confessing Churches of the PC(USA) this last fall. To facilitate the collection and transfer of funds, a line account was established at Community Presbyterian Church in Danville, CA. Checks are made out to “CPC—Denominational Relations” and sent there for accounting purposes, and then each month a payment to the law firm —Shapiro, Buchman & Provine (Walnut Creek, California)— has been made.

Regarding our donation base, here are some facts you might enjoy celebrating:
Total Collected in Donations: $143,000
Total from Churches (48): $105,000
Total from Individuals (68): $ 38,000
Highest Church Gift: $10,000
Lowest Church Gift: $50
Avg. Church Gift: $2,184
Highest Individual Gift: $7,500
Lowest Individual Gift: $50
Avg. Individual Gift: $560
Churches within San Francisco Presbytery: 13
Churches outside San Francisco Presbytery: 35

The account with Shapiro, Buchman is still open and the balance is approximately $72,000.

Expenses for “Round 2” currently underway, will be much, much less than what was required for “Round 1,” but we are burdened by this unpaid bill and would like to see it retired in January.

To save legal expenses, the advisory group from our “evangelical caucus” here in San Francisco Presbytery authorized me (Mary Naegeli) to represent the complainants. So I am writing the briefs, following the correspondence and motions, and preparing for trial, after learning how to do so in Round 1.

Our attorney, Elder Bruce McIntosh (Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church) has earned his stripes and done an excellent job; but in the interest of economy he has graciously agreed to step aside to “second chair” (which will be needed for the trial) and serve as consultant when needed, at his discounted fee of $300/hr. It is impossible to predict a final cost figure for Round 2 (my prediction for Round 1 was lousy), but we are being careful to be both accurate and efficient in our work, and to use as much of the
work we did in Round 1 in this present case.

Both Bruce McIntosh and I feel called to this work and believe that we are acting ultimately on behalf of the wider church. If you see it that way, too, your financial participation would certainly be welcome.

If you would like to contribute to the legal effort, make out a check to “CPC—Denominational Relations” with “Legal Fund/Complaint” on the memo line. Then mail the check to Community Presbyterian Church
attn: Myra Samson
222 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, CA 94526
Our deepest thanks for your consideration.

___________________

Motion Rationale for Presbyteries

MOTION: That the Presbytery of __________________________ file a joinder in support of the complaint of Eric Parnell et al v Presbytery of San Francisco, to the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission.

REQUEST AND EXPLANATION FROM COMPLAINANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL:
A 23-year story leads up to the November 10 action of San Francisco Presbytery to declare Lisa Larges ready for ordination, summarized under the document “Time Table of Case Events” on the website www.PCUSAStandards.org. The most recent history involved the consideration of Ms. Larges’ “departure” from G-6.0106b (the ‘fidelity and chastity’ requirement of church officers) on January 15, 2008 (two years ago). At that time the presbytery, in anticipation of an examination for ordination, created a two-step process to consider the candidate’s departure at one meeting of presbytery and then proceed to the full examination at the next meeting. At the first meeting, the presbytery voted that the departure did not render the candidate ineligible for
ordination. A remedial case was filed, as this was perceived by the complainants to be a violation of the PCUSA Book of Order. The case was heard by the Synod of the Pacific PJC in March of 2009, and an appeal by the GA-PJC in late October 2009. In their decisions, both commissions ruled on the procedural issue, to say that the only time the departure could be considered was within the context of a full “examination for ordination” (G-14.0482). In other words, the presbytery had acted prematurely and had to consider Ms. Larges’ departure again
and only when she appeared for her “final trials of ordination.”

A week after the GA-PJC’s decision was delivered, Ms. Larges appeared before the San Francisco Presbytery with the Committee on Ministry’s recommendation that her ministry with That All May Freely Serve be validated and that her ordination be approved. After lengthy debate on both issues—during which an esteemed minister member actually said, “I don’t care what the Constitution says . . .”—by a vote of 156 to 138, San Francisco Presbytery approved the ordination of this self-avowed and unrepentant lesbian. The complainants believe that the vote of San Francisco Presbytery to approve Ms. Larges for ordination violates the provision of G-6.0106b, which says that persons who do not satisfy the
“fidelity and chastity” requirement “shall not be ordained or installed to office.” A slim majority of San Francisco members defiantly disregarded this important provision and have violated their own ordination vows by refusing to be governed by the church’s polity. This is indeed a sad state of affairs, the outcome of which must be challenged.

Filing a remedial case is the constitutionally given means by which we can express our conscience, honor our own vows and get a correction from higher governing bodies. We have the opportunity to go back to our judicial commission(s) and hope for a clear answer to the question, “Can a presbytery be permitted to ignore or waive a church-wide mandatory ordination standard?” As a first step in this long process, we immediately collected 103 signatures to secure a Stay of Enforcement, which means that Lisa Larges will not be ordained any time soon. We have seven individuals and one session as named complainants, but we feel it advantageous to identify at least one, if not a few, presbyteries to add their names as well. This is where you come in.

There are risks to this course of action, of course. There is no guarantee that the GA-PJC won’t find some other flaw in our process or some other way to dodge the real question. Financing the effort also carries risks, but we agree Round 2 will not cost nearly as much, because most of the
work has been done in Round 1. Some question whether a victory in Round 2 would actually solve anything. To be honest, we do not know the answer to this question, but anticipate that life is going to be difficult for biblically faithful and constitutional Presbyterians in the foreseeable future regardless of our choice now. At this point, the consensus of evangelical leaders in San Francisco Presbytery is that if we are going to have a hard life, we’d rather suffer for doing the right thing than for rolling over and giving up. “For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God’s will, than to suffer for doing evil” (1 Peter 3:17). Nobody said this
would be quick or easy.

So here is how we expect the matter to proceed:
The Stay of Enforcement is filed (and granted), generously meeting our 45-day deadline for doing so. The “Complaint” specifying the presbytery’s error is due at the same time. Then we wait for the presbytery’s counsel to reply to the Complaint and for the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission to accept the case for trial. The Synod of the Pacific PJC meets
only twice a year; in 2010 those dates are March 19 and September 24. The Stated Clerk is not hopeful that we can get this case on the March 19 docket, so a trial is probably several months in the future. In the meantime, we are hoping to secure your support as a presbytery, in time to add your name to the complainants’ list by February 8, 2010.

In order to use much less money very carefully, the evangelical leadership in San Francisco Presbytery has agreed to have me represent the Complainants, write the briefs, and prepare for
trial, using our attorney Bruce McIntosh as consultant and calling on “legal eagle” friends to help edit, draft letters, or do whatever smaller tasks are required. Now that we have been through one remedial case—and in the process acquired quite an education, as well as a passion—we can foresee Round 2 will be much easier to pull together. Our legal advisors around the country affirm this decision and have offered their support when needed. Perhaps you have legal talent in your presbytery that wouldn’t mind reviewing a document or two; but we have the legal effort covered in the main, so you are not really expected to do anything.

On one hand, I am so sorry that things have turned out this way and that we must persevere through another period of uncertainty. But on the other hand, whether victory is assured or not, we have the opportunity to stand for God, for God’s revealed will in his Scripture, and for the great heritage to which we all said “yes” at our ordination. And after everything has been done, to stand (Ephesians 6:13).

Thank you for your prayerful consideration,
(The Rev.) Mary Holder Naegeli
Minister Member, San Francisco Presbytery
Counsel for the Complainants

[webmaster]