Thus, the only precedent case the PCA has about invoking BCO 34-1 is SJC 1999-01 that came before the GA in 2000. GA’s decision overturning the SJC’s original decision and mandating that it take up the case, should provide precedent guidance to the SJC at this time as it considers whether to assume original jurisdiction, conduct an investigation and determine whether there is a strong presumption of guilt.

Two Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Presbyteries, Central Georgia and Savannah River, recently approved overtures requesting the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction over TE Greg Johnson under BCO 34-1, to consider the possibility of conducting judicial process. Since the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) is the authorized judicial commission for the PCA General Assembly, the overtures were sent to the SJC.

BCO 34 deals with “Special Rules Pertaining to Process Against a Minister;” 34-1 states the following:

Process against a minister shall be entered before the Presbytery of which he is a member.  However, if the Presbytery refuses to act in doctrinal cases or cases of public scandal and two other Presbyteries request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction (to first receive and initially hear and determine), the General Assembly shall do so.

The SJC divided the requests raised in the overtures and ruled, first, that the SJC could not assume original jurisdiction over the Session of Memorial PCA in St. Louis since BCO 34-1 does not provide for this action; it applies only to “process against a minister.”

Second, the SJC ruled that the request to assume original jurisdiction over TE Greg Johnson was in order, but the SJC has not yet ruled on whether some of the provisions of 34-1 have been met: specifically (1) whether Missouri Presbytery has “refused to act;” and (2) whether what has been requested is a “doctrinal case or a case of public scandal.” The SJC formed a committee to consider the matter to report back to the full SJC with recommendations on whether the specifics in BCO 34-1 have been met.

There has been some debate in the PCA about the meaning of the phrase in BCO 34-1, “refuses to act.” In our research about the meaning and use of this phrase, there is one precedent interpretation that directed its use, and that was in a case before the General Assembly arising out of Tennessee Valley Presbytery (TVP) in 1999-2000. In that case, TE John Wood was accused of allowing a woman to “preach” at two Sunday evening church services. There were allegations raised that this practice was contrary to the PCA’s view of who can preach. Apparently, TVP conducted an investigation of the matter and concluded that the woman, a church staff member, did speak but only to give a report of her work in the church over the two Sundays in question.

However, the incident led a number of Presbyteries to overture the General Assembly to request the GA to assume original jurisdiction under BCO 34-1.  The SJC took it up first, and the case became SJC 1999-01. The SJC ruled that TVP had not “refused to act’ and the matter was not properly before the SJC (there were a couple of other issues involved that may have affected this decision, not just the issue of “refuses to act”).

Here is a summary of SJC 1999-01 in which the SJC ruled that BCO 34-1 didn’t apply because TVP did act (hence, it had not refused to act). The SJC provided the following reasoning:

IV. Reasoning and Opinion

The matter is not administratively in order and not properly before the General Assembly:

1. The Session has jurisdiction over worship in the local church. The wording of the resolutions adopted by the three Presbyteries requested the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction over a teaching elder against whom allegations of public scandal were raised The Presbyteries allege that the teaching elder “violated the Biblical teaching on worship in having a woman filling the pulpit, preach, give instruction and exhort the congregation from the Word of God.” However, the conduct of worship services in the local church is under the jurisdiction of the Session and under its responsibility (BCO 12-5 [e]). The teaching elder cannot be held liable for actions that are properly the responsibility of the Session. If the alleged incidents of women preaching from the pulpit did occur, the matter must be addressed to the Session.

2. The Presbytery did not refuse to act. BCO 34-1 deals with process against a minister. When a minister is accused of doctrinal error or having engaged in matters perceived to lead to public scandal, then his presbytery should investigate the allegations and take appropriate action resulting from the investigation (BCO 31-2). However, if his presbytery refuses to act on the allegations, then at least two presbyteries may request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction over the man However, in TVP’s judgment, the issue before them was not the actions of a teaching elder, but the actions of a Session, hence BCO 34-1 was not applicable. As stated above, the conduct of worship is under the jurisdiction of the Session and TVP dealt with the matter in light of the BCO 12-5 [e]. But in any case, it is clear that TVP did act on the allegations when, at its fall stated meeting on October 12, 1999, TVP adopted two resolutions on this matter. Since there was no refusal to act the resolutions of the three Presbyteries are administratively out of order and not properly before the General Assembly. (M28GA (2000), p. 238 http://pcahistory.org/pca/ga/28th_pcaga_2000.pdf)

The 28th GA (2000) responding to a number of overtures on the SJC decision, overturned the SJC’s decision and mandated the SJC to accept the case, assume original jurisdiction, and conduct an investigation. The investigation was conducted in latter 2000, and the SJC approved the recommendation of the investigation Panel that there was no strong presumption of guilt (BCO 31-2).

The Minutes of the 28^th General Assembly states the following from the Overtures Committee:

That, pursuant to the Assembly’s referral of the Overtures from Western Carolina, Calvary, Ascension and James River Presbyteries, the Committee recommends the following:

A That the Overtures from Western Carolina, Calvary, and Ascension Presbyteries be answered in the affirmative, the Assembly taking original jurisdiction of Dr. John Wood with respect to the allegations set forth in the Overtures, that the matter be referred to the SJC to consider after the manner of BCO 31-2, and other applicable provisions of the rules of discipline pertaining to the process against a minister, and that representatives of the petitioning presbyteries be permitted to represent their allegations before the SJC.

B That the Overture #23 from James River Presbytery be answered in reference to item A above.

C That the SJC be directed to draft procedures for the handling of future matters under BCO 34-1 to be proposed to the 29th GA. [Note: This procedure is now OMSJC 16.] (M28GA (2000), p. 310, http://pcahistory.org/pca/ga/28th_pcaga_2000.pdf)

At the 29^th General Assembly (2001) the SJC reported its findings in the Wood case as mandated by the 28^th General Assembly:

1999-1 The John Wood Matter (Investigative Report and Findings)

The Officers of the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America, following the mandate from the 28th General Assembly to take original jurisdiction of “the John Wood Matter” under BCO 34-1 and directing SJC to investigate the matter under 31-2, appointed a committee or panel composed of three members of SJC (RE Mark Belz, RE John Lane, and TE Lawrence Lunceford) to investigate the matter and report back to SJC.

In fulfillment of its mandate, the committee collected and reviewed documents and exhibits, and upon notice to all parties directly concerned in the matter, heard testimony on September 16, 2000 at Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church in Knoxville, TN (CSPC). The committee then formulated a written report to the full Standing Judicial Commission, for consideration at its October, 2000 meeting in Atlanta. The sole purpose of the investigation and review is to determine whether or not sufficient cause exists to initiate judicial process against TE John Wood….

[Conclusion] The investigation did not produce evidence that raised a strong presumption of guilt that TE Wood is agitating for or promoting a view that women be ordained nor that he is promoting women preaching the authoritative word of God in worship services. Neither TE Wood nor CSPC has trumpeted this event; others within the PCA have spread the report both in private communications and in the secular press. The SJC, therefore, concludes that judicial process should not be instituted. However, in making this determination, the SJC is not endorsing the view of TE Wood that “women may do basically whatever unordained men can do in the church,” and PCA Ministers and elders are cautioned, for the peace and unity of the church to take great care in the teaching and implementing of views that might give the appearance of promoting a position that women may be ordained or that women may preach the authoritative word of God in a worship service. (M29GA (2001), p. 70-73 (http://pcahistory.org/pca/ga/29th_pcaga_2001.pdf)

Thus, the only precedent case the PCA has about invoking BCO 34-1 is SJC 1999-01 that came before the GA in 2000. GA’s decision overturning the SJC’s original decision and mandating that it take up the case, should provide precedent guidance to the SJC at this time as it considers whether to assume original jurisdiction, conduct an investigation and determine whether there is a strong presumption of guilt.

Dr. Dominic Aquila is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America, a former member of the Standing Judicial Commission, is President of New Geneva Seminary in Colorado Springs, Colo., and is Editor of The Aquila Report.