Chapter 39: Modes in Which the Proceedings of Lower Courts Come Under the Supervision of Higher Courts

39-3. While affirming that the Scripture is “the supreme judge by which all
controversies of religion are to be determined” (WCF 1.10), and that the
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America is “subordinate to the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God” (BCO
Preface, III), and while affirming also that this Constitution is fallible (WCF
31.3), the Presbyterian Church in America affirms that this subordinate and
fallible Constitution has been “adopted by the church” (BCO Preface, III) “as
standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and
practice” (BCO 29-1) and as setting forth a form of government and discipline
“in conformity with the general principles of biblical polity” (BCO 21-5.3).
To insure that this Constitution is not amended, violated or disregarded in
judicial process, any review of the judicial proceedings of a lower court by a
higher court shall be guided by the following principles:
1. A higher court, reviewing a lower court, should limit itself to the
issues raised by the parties to the case in the original (lower) court.
Further, the higher court should resolve such issues by applying the
Constitution of the church, as previously established through the
constitutional process.

2. A higher court should ordinarily exhibit great deference to a lower
court regarding those factual matters which the lower court is more
competent to determine, because of its proximity to the events in
question, and because of its personal knowledge and observations of
the parties and witnesses involved. Therefore, a higher court should
not reverse a factual finding of a lower court, unless there is clear
error on the part of the lower court.
3. A higher court should ordinarily exhibit great deference to a lower
court regarding those matters of discretion and judgment which can
only be addressed by a court with familiar acquaintance of the events
and parties. Such matters of discretion and judgment would include,
but not be limited to: the moral character of candidates for sacred
office, the appropriate censure to impose after a disciplinary trial, or
judgment about the comparative credibility of conflicting witnesses.
Therefore, a higher court should not reverse such a judgment by a
lower court, unless there is clear error on the part of the lower court.
4. The higher court does have the power and obligation of judicial
review, which cannot be satisfied by always deferring to the findings
of a lower court. Therefore, a higher court should not consider itself
obliged to exhibit the same deference to a lower court when the issues
being reviewed involve the interpretation of the Constitution of the
Church. Regarding such issues, the higher court has the duty and
authority to interpret and apply the Constitution of the Church
according to its best abilities and understanding, regardless of the
opinion of the lower court.