Category Archives: Property

Mid Councils Commission Report To The 220th GA Of The PC(USA)

Having gotten through a bunch of posts related to a number of other GA’s let me turn to the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I am hoping to discuss a few of the major topics coming to the GA and I hope that my blogging time before the big show starts is sufficient to get through what I want to.

While many in the church are hanging on the results of the overtures concerning marriage, and a number outside the church are actively lobbying on both sides of the Israel/Palestine divestment debate, it is my view that the most important business coming to the Assembly in terms of the future of the PC(USA) is the Mid Councils Commission Report.

This Commission, originally known as the Middle Governing Bodies Commission but renamed when the church got the new name for governing bodies (councils), has been working hard since the last GA to produce a report and make recommendations. The report is a good piece of work and does a great job of dissecting the denomination and its problems. You can read the basic report (111 pages) or a version with all the data they collected ( 326 pages – you have been warned but presbygeeks can go have a field day ). In fact, in one of the presentations on the MCC Report I attended the member of the commission freely admitted that there is way more info in that data than the commission had time to massage out of it.

But the Commission’s output does not stop there. They also have posted a number of Resources, their Minutes and Meeting Documents, an active blog with embedded YouTube videos they have produced, a Twitter account (@mgbcomm), and a Facebook page. There has also been a lot of discussion of the Commission’s work on the individual blogs of Tod Bolsinger, the chair, and commission member John Vest. You can not say that this Commission was trying to be stealth about their work.

Let me make some comments first on the report in general so if you just want to see my comments on the recommendations you can jump down a bit.

The report begins with the usual front pieces including the recommendations and an executive summary. The main body of the report begins right up front with their vision:

We envision a larger geographic canvas, a secure frame of constitutional accountability, and creative, collaborative leaders experimenting in creating missional communities for sending disciples into to the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It then goes on to unpack that vision a bit before going on to assess the state of the PC(USA) specifically and the context of the changing world around us. I know that the Commission is promoting a later piece of their report as the “if you are only going to read one thing read this…” but for me I think the preceding section on Presbyterians in a Post-Christendom World is a great reality check for anyone who tries to simplify the current context the denomination finds itself in.

So based on that what’s the nature of the recommendations the Commission is proposing? They say:

So instead of affirming structures that only protect us from the dysfunction of a few, we offer a proposal for the “maturing, motivated, and the missional”; that is, those who are willing to work together to draw upon the historic values of our past and faithfully reinterpret them to engage a far different world than any of our forbearers imagined.

Another way that they have been describing it is a denomination that is “Flat. Flexible. Faithful.” They then offer these suggestions that come out of their conversations:

Reengage the Pew in Presbyterian Shared Life, Mission, and Governance
Growing in Cultural Proficiency to Engage an Increasingly Multi‐Cultural Context
Develop Capacity to Lead Congregational Transformation
Rebuild Trust

The report then gets into details of their work — if you are interested in it go read it. In summary, they talked with anyone and everyone from the denomination they could get into a room with them. In addition they conducted surveys of the wider church through Research Services. They are a little bit vague on consultations with other denominations and I would be interested in seeing more here since I think there is a lot to learn from some of our Presbyterian brothers and sisters around the country and the globe.

I must admit that in my early thinking about this Commission I was anticipating some more concrete recommendations about what the PC(USA) should look like going forward. We will see if it is for better or for worse, but the Commission report does lays out a lot of models as examples of what is being done now without recommending or favoring any specifically, except to the extent that they got included. They basically invite the church have at it. So in order to create the space for that to happen they have eight recommendations that fall into three categories.

Synods
This may be the recommendation that has gotten the most press and many see as “getting rid of synods.” Yes, the very first recommendation in the report is to strike Book of Order section G-3.04, but read the recommendations carefully and you realize that a lot of what we now know as synods continue in some form under their proposal. The Commission describes it as Repurposing synods.

Synods as a ~~judicatory~~ ~~court~~ ~~governing body~~ council would disappear but similar work would go on in different forms. The Commission proposes that most of the ecclesiastical work would be carried out in five Regional Administrative Commissions at the General Assembly level (Recommendation 3). Similarly, the judicial structure would be revamped to continue to provide for an intermediary judicial level (Recommendation 4). And each of the current synods would bring to the next GA a plan for what is going to happen to its assets, projects and programs (Recommendation 2). We will have to wait and see what diversity of proposals there are to this repurposing.

Since this set of recommendations seems to continue synod activity in a modular form it is interesting to speculate about alternate options for synods. As I will discuss in a moment the report recommends providing a new flexibility at the presbytery level and it might be worth considering the possibility of extending similar flexibility to synods rather than the compartmentalization.

I should also note the significant transitional infrastructure that comes with the transformation of the synods. There will be a committee to set up the Regional Administrative Commissions and to clean up the polity wording for the Constitution (Recommendation 3). Another committee would work on setting up the new PJC structure. Finally, there would be a commission that would be empowered to act on presbytery and synod rearrangements in the interim until the Regional Commissions are empowered to do so. This final Commission is important because it will allow the denomination to act more rapidly on presbytery restructuring rather than waiting for the next regular General Assembly.

Presbyteries
The Commission is recommending something that has been proposed before ( 217th, 218th, 219th ) but overwhelmingly rejected, the idea of flexible presbyteries. The Commission does put two provisions on the recommendations that makes it different from previous proposals. First the flexible presbyteries are only for missional purposes and not for more general purposes of affinity (but I would speculate there is a thin line between the two). Second, there is a sunset clause and these flexible presbyteries are provisional and only for trial purposes and at the end of the trial at midnight on December 31, 2021 these golden carriages turn back into pumpkins and everyone goes back to where they started. And one of the things the Commission emphasizes is that at the presbytery level nothing has to change.

The details are pretty straight forward: It takes ten churches and ten ministers to form a presbytery. (But the report says churches on average only have 56% installed pastors so maybe it would really take 18 churches to come up with 10 pastors.) Under Recommendation 6 if you have the requisite number you can form a non-geographic presbytery for missional purposes. The churches remain connected to their geographic presbyteries of origin, can split their per capita between them, have voice in meetings of the presbytery of origin, and have to have the approval of the presbytery of origin for matters regarding property or for division and dismissal. For churches moving between geographic presbyteries it would work the same way.

Associated with this is Recommendation 5 which forms the previously mentioned commission to act on behalf of the Assembly in matters regarding presbytery and synod reorganizations.

Racial Ethnic Ministries
One of the hot topics this Commission faced was racial ethnic ministries in the PC(USA). This has to be dealt with if synods are to be repurposed because, as the report says (page 73):

It is widely acknowledged, and factually irrefutable, that Synods have been the traditional Safe Haven for matters regarding racial ethnic Ministry. This truth emerges from two (2) primary factors, Critical Mass and Sociological Necessity.

The Commission emphasized this relationship and formed a Racial Ethnic Strategies Task Force as part of their Commission to specifically address this and their report is included in the body of the main report.

In response to this need the Commission recommends (Recommendation 8) that a National Racial Ethnic Ministries Task Force be formed. The recommendation begins:

In light of what we have heard in our conversation with the church identifying a critical condition concerning lack of confidence in the substance and direction of racial ethnic ministry, we recommend

It goes on to specify the groups the members of the task force should be drawn from and to state that its charge is to “review, assess and explore the call to, responsibility in, and vision for racial ethnic ministry within the PC(USA).”

Trust
One final area the Commission noted was the break-down of trust within the denomination. They write (page 41):

Of all the “non‐structural issues” that we have identified, perhaps the single greatest gift that this Commission can raise up for the church is to say as loudly and as clearly as we possibly can that there is a crisis of trust in our denomination and that it, more than anything else, is the single greatest threat to the vitality and future existence of the church.

Congregational leaders don’t trust presbyteries. Presbyteries don’t trust synods. Synod leaders see themselves as the “breakwater” protecting the church from the General Assembly (which might be the least trusted system of all.) As the report from our Commission’s Racial Ethnic Strategy Task force states, “Also prominent in the Commission’s polling of the Church were the expressions of deep and abiding mistrust – fueled by a general absence of meaningful connection to the national, regional and even local judicatories.”

There is no specific recommendation to rebuild trust but they explain it this way (page 43):

Perhaps the greatest effect of our proposals is that it will by necessity bring the church closer. Now, for congregations to have more flexibility they will necessarily practice discernment within both presbytery and General Assembly processes. While the flexibility to experiment comes with built‐in mechanisms to insure relational and constitutional fidelity, the true test of our trust will come as we allow room for others to create presbyteries that are different than our preferences and maybe even contradictory to our convictions.

There is a related recommendation, number 7, which asks for a task force to review the General Assembly Mission Council and the Office of the General Assembly, their “nature and function … specifically with respect to their relationship with and support of mid councils as they serve the vitality and mission of congregations in our changing context. Regarding this they write:

Over and again, stories were told about the pervasive distrust of General Assembly, about the amount of resources that go into our six‐part structure, the lack of an effective and clear national strategy toward immigrant populations, and the ways in which the GAMC “competes” with presbyteries and synods for giving dollars. A flatter hierarchy with a focus on the congregation as the center of the mission of the church will not be complete until the church reconsiders the bureaucratic structures of GAMC and eliminates any competition for power or resources between the GAMC and OGA. These conditions foster a bureaucratic mentality at a time when we need to do get back to mission and ministry, doing “whatever it takes” to revitalize local congregations. [emphasis in original]

But Wait, There’s More
Now the GA junkies reading this are well aware that a commission report like this does not happen in a vacuum and there are other opinions floating around out there.

The first set of opinions are those attached to the report on PC-Biz. The Assembly Committee on the Constitution weighs in first in a lengthy discussion. They note that the first four recommendations concerning synods are a work in progress and while it contains the constitutional language to begin the process they express concern that the details are left for later. They write

The
Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) notes that the
recommendations presume a number of constitutional amendments that are
not yet before this assembly (cf. Recommendations 3 and 4). There is
considerable risk in committing to a course of action on the assumption
that the proposed action can be accomplished constitutionally without
having the opportunity to evaluate the merits of the proposed mechanisms
for implementation.

In addition they advise that the four recommendations be taken as a single multi-part motion. While expressing concern about non-geographic presbyteries and suggesting that the end could be accomplished by affiliations that do not require constitutional changes they more suggest tweaks to the language than out-right disapproval.

That is not the case for the Assembly Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns which asks that none of the Commissions recommendations be approved and instead the present an outline for a new Racial Ethnic Ministry Commission. However, in reading through this comment I see no powers or responsibilities being granted this entity which requires it to be a commission to act on behalf of the General Assembly.

The next group to comment is the Assembly Committee on Social Witness Policy. Their comment is brief – they recommend the Commission’s recommendations be disapproved. The opening line of their rational pretty much sums up their view: “Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.” The rational is long and I will summarize it by saying that they see continued value in the PC(USA) structure and tradition and that the main cause of the decline of the mainline is the intolerance young people see in the church.

The Committee on the Office of the General Assembly is much more surgical in it’s recommendation. It too sees the Commission’s recommendations as a work in progress and recommends referring portions that are focused on constitutional language. It wants a task force to refine these recommendations to address the critical and important issues.

The General Assembly Committee on Representation advises the Assembly to approve Recommendation 8 creating the National Racial Ethnic Ministries Task Force. They too note the non-traditional nature of non-geographic presbyteries and express concern for groupings by choice rather than by geography and implications for diversity.

Finally, there is a joint comment by the General Assembly Mission Council and the Office of the General Assembly that expresses much of the same interest and concern as the GACOR recommendation does. It particularly highlights the historic linkage between the synods and racial ethnic ministry in the denomination and expresses their willingness to resource the proposed task force.

The Mid Councils Review Commissioners Committee at GA has more than the Mid Councils Commission report to deal with. There are 19 business items plus the review of the minutes from the 16 synods. Within the business items another six are transfers of churches between presbyteries and sometimes synods. While most of the remaining items would have some interaction with the Commission report – such as 05-01 that would permit synods to reorganize presbyteries without the need for GA approval or 05-14 from the ACC that asks for an Authoritative Interpretation that non-geographic presbyteries are “only for the purposes of meeting the mission needs of racial ethnic or immigrant congregations” – three items directly address the report. Item 05-02 from the Presbytery of St. Andrew proposes the alternative of reorganizing the synods down into six to eight rather than the Commission’s repurposing scheme. Item 05-09 from the Presbytery of San Diego asks both to extend the Commission’s service to handle the presbytery reorganizations or make the new commission proposed in Recommendation 5 a successor commission, as well as proposing a slightly different plan for flexible presbyteries. Finally, in item 05-10 the Presbytery of Baltimore says that all of these changes are too much at one time and they ask the Assembly to delay the non-geographic presbytery recommendations to the 222nd GA (2016).

And in another venue one of the required questions for the candidates for Moderator of the GA to answer in the Moderatorial Candidates Book is about what they find “especially promising” about the Commission report. All four of the candidates speak highly of the Commission report and mention the flexibility and space for creativity and creating new relationships especially the partnering between churches for mission.

Concluding Remarks
I have been watching the process of the Commission, I have read their report and considered the reaction to it both in the formal comments and around the web ( exempli gratia ). Blogger John Shuck will be serving as a commissioner on the Mid Council Review Committee and he has already noted that support or opposition to the Commission recommendations fall along familiar lines. It is a complex report and most would agree it is a work in progress. Maybe the biggest question is not the church’s openness to doing things in a new way but whether it is willing to take a step in a particular direction without all the “i’s” dotted and the “t’s” crossed. And support and opposition is complex as well with multiple parts and the option of supporting it in part and disagreeing in part.

What will happen at GA? It might be approved with few or just minor revisions. Maybe it will be deemed “not ready for prime time” and referred back to the Commission with instructions (and the Commission’s life extended) much as the nFOG was. More likely the different parts will see different fates. I don’t know and I am hesitant to speculate, but where angels fear to tread… If I had to predict based purely on my gut feeling I would expect that the GAMC/OGA Review Task Force and the National Racial Ethnic Task Force (Recommendations 7 and 8) will be adopted overwhelmingly. The provisional non-geographic presbyteries pieces (Recommendations 5 and 6) will be more controversial but will be adopted with some revisions and with some opposition. The synod recommendations (1-4) will be deemed still too much of a work in progress and referred to someone to work out the details and bring it back to the 221st GA.

But as with many things Presbyterian the process will probably be as important, and telling, as the outcome. I see this issue as the primary bellwether at this GA for the future of the denomination and its openness to change. It will be here that the tension between different visions of the future from different parts of the denomination can best be discerned. And that indicator will continue down to the presbyteries if any of the constitutional amendments are sent down to them. How much can we fight the seven last words of the church – “We’ve never done it that way before.” [ Hint: we have done it that way before but that is a topic for another time.] Is Flat, Flexible and Faithful what we need to be about now? As the PC(USA) looks to its future may we be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

And now for something completely different… to conclude, a bit of silliness. While reading through the Recommendations of this report with a task force here and a commission there it started to remind me of something and so I fleshed it out so we could all sing along. I think you’ll catch on to the tune…

On the fifth day of G.A. the MC Comm gave to us
5 Regional Commissions
4 Hundred pages
3 Book of Order amendments
2 Review task forces
And a request for synod plans to repurpose

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending May 12, 2012 — WCC, Leadership, Dismissal and Jobs

Leave a reply

A few of the items that caught my attention this week:

Presbyterian Church of India decide not to join WCC

Christian Today India, 7 May 2012
During the Assembly held 4-6 of May six of the eight synods voted against joining the World Council of Churches.

A Presbyterian Presidency?

Inside Higher Ed, 9 May 2012
The Davidson College Board of Trustees has formed a committee to study whether the college’s president should continue to be a member of a Presbyterian church. Most Presbyterian affiliated colleges no longer require their leadership to be Presbyterian.

Gay-led Los Angeles parish breaks with Presbyterian Church

Reuters, 9 May 2012
West Hollywood Presbyterian church, concerned that the PC(USA) was not embracing homosexual individuals and couples fast enough, requested and was granted gracious dismissal from the Presbytery of the Pacific to join the UCC.

Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) plans job cuts

Courier-Journal, 13 May 2012 (first version of the story published 11 May 2012)
At its meeting last week the General Assembly Mission Council adopted a budget which will restructure positions for a net loss of 13 employees.

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending March 31, 2012

Leave a reply

[Editor’s note: I have decided to start a weekly rundown of news stories
related to, or that have implications for, the various Presbyterian
branches. My blogging time has been restricted lately and while I would
love to comment at length on a few of these I probably will not get to
them in a timely manner. I do however reserve the right to do so if I
get around to it.]

PC(USA) Santa Barbara Presbytery lays the groundwork for a Union Presbytery with ECO

Santa Barbara Presbytery Letter and web site
In an effort to retain the viability of the presbytery a union presbytery between the PC(USA) and ECO is proposed.

Presbyterian synod approves parish split with property

Chicago Tribune, March 26, 2012
The Synod PJC of the Synod of the Pacific found that San Francisco did have the authority and acted in good faith in dismissing a church with their property. [I have already posted my summary and analysis]

Sanctuary Movement Turns 30

Fox News Latino, March 27, 2012
The 30th anniversary of the Sanctuary Movement was celebrated at the originating church, Southside Presbyterian Church of Tucson, Arizona.

Church moves to combat metal theft after sharp rise in incidents

Church of Scotland News Article, March 27, 2012
With the harder economic times congregations in the Church of Scotland have been suffering metal thefts at the rate of more than one a week. The church is working with risk management companies to put deterrents in place.

PC(USA) Synod PJC Decisions — Per Capita And Property

Leave a reply

For us Presbyterian Polity Wonks this past weekend was a good weekend for interesting PJC decisions. I will say at the onset that both were decided as I expected, but that does not make them any less interesting. And of course the interest and importance is enhanced by the fact that they deal with two of the hot-topics in the PC(USA) today — per capita and property. And the obvious reminder, these are synod PJC decisions so there is no broad application at this stage and as I will discuss I think they both rely on and reinforce current precedent.

If you want an executive summary of these two remedial cases here you go: The SPJC of the Synod of the Trinity found that changes to the new Form of Government were not substantial in the area of per capita and that Pittsburgh Presbytery could not make a new policy to avoid paying per capita it did not collect. In the second case, the SPJC of the Synod of the Pacific found that San Francisco Presbytery did have the authority under the Book of Order and acted in good faith when it dismissed a church with its property.

Now the details…

Last December Pittsburgh Presbytery
adopted as part of its Manual of Presbytery the line “Presbytery shall only remit to the General Assembly the per capita assessment it receives from the particular churches that is designated by those councils.” In their decision in the trial of this remedial case – David C. Green, Complainant, vs. The Presbytery of Pittsburgh, Respondent – the SPJC of the Synod of the Trinity boils down the argument of the Presbytery and the SPJC’s disagreement with that argument nicely into two paragraphs:

Pittsburgh Presbytery argues that the adoption of the New Form of Government by the 219th (2010) General Assembly set aside the applicable previous decisions of General Assembly, Permanent Judicial Commission and Authoritative Interpretations since the General Assembly “chose not to include the strict construction language from the 1999 Authoritative Interpretation (Request 99-1)”.

We disagree with this argument. The substance of the previous relevant language, now found in G-3.0106, was adopted except for the addition of the clause, “but in no case shall the authority of the Session to direct its benevolences be compromised.” We do not believe the addition of this clause has changed the obligation of presbyteries to remit per capita to synods and General Assembly.

So, at this point the opinion is that the language in the Book of Order has not changed to a substantial degree and previous General Assembly Interpretations still stand. This decision is in agreement with the Report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order, released a few days after the SPJC decision, which recommends that Authoritative Interpretation 99-1 be retained. The SPJC decision also discusses GAPJC cases where the same conclusion was reached. They wrap this up by saying “We fully agree with the previous authoritative interpretations.” They then conclude the formal decision itself by noting that not passing on per capita is a “serious breach of trust and love” (Minihan v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley, 216-01) and then applying it to themselves:

If this form of congregational protest were to be passed on to synod and General Assembly by our judicial action, then we would be unconstitutionally encouraging a form of protest that is outside of our understanding of how change can and should be effected within our denomination.

The decision concludes with a Comment that first points out that the constitutional obligation to pay per capita can only be changed by the General Assembly and that for the realities of the current circumstances “The time has come for the General Assembly to provide more guidance on this point.” They then take this a step further and conclude the narrative with this observation:

The loss of per capita funds from financially strapped congregations is another issue altogether, and is addressed, in our opinion inadequately, by the vague standards relating to whether funds are available within presbyteries. Further, we would be remiss in not noting that reality of declining funding is a symptom, not the disease. The underlying causes must be prayerfully addressed at local, presbytery, synod and General Assembly levels, not in the denominational courts or in unconstitutional actions.

The second decision comes in a remedial case filed against San Francisco Presbytery related to its process in dismissing Community Presbyterian Church of Danville, California. In September of 2009 the Presbytery adopted a Gracious Dismissal Policy (version from Summer 2010 with corrections). In November 2010, after a ten month process that included a special informational presbytery meeting, the Presbytery dismissed the church with an agreement for payments to help offset the loss of per capita and mission funding, but no payments required for the congregation to keep the property. Three presbyters filed the remedial complaint charging that the Presbytery had not properly handled the case considering that property was involved. In their unanimous decision – Rev. Wilbert Tom, HR, Rev. David Hawbecker, HR, and Thomas Conrad, Complainants, v. The Presbytery of San Francisco, Respondent – the SPJC of the Synod of the Pacific did not sustain any of the charges, but for a variety of reasons.

As we delve into this we first need to pull that previous version of the Book of Order off the shelf since that was the constitution in effect at the time of the contested process and all citations are to that version. Two sections were front and center in this case and I am sure that you know what they are.

G-8.0201 Al l property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or
trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the
property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more
inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income,
is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

and one of the responsibilities and powers of a presbytery

G-11.0103i . to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members;

I want to add two more notes at this point which were not in the forefront of this case but which were kept in mind. The first is the continuation of the section on property:

G-8.0301 Whenever property of, or held for, a particular church of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ceases to be used by that church as a particular church of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in accordance with this Constitution, such property shall be held, used, applied, transferred, or sold as provided by the presbytery.

The second is a paragraph from the 1993 Nature of the Church Report to General Assembly (pg. 16)

The American tradition was being formed. In the Scottish church, all ultimate authority rested in and came from the assembly. But in the American church, the presbytery was the originating authority, relating particular churches into a larger whole. The 1788 Form of Government declared that “. ..no act of a General Assembly could become a standing rule without first being referred to the presbyteries, and securing the consent of at least a majority of them.” The presbytery is the very heart of the Presbyterian system.

The core thesis of the charges in the remedial case were that at worst the presbytery did not have the authority to dismiss a church with property because property “is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” [i.e. the whole church must be involved]. At best, the case charged that the presbytery did not fulfill its duties as the trustee for the wider church by letting the property go without payment.

In the amended charges there were 13 specifications of error two of which were withdrawn by the Complainants during trial. I won’t go through all of them since most were not sustained either because no relief could be granted or Complainants failed to meet the burden of proof. Three charges form the core of the complaint and the rational of the decision:

Specification of Error No. 1. Complainants contend that the Presbytery’s vote of November 9, 2010, to approve dismissal of the CPCD under terms which included Presbytery’s relinquishment of any and all interests of the PCUSA in the Property without compensation in favor of the EPC is an action which is based on an error in Constitutional interpretation, in that the Presbytery does not own the Property but holds the Property in trust for the use and benefit of the PCUSA (G-8.0201).

Specification of Error No. 2. The Presbytery failed to meet its Constitutional responsibility as trustee in accordance with the Form of Government Part G, Chapter VIII of the Book of Order. As trustee, the Presbytery is obligated to act on behalf of the greater church, to ensure that all property held or used by its particular churches and their respective congregations is held, used and applied in a manner that faithfully advances and serves the ministry and witness of the PCUSA.

Specification of Error No. 4. The Presbytery acted against the Constitution of the PCUSA in that it failed to hold, use, apply, transfer or sell the Property for the benefit of the PCUSA. G-8.0301 provides:
[quoted above]

…Taken together, the provisions of Part G Chapter VIII require the Presbytery to act as a faithful trustee on behalf of the PCUSA in exercising its responsibility and power under the above-referenced Chapter and at Part G Chapter XI, to “divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i). By its vote on November 9, 2010, the Presbytery failed to act as a faithful trustee under the Constitution.

The rational from the SPJC is remarkably brief in not sustaining these charges. They note that all parties agree the Trust Clause means the property is held for the benefit of the wider church. They then reiterate “Under G-11.0103i, Presbytery has the authority to dismiss a church in consultation with its members to another reformed body” and note that the Presbytery had a process in place and that process was faithfully followed. Having followed the process and in consistency with its policy, they note that the Presbytery exercised its discretion granted under G-8.0301. They then conclude:

In good faith, Presbytery determined that acceptance of the PET [Presbytery Engagement Team] recommendations for dismissal would best serve the overall witness and ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ, thus benefitting [sic] the PC(USA).

Other charges not sustained because no admissible evidence was supplied or the burden of proof was not met include a couple financial ones – the small ratio of payments to Presbytery versus the value of the property and the cost of starting new ministries in the Presbytery. There were charges concerning the flawed nature of the Gracious Dismissal Policy and consideration of state law in the process which were not sustained because no relief could be granted. And two charges, one withdrawn and one not meeting the burden of proof/could not grant relief, questioned the qualifications of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church as a Reformed body a church could be dismissed to.

In summary, the Presbytery did have the authority and did act faithfully and in good faith in dismissing the congregation with their property.

And now, the rest of the story…

This decision also contains a comment which notes the limited applicability of this decision not just because it was decided at the Synod level but because the Gracious Dismissal Policy has been suspended. In light of this first application of the policy the Presbytery decided to suspend the policy and review it and you can read the review team’s September 2011 report. Regarding revisions specific to property and the Trust Clause, here is the relevant portion of the report’s rational (edited slightly for length):

Moreover, San Francisco Presbytery’s original dismissal policy has been challenged in our church courts because of Presbytery’s responsibility for enforcing the property trust clause. It is simply not an option for a presbytery to opt out of a required constitutional responsibility for its enforcement.

We believe that the revised dismissal policy needs to address not only the requirements of the property trust clause, but also the importance of every church in fulfilling Presbytery’s mission (as it becomes clearly defined) within our geographic area. When a congregation seeks to withdraw, Presbytery should consider whether it needs to establish a replacement church in that community and the cost of such action. If a congregation walks away from our denomination without consideration for the injury suffered by the whole, by that departure, it will remind us of every congregation’s sinful tendency to be separate and self-sufficient. We all belong to one another and together constitute the risen Body of Christ.

We have therefore proposed that, ordinarily, a departing church will pay to Presbytery a minimum 10% of the value of the church property. This guidance is based, in part, on the Biblical concept of tithing. However, our policy provides flexibility for the teams negotiating on behalf of Presbytery and the congregation to adjust the recommended amount of compensation depending upon the particular circumstances of the congregation in question… In addition to the property issues, Presbytery will also have to discern in each situation its past, present and future mission with respect to the number of members withdrawing and those wishing to remain with PCUSA, the presence of other Presbyterian congregations in that vicinity, and ongoing mission and outreach efforts in the area.

This revised policy, and proposed amendments to it, are still under discussion by the Presbytery and will probably be influenced by this SPJC decision.

So we have one decision that affirms presbytery obligations under our connectionalism, admittedly as interpreted as by the GA and its PJC. And we have another decision that affirms the presbytery as the basic unit to deal with congregational and presbytery property under the Trust Clause.

What next? Good question. Both decisions strike me as sound and consistent with current constitutional interpretations so I would be skeptical of the success of an appeal to the GAPJC. That does not mean that there won’t be one. For the San Francisco case in particular, with the revision of the policy underway and the limited number of specifications of error that were considered to be in order and could be dealt with, I could see an appeal not being accepted because the case would be considered moot. We will see if any of the parties in these cases consider it beneficial to appeal.

Stay tuned…

Top Ten List – Presbyterian News Stories Of 2011

Leave a reply

A bit of a new thing for me but I after thinking about this for a while I thought I would give it a try. No promises that this will become any sort of tradition – but maybe.

It comes with a few caveats – my list may not correspond to yours, in most cases it is more theme than single story, and not too much should be read into the order the stories are in. Also, like the eclectic nature of this blog it is geographically broader than some may anticipate. So without further ado – my top ten Presbyterian news themes and stories for 2011…

Ordination Standards – Some things change: Probably the highest-profile Presbyterian news of the year was the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s adoption of Amendment 10-A removing explicit language prohibiting the ordination of same-sex partnered individuals. Along those same lines the Church of Scotland decided at their 2011 General Assembly to begin heading in a similar direction. Within the PC(USA) there is still one related judicial case to be settled but the conclusion of a second one cleared the way for the ordination of Scott Anderson as a teaching elder.

Ordination Standards – Some things remain the same: Both the Mizoram (India) Presbyterian Synod and the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico turned down proposals to approve the ordination of women. (Mizoram news story, Mexico news story) And in the American Evangelical Presbyterian Church the General Assembly approved a framework to align churches with presbyteries that are like-minded on the subject.

Presbyterian Mutual Society gets their bail-out: A bail-out package for the savings and loan mutual society was finally put together by the governments and the church for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland affiliated organization. Savers started getting their deposits back over the summer.

Presbyterian Church in Canada participates in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: At the National Truth and Reconciliation Event in Halifax in October the PCC was active and participating, including comments from the Moderator that included the 1994 official apology for the Church’s participation in the assimilation policy and the “tragic legacy of the Indian Residential Schools System.”

Property cases: While a few congregations successfully defended their right to property in civil court cases (e.g. Carrollton PC v Presbytery of South Louisiana), in general the denomination was usually successful in property cases. This holds not just for the PC(USA) (e.g. Hope PC, Oregon; Timberridge PC, Georgia) but for the Free Church of Scotland as well in their case to regain Broardford from the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).

Federal Vision cases in the PCA continue: In the Pacific Northwest Presbytery TE Peter Leithart was found not guilty of Federal Vision charges. In another case the Standing Judicial Commission ruled that Missouri Presbytery had not properly acted upon the allegations against TE Jeffery Meyers and they sent the case back to the presbytery for trial.

Renewal and Reform – PC(USA) moves forward and the Church of Scotland stops short: The PC(USA) took a number of steps this year to modernize, led by the Administrative Commission on Middle Governing Bodies ramping up its work, but also including a new Form of Government Section in the Book of Order and the Special Committee on the Nature of the Church for the 21st Century. Similarly, the Church of Scotland General Assembly heard the report of their Panel on Review and Reform, but the proposal for restructuring presbyteries was rejected with out an alternative leaving a lot of people asking “what now?”

75th Anniversary of the split resulting from the Fundamentalist/Modernist debate: The division led to an earlier Presbyterian Church in America and a couple years later the Bible Presbyterian Church. That earlier PCA developed into the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which recognized and discussed their branch of the division at their General Assembly this year.

Fellowship ~~PC(USA)~~ of Presbyterians: Beginning with an invitation in February this new affiliation hosted one of the largest Presbyterian gatherings this year. While morphing a few times through the year (name change, dropping a tier) it ended with the release of the draft theology and polity documents related to the formation of a New Reformed Body.

Presbyterian Church of Ghana and therapy treatment of homosexuals: While in itself the announcement might not have made the list, it was amplified via Twitter and the response, mostly negative, went viral globally.

I will add an honorable mention which while not as high profile as others on this list, it is always noteworthy when a new Presbyterian branch is organized. In this case, it is the foundational Synod Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Timor Leste. (H/T MGPC Pastor)

So with that I will wrap up this calendar year of blogging and wish all of my gentle readers the very best for the New Year. (And yes, I do realize that some of you are already there…) May you celebrate the rolling of the calendar with the proper Presbyterian proportions of ardor and order, and of course doing it decently and in order. Happy New Year!

UPDATE: For a list of the Top 10 for one branch, the PC(USA), check out the Presbyterian Outlook article.

The Fellowship Gathering — Through The Tweets Dimly

9 Replies

Last week was an interesting week for me, what with the Virginia earthquake on Tuesday and the two day Fellowship of Presbyterians Gathering in Minneapolis on Thursday and Friday.

I did not make it to The Gathering so I have been trying to follow it from my vantage point over here on the Left Coast. News and blog articles about the event are starting to appear, but it was fascinating to track the Twitter comments and interactions during the meeting. However, what I found was that while the tweets were interesting and helpful they were not enough to help me connect all the dots to understand what the Fellowship is and where it is going. (Guess you had to be there… ) What follows is not so much reporting on the Gathering but sharing my impressions from and about the social media content related to it. As Scott Keeble (@skeeble99) put it:

Gotta love overreactions to 140 char. summaries of a conference you aren’t at.

If you want to play along at home you need to check out the tweets with the hashtag #mn2011. As the meeting was getting underway I did comment that I did not see a lot of use of the #pcusa hashtag and by implication there was a distancing from the institution. Several friends of different theological stripes informed me that it is indeed common practice to only use the conference hashtag and that nothing sinister should be seen in the use of hashtags. I stand corrected and apologize for casting aspersions where nothing should have been read into it.

Now, if you want a good look at the best play-by-play of the event you need to check out the constant stream of tweets from Carolyn Poteet (@cvpotweet) who was the unofficial live-tweeter. Her stats say she is only at 1034 tweets ever — I would have sworn that she had 10,000 in one day last week! Of course, she hit her rate limit a couple of times and to get the complete picture you need to also check the tweets from @TomJHouston which she co-opted to keep the info coming while her account was in time-out. Carolyn, thanks for all your efforts! Your tweets helped tremendously to follow along. (Generally tweets I quote but are not identified as from another source came from Carolyn and I trust that my quoting her in what follows does not stray from Fair Use.)

Also be aware that there were times when the participants split up into breakout sessions so if you see tweets sent at about the same time but on very different topics that is probably what is happening.

Moving on from the reporting to the “conversation” the first thing that impressed me was the theological breadth represented by those tweeting from The Gathering. In particular there are several people I know that I don’t think were at the meeting to sign up for the New Reformed Body but were checking out the Gathering for other reasons. I trust that they will provide their thought in the blogosphere in the near future. Based on the Twitter activity I make a back-of-the-envelope calculation that about 5-10% (100-200 people) of those present probably held viewpoints contrary to the view of orthodoxy the Fellowship seems to be promoting.

In addition, I was pleased to see at least three of the “big four” from the General Assembly at the meeting. The GA Moderator and Vice-Moderator were there — Moderator Cynthia Bolbach made some well-received comments towards the end of the meeting, judging by the tweets, and Vice-Moderator Landon Whitsitt was his usual self providing a nice stream of insightful comments throughout the meeting. (More on this later) If I understood the tweets correctly, GA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons was also in attendance and spoke briefly — as Seth Normington (@revnormsy) put it “Brief, rather opaque comments from ga stated clerk, gradye parsons. Nice of him to attend. Blessings, good sir.” There was no mention of GAMC Executive Director Linda Valentine being present ~~and likewise~~ but I saw no identification that anyone else from the GAMC was in attendance. [Update: Thanks to Jody Harrington’s comment below where she commented that Linda Valentine was at the conference. The text above has been adjusted appropriately.]

That leads me into a few observations about the meeting gleaned pretty much exclusively from the tweets:

Besides the breakout sessions there were also discussion groups. It looks like the higher governing body professionals and officers were grouped together in their own groups. I did not see an explanation of this and am curious why.
Carmen Fowler LaBerge (@csfowler2003) informs us “#mn2011 registration info: 950 clergy; 575 elders; 53 church administrators; 20 PCUSA staff; 68 presbytery execs. 300 didn’t indicate.” (That would be 1966 total)
Carolyn also tweeted the answer to one of the nagging questions I had: “Primary diff from New Wineskins – tone.” Another time a speaker is quoted as saying “I felt like New Wineskins got hijacked by angry people.”
Leslie Scanlon (@lscanlon) of the Outlook provides us with some of the descriptions of where the conservatives feel they or the denomination is – “Some metaphors used at #MN2011. Deathly ill. Stuck in a box canyon. Car sunk in swimming pool. #pcusa”
Because it is Twitter with a 140 character limit the acronyms were flying. Two that I had to recalibrate my brain for were NRB – which to this group means New Reformed Body but I normally think of as National Religious Broadcasters – and the FOP (or FoP) – which of course here means Fellowship of Presbyterians but in my day job is a professional organization.
There were questions from afar about the diversity in the Gathering but I did not see the questions answered. However, at one point Carolyn tweets this telling comment “Potty parity at #mn2011! First time in my life I’ve ever seen a line at the men’s room but sailed through the ladies’!”

Going back to that bullet point about the tone of this group, I was struck by how positive the official portion of the meeting was. That did not completely extend to the Twitterverse, but I’ll talk about that below. Based on the 140 character reports the leadership of the FOP is in communication with, and maybe even working with, the OGA leadership. It was also made clear that “we are not calling anybody apostate,” and “will not seek to demonize the #PCUSA in any manner.” And one final quote on this – “One of the ways this won’t be a spin off to a new denom (quickly), is b/c we don’t want to lose relationships w/people we love.”

Two big topics at this meeting that are inexorably linked are the New Reformed Body and theological beliefs, usually referred to as the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith.

Coming into the meeting the FOP had made it clear that the NRB (yes, I can throw acronyms around too ) was going to happen but that there were a lot of details to be worked out. The impression I got from the Twitter reporting and discussion is that enough details have to be worked out and now this is a train that has left the station and is headed for the announced constitutional convention January 12-14, 2012, in Orlando. But the FOP clearly hopes for the NRB to continue in some form of partnership with the PC(USA). One comment was “the degree to which the NRB can relate back to the PCUSA, and we hope it can, baptisms, ordinations, permeable boundary.” Another said “hopefully we can share some HQ functions – missions, theology and worship…” One of the themes I found most helpful was the description of what they are about in this sequence of tweets from Carolyn: “like-minded church to unite around a common purpose. from Phil 2:1-2,” “we’ve created such a broad tent that there’s no center pole. we need to establish essentials again,” and “need to make clear abt what’s at the center rather than police the
boundaries, so people can determine if it’s a good fit for them.”

Related to this is the question of standards. At the Gathering the NRB was described as an “empty warehouse” waiting to be filled. That is to be done this Fall when draft documents are posted on the web site, regional gatherings are held, and they are finalized at the constitutional convention in January. There is a clear intent to define or state the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith. But this led to a lot of Twitter conversation about the standards. There were comments about the return of subscription. While not necessarily advocating subscription, @BenjaminPGlaser, who was at the meeting, asked in a tweet “I wonder how many of the ministers/ruling elders at #mn2011 could affirm the WCF w/out major qualification…” (WCF is of course the Westminster Confession of Faith, a document that Presbyterians historically have included in the standards that needed to be subscribed to.) There were also references to Machen, particularly his final sermon recently republished in Theology Matters. To that TwoFriars commented “Machen’s fundamentals are NOT Reformed essentials, FYI.” Along a similar line Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) commented “I’m struggling to reconcile the fact that the “essentials of faith” being thrown out at #mn2011 are classicly Evangelical, not Reformed.” Craig Goodwin (@craiggoodwin) had a number of thoughtful comments about standards and in response to Landon asked ” …are Evangelical, not Reformed. Can’t be both?” It will be interesting to see what this discussion produces throughout the Fall leading up to the January meeting.

Going forward I suspect the real hard questions will not revolve around the theology, although they probably should, but around the “Three P’s”, yes pensions, property and power. To put it bluntly – can you take it with you when you leave? From the Q&A portion of a presentation on the NRB Carolyn tweeted “lots of Qs about per capita, pensions, etc. A – we’re not giving answers
at this point, don’t want to get tangled in the details.” This turned out to be a bit deeper than it seems — they put off some of the discussion of details to a breakout on Friday but they are also putting off details until the relationship of the NRB with the PC(USA) is more clearly defined.

I want to look at this topic of the relationship between the NRB and the PC(USA) in more detail another time after the presentation videos are posted and I have had a chance to digest them. Let me just say here that three possible models were proposed: 1) This might be accomplished with union presbyteries – a polity solution that already exists. [ed. note – I should have seen that before now!] 2) Create the category of affiliate churches or affiliate presbyteries like the current affiliate members. Requires new polity language. 3) Leave completely. Regarding this, Carolyn quotes Jim Singleton: “Singleton – yes, this is gonna be messy!!”

Now, a couple of weeks ago in my pre-Gathering piece I suggested that this event was a Rorschach Test for those who had issues with the PC(USA). Well, I see now that I was right in concept but wrong in scope. This event was a Rorschach Test for the whole PC(USA) and maybe even for American Presbyterianism more broadly. But after the broad reaction that the very first Fellowship letter last February engendered I should have expected that.

Departing from Twitter for a moment it is important to note that groups with opposite views have posted very specific pieces on their web sites interpreting or making suggestions related to the Gathering. More Light Presbyterians issued a call to prayer for the meeting and a related article. Individually, Janet Edwards offered a suggestion to the FOP ahead of the Gathering, as did Shawn Coons, and Adam Walker Cleaveland wanted to make sure the elephant in the room got named. Clearly this meeting had a lot of people’s attention across the denomination.

So back to Twitter and the meeting…

First, in the interest of full disclosure I would comment that I (@ga_junkie) did not tweet much but did make the one comment I discussed above that could have been considered snarky, and also a second that could be taken that way as well. Early on Andrew Johnson (@AndrewJohnsonYM) tweeted “New reformed body… no brand but Christ” which I retweeted adding “Starting to sound like the Springfield Presbytery”. (If you need the reference, Springfield Presbytery was part of the Stone-Campbell Movement that left the Presbyterians two centuries ago proclaiming “No creed but Christ” and led to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). )

The vast majority of Twitter comments I saw were constructive and contributed to the social media discussion. Yes, a lot may have had a snarky edge to them, but I found few offensive and there was a general improvement in tone when the organizers made it clear that this new group was not about demonizing the PC(USA).

Yet most of the comments, my own included, seemed to clearly reflect the lens through which the writer was viewing the Gathering. Exempli gratia:

DavidIvie1 David Ivie
#mn2011 why would a group convene to protest gay ordination and then on day one celebrate women’s ordination? no sense of irony?

David_Berge
David Berge
#mn2011 lots of people talk about “post-denominationalism” 4 better or worse #fellowshippres is actually doing something about it

rwilliamsonjr Robert Williamson Jr
If you want to leave, I will
bid you peace. If you want to stay, I will embrace you. But I can’t
relate to the leave-but-stay option

Stushie57
John Stuart
The future of the Church is in Christ’s good hands, not conferees nor ordinands.

joyousjava Lara B Pickrel
Sometimes our churches’ panicky attempts to keep people from leaving (for the sake of numbers) feels like idolatry.

craiggoodwin
Craig Goodwin
Pleasantly surprised by tone and focus of #mn2011. Did it take finally losing the vote for Presby evangelicals to get focused on mission?

Reading the events through our own lens or filter is not inherently an issue. It is what shapes our diversity and understanding of the world and the conversation and listening process for others helps us to not only see alternatives but can help us refine, sharpen or adapt our own perspective. Along those lines I have to point out and say how much I appreciated the tweets from Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) who was multi-tasking and reporting on the proceedings through both his open source lens as well as his progressive lens. This tweet captures his dual perspective:

Okay…I’m putting my cards on the table. Except for including GLBT
persons, I want a church that looks like what I’m hearing at #mn2011

Let me conclude by saying that in spite of some sharp comments in the Twitterverse I was generally very impressed by the depth, breadth, level, volume, tone, thoughtfulness and civility of the Twitter conversation around this event. But the operative word here is “around.” While the live tweeting helped me know what was going on I still feel that I am looking through a glass dimly related to where this is going. The quotes that were passed on and the sessions reported on still seemed to reflect the influence of the core group of tall-steeple pastors. There seemed to be lots and lots of discussion of a New Reformed Body but I did not sense how that might have been informed or moderated by Dr. Mouw’s comments regarding why we need each other. And I am still left with the impression that tail number four may be wagging this dog. But this is only what I see from my remote vantage point via the Twitterverse.

So, as this moves on I am looking forward to several things. First, I want to see the videos when they get posted on the Fellowship site so I have the primary sources for much of this information and I can judge for myself. Second, I await written accounts from those who were there – something longer than 140 characters. (The Presbyterian Outlook has already posted several articles by Leslie Scanlon including ones on the lead off presentations, Richard Mouw’s message, the talk by Ken Bailey, and an initial summary. There are similarly one, two, three and four articles from the Presbyterian News Service. In addition, it looks like Two Friars and a Fool are aggregating blog posts on the Gathering but I would single out Jim Miller’s which is getting a lot of Twitter recommendations.) Once I have a chance to view, read, think and digest I anticipate being ready to make some more comments about the content of the meeting.

Looking out a bit further the real test of this model as the open source community that Landon is looking at will be in the process for posting, consulting, editing and approving the new documents for the New Reformed Body. At this point I am pretty much trusting Landon’s impression of the proceedings so far in its promise for development of a Covenant Community in a participatory environment.

Looking even further ahead, there is a good possibility that both the New Reformed Body’s partnership with the PC(USA) as well as developments in the other FOP streams will require actions by the 220th General Assembly and changes to the Book of Order. Leslie Scanlon captured this quote from Mark Brewer:

“This next General Assembly is going to be wild.”

I look forward to seeing how the development process works and what product it results in. I also look forward to seeing how the broader church reacts as this progresses. This has the promise of being new territory — I like an experiment and I hope you do too. Stay tuned…

181st General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church

2 Replies

A couple weeks ago there was a second General Assembly underway with its own business and exciting developments while I was preoccupied with another one. Well, afterwards I got a really nice “what about us” message. So here we go…

The 181st General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was held in Springfield, Missouri, from June 20-24. There was a highlights piece and the preliminary minutes (a large file) containing all the reports coming to the Assembly.

There was no live streaming but an effort was made to introduce the commissioners to Twitter with a Twitter screen running during Assembly business one day and an introduction to Twitter given by @tifmcclung. If you want to go back and see the traffic the hashtag was #cpassembly.

It was noted by more than one person on Twitter that the Assembly ran very smoothly, especially as far as the business was concerned. As @mtndew05 put it “it has been a real smooth GA this year, way to go!!”

There were however several items of note that, while passed in a gracious and unifying spirit, are none-the-less important and newsworthy.

Chief among these is the action by this Assembly, as well as a concurring action earlier in the month by the 137th General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America, to begin the process of uniting. This was the one item that got a brief news update from the official publication The Cumberland Presbyterian where they said

The 181st General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church has
just adopted a resolution supporting pursuit of unification with the
Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America. It is an historic move, and
was approved unanimously by all present.

My thanks to Dr. Daniel J. Earheart-Brown, President of Memphis
Theological Seminary, for a helpful communication highlighting some of the more significant actions of the Assembly:

There were several significant actions taken, including a commitment to
seek unity with the CPCA, approval of a plan for certifying youth
ministers, a resolution on welcoming churches from other Presbyterian
and Reformed denominations, a 10 year plan for evangelism and new church
development, a new covenant relationship with the CP Children’s Home,
and a decision for the GA to meet in Cali, Colombia, South America in
2015.

Let me develop a couple of these further from the Preliminary Minutes:

The CPC maintains their focus on evangelism and new church development through successive ten-year plans. The Assembly adopted the next one and it can be found as Appendix C of the Ministry report beginning on page 71 of the Preliminary Minutes. Here are some of the specific goals listed:

Local Church Goals
Each local church will:

• Hold training events for members on faith-sharing (Coordinated by Evangelism)
• Do evangelism through service outside their congregation, such as NCD and mission projects, in addition to local community evangelism efforts (MMT)
• Participate in a program to develop lay leaders which will help with NCD (PDMT & NCD Staff Person)
• Identify those with the gift of evangelism (Evangelism)
• Develop a prayer network for the evangelism emphasis (Evangelism)
• Establish an accountability group to maintain an emphasis on evangelism (Evangelism)
• Establish evangelism growth of 10% per year based on present active church membership. (Ambitious goals will reinforce evangelism as a priority.)
• Support a denominationally-endorsed missionary. (The modern model of missions requires CP missionaries to raise their own support.) (GMLT)

Presbytery Goals
Each presbytery will:

• Hold local churches accountable for evangelism to the Presbytery Board of Missions. (Evangelism)
• Promote among CP youth a vocational call to NCD, missions, evangelism and pastoral ministry through youth events and other means. (DMT/ PDMT)
• Consider planting churches where there are no CP churches. Presbytery boundaries should not be considered s a limiting factor to church planting. (NCD/ Cross-Cultural Ministries)
• Hold a fund drive for their NCD projects (NCD/BOS)
• Plant 10% of the present number of churches over the 10 year period. NCD Staff will conduct workshops for presbyteries to learn about different methods and styles of NCD. (NCD/ Cross-Cultural Ministries)
• Name one NCD task force that will work with all NCD projects in the presbytery, with task force members rotating. (NCD)
• Host Miniversities on Evangelism and NCD (DMT/ NCD)

The Ministry Council report contains a lot of interesting information including the new edition of Understanding the Process for Ordination beginning on page 76. While it contains the usual information on education, examination and process, there are a couple of interesting companion pieces on Government and Theological Background including “Ministry in a Litigious Society” on page 101 and “‘The Call’ In Historical and Theological Perspective” on page 102. This nice piece by Dr. Earheart-Brown is widely applicable to the Reformed Church and in the historical development does reflect upon the idea of vocation as seen by Luther and Calvin that affect us all.

It is important to remember that the CPC is no longer a strictly “American” Presbyterian branch but has spread out in its global missions and presbyteries. The Assembly accepted the invitation to hold the 2015 meeting in Cali, Columbia, but looking at the list of Assemblies (p. 9) you will see a previous international meeting in 2008 when the Assembly was held in Japan. And the evangelism plan that was just adopted calls for prayer and study as to where to open a new front for world outreach.

Finally, there was a commissioner resolution regarding the possible transfer of churches from the PC(USA) to the CPC. Again, let me quote the message from Dr. Earheart-Brown for the proper context:

One item of business that is not in the preliminary minutes was a
commissioner-presented resolution on receiving congregations from other
Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. The original resolution was not
approved, but a substitute replicating much of the original content
written by the select committee on judiciary was. I have attached a copy
of the GA approved resolution to this e-mail. We in the CPC have been
very careful not to contribute to the conflicts in the PC(USA), but we
wanted to communicate in some way to churches that have made the
decision to leave that they may want to consider the CPC. I also believe
that some who have gone to the EPC may reconsider that decision at some
point, and if they are a fit for the CPC, we want them to know that we
are open to discussion.

As he said, he sent along a copy of the resolution. I find it interesting that this resolution provides for an internal review of the CPC polity regarding property. And to emphasize the last point the final Resolved in the resolution says:

RESOLVED that this action is not to be construed as calling into question the theological, ethical, or polity decisions of any other body of Christians, nor as a license for any Cumberland Presbyterian to engage in any action that would promote division within the body of Christ, but is a simple invitation for other Presbyterian and Reformed churches who may be called by God to share with us the work of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to have time and space to seek God’s will in this matter.

Lots going on here and I look forward to seeing what God is doing in this Presbyterian branch. Next year in Florence, Alabama.

[Editorial note: I’m about to begin my annual time away in the wilderness off and on for the next few weeks. Expect blogging and tweeting to be minimal for a while. Thanks and happy summer to you.]

An Interesting Invitation And Some Of My Preliminary Reactions

2 Replies

I got an interesting invitation in my e-mail today, and I’d bet that at least a few of my regular readers got it as well. As I read it over I had some pretty quick reactions to some of the items, both positive and negative, and thought I would spend my lunch hour reflecting on these a bit. For me, this can be dangerous because my first reaction often is sarcastic and snarky. So either move along to other reading or enable your snark filters before going any further if that might be a problem for you.

The invitation came in the form of a letter from “A Fellowship of Presbyterian Pastors” inviting me to a gathering next summer. (If you don’t have a copy of the letter you can download one.) Those of you who know me realize that this in itself throws up a red flag in my mind. Not the gathering but that it is coming from a group that contains exclusively teaching elders — no ruling elders. Now to be clear, the invite is to ruling elders as well as teaching elders, so this is not another case of receiving mail incorrectly addressed to “Dear Rev. Salyards.” But I must admit that as I looked through the letter and read through the signatories the first thing I thought of was RE Beau Weston’s thought piece Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment. More on the signatories in a moment, but on to the content.

The letter begins

To say the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is deathly ill is not
editorializing but acknowledging reality.

Interesting. We are “deathly ill?” OK, read on and I’ll address that in a moment…

Over the past year, a group of PC(USA) pastors has become convinced that
to remain locked in unending controversy will only continue a slow
demise, dishonor our calling, and offer a poor legacy to those we hope
will follow us.

I tend to think that it is not the presence of controversy itself, but the process by which we wrestle with the controversy. (And there’s that thing about this coming only from teaching elders again.)

Skipping down to the next paragraph

Our denomination has been in steady decline for 45 years, now literally
half the size of a generation ago.

It then goes on to further detail the decline.

Holding here for a moment let me first compliment them on using the acronym PC(USA) instead of PCUSA. The latter (Presbyterian Church in the United States of America) was of course a predecessor denomination that ceased to exist with a merger in 1958 when the UPCUSA was formed. But that brings me to asking the question about who is in decline? The PC(USA) has only been in existence for 28 years so going back 45 years means that we have to consider all the predecessor denominations and their children if we want to be faithful to the lineage. That would be the UPCUSA and the PCUS (northern and southern in the vernacular) and out of them in the last 45 years has come the PCA, PC(USA), and EPC.

Am I just being picky? Maybe. But let’s skip over the next paragraph and the following begins…

Homosexual ordination has been the flashpoint of controversy for the
last 35 years. Yet, that issue – with endless, contentious “yes” and
“no” votes – masks deeper, more important divisions within the PC(USA).
Our divisions revolve around differing understandings of Scripture,
authority, Christology, the extent of salvation amidst creeping
universalism, and a broader set of moral issues.

While I don’t argue with what is said here, so far in the letter two things stand out to me as being a bit, shall I say, short-sighted. First, Presbyterians – be it American, Scottish, or others – have always argued. Does the Adopting Act and the New Side/Old Side debate ring a bell? American Presbyterianism was imported in three or four separate streams and over 300 plus years we have recombined and realigned numerous times to double or triple that number, depending on how you count. And many of the topics mentioned – understandings of Scripture, authority, Christology – have been part of these arguments the whole time. Presbyterians seem prone to disagree by our very nature. Our problem is not that we have disagreements but how we work through them.

My second point here is that all mainstream, or oldstream, denominations are in decline. The reasons are complex and I think to simplify it to our divisions does not recognize the full nature of it and the changes in society that are also a part of the formula.

In light of this, are we “deathly ill?” While we will continue to decline to an unsustainable level if current trends continue we must also recognize that many of the individual churches represented in the list of signatories, as well as others, are doing well individually and there are strong ministries within the PC(USA). The question is more about how we get things done and what course we chart for the future.

So speaking of what the future course will be, the letter goes on to state five “new things” the PC(USA) needs and the four values that this group of pastors is proposing. The first of the new things is really not new — A clear concise theological core was what the Adopting Act of 1729 was trying to attain. The other four things are a commitment to nurture leadership, a passion to share in the larger mission of the people of God, a dream of multiplying healthy missional communities, and a pattern of fellowship. I can get behind each of these characteristics. Moving on to their four stated values, members across the spectrum of the PC(USA) will find these a bit more problematic.

The letter concludes with a discussion of what these pastors are looking at implementing — A Fellowship, New Synod/Presbyteries, Possible New Reformed Body and/or Reconfiguring the PC(USA). To some degree, in fact in my mind to a large degree, this sounds like the New Wineskins Association of Churches so I would be interested to hear how this proposed fellowship would be different.

Maybe one way that it would be different would be the size of the churches. NWAC contained some fairly large churches. The signatories to this letter, while clearly stating they represent only themselves, do have connections to eight of the fifteen largest churches in the PC(USA) with several more recognizable congregation names in the bunch. The significance and implications of this are left as an exercise for the reader.

In addition to the letter this group, Fellowship PC(USA), has a temporary web page as well as a four page white paper titled Time For Something New. (Although I find it interesting that the current name of this file itself is “PCUSA Problem Internal 3 5b.pdf.”) A few mentions have popped up on Twitter, there is a web copy of the letter over at the Layman, and John Shuck has given us his opinion.

Those are my initial thoughts, but I want to digest the letter and white paper some more. Maybe I’ll have more to say later. The meeting is August 25-27 in Minneapolis (nicely outside GA season). I am curious to find out more of what is behind this and curious enough to mark the date on the calendar, but not so enticed yet to make my airline reservations.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. As the polity wonks will quickly recognize, a couple of the proposals are ideas that have been brought to GA but have not gone any further. Recognizing that holding the PC(USA) together as an organization of something even near its current size will require restructuring and compromise on both sides, this, like the Middle Governing Bodies Commission, may be a valid forum for exploring the way forward.

I’m interested to see what other reaction there is to this initiative both within and outside the denomination.

Stay tuned…

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Recommendations Of The Committee On Ecumenical Relations Regarding The Evangelical Presbyterian Church

3 Replies

The report from the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations with their Recommendations Regarding the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has been released and it is “interesting” reading in a number of senses of the word. This report to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) resulted from a referral from the 218th GA . The opening paragraph of the report probably does as good a job as I could summarizing how we got here:

This report comes in response to an overture from the Presbytery of Peace River to the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the PC(USA) that would have asked the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) to investigate the role of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in persuading PC(USA) congregations to disaffiliate from the PC(USA) and be dismissed to the EPC. The assembly referred the overture to the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations, which appointed a task group to make recommendations.

So it is looking at the “role” of the EPC. Going back to the original overture it asks of the Assembly:

The Presbytery of Peace River respectfully overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to request the Executive Office of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to investigate the actions and conduct of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, as described below, and to take appropriate action.

The described “actions and conduct” are:

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is actively pursuing a strategy to persuade Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) churches to disaffiliate with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and be dismissed to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has created a transitional presbytery to facilitate the process.

So this began not with the “role” of the EPC but with two specific complaints – “a strategy to persuade” and creating “a transitional presbytery.” The report addresses this in the Findings section at paragraph VI.4.l:

l. There was no evidence that the EPC took the initiative in entering PC(USA) congregations to speak against the PC(USA), for the EPC, or about affiliation with the EPC. However, there was ample evidence that when invited by a session or pastor, EPC representatives went in without consultation with the appropriate judicatory within the PC(USA) and spoke freely.

OK, there is the answer that the presbytery asked for in the overture – The Evangelical Presbyterian Church did not initiate but did not discourage. So now that we have the answer we can now turn off the lights, lock the door, and go home, right? “By no means” — we are Presbyterians so there are 15 pages of report to document this and present recommendations to try to patch up relations with the EPC, acknowledge the pain of separation within the PC(USA), and try to find ways to do better in the future.

OK, having gotten my snarky comments about “mission creep” out of the way, let me begin again by saying that I found a lot to like in this report. It is precise and accurate about many historical and polity points, a feature I appreciate. That said there are some aspects that bother me but these are mostly in what was left unsaid.

It is worthwhile to begin the detailed analysis with the remainder of the Preface which makes a very important distinction in this:

The task group met with presbyteries in which congregations had departed the PC(USA), with pastors and members of congregations who had departed or were considering departing the PC(USA) including those affiliated with the New Wineskins Association of Churches, and with leadership of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. In listening to people’s stories and in reviewing documents, the task group sought to distinguish between actions of Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and actions of the New Wineskins Association (which consists of PC(USA) pastors and members, as well as former PC(USA) pastors and members who are now affiliated with the EPC).

The distinction is important in that the actions of the New Wineskins members can be considered matters internal to the PC(USA), at least at their root. Actions of the EPC, on the other hand, are matters between churches—churches that are both members of WARC. It is this latter category that is the focus of the original overture. The report that follows presents the findings of the task group regarding activities that are internal and external to the PC(USA), and presents recommendations on how the PC(USA) should move forward in its relations with the EPC.

I very much appreciate the tone throughout this report that this is a very complicated issue and that the EPC as a denomination must be viewed as an independent player despite the fact that it has the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery. It is also important to remember, and this is one of the points that I think is passed over too lightly in the report, that the New Wineskins Association of Churches is a broad organization with members, individual and congregational, that have a wide range of opinions about departure from the PC(USA). Any categorization of the NWAC should be done carefully. The disaffiliation portion of the strategy report must not be viewed as the guidelines for all the members.

Maybe the historical point I most appreciate is the honest appraisal of the origin of our two denominations (V.1):

The histories of the EPC (with its organizing General Assembly in 1981) and the PC(USA) (with its organizing General Assembly in 1983) are deeply woven together, particularly since a large number of the congregations and ministers making up the EPC in its formative years had previously been a part of the PC(USA) or its predecessor bodies. Both the EPC and the PC(USA) lay claim to deep roots within the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions of the larger Christian family tree.

Yes, the EPC and the PC(USA) share the same root stock in American Presbyterianism, we are not some distant cousins but very close siblings. And yes, the EPC predates the PC(USA). And the report shares the vision of the EPC from its founding – “From those beginnings, however, the EPC was determined to grow by planting new congregations.” (V.3)

This section goes on to discuss the “trust clause” and I must compliment the Task Group on their historical footnote on the legal basis for it. (And some of the members of the special committee I was on thought one of mine was long ) The report says of the differing perspective of the two denominations (V.3):

The EPC had developed a denominational understanding of property that is substantively different from the understanding in the PC(USA). The EPC and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission. In this area, the EPC’s ecclesiology differs significantly from the PC(USA)’s.

And later (VI.5.b) the report says this about the disagreements over the trust clause:

b. During the task group’s visits, the issue that garnered the most theological—and legal—disagreement was that of the PC(USA)’s property trust provision in Chapter 8 of the Book of Order. What was debated among the NWI/NWAC’s national leadership played out “on the ground” in local congregations regarding property. Those desiring to leave saw this as a violation of their conscience, and their understanding of the nature of the church. The PC(USA) loyalists defended the ownership of property under the trust provision as biblical and held in Presbyterianism long before the explicit Book of Order clause. The different ecclesial understandings of the two denominations led to disagreement not only around ordination standards, property, and theology, but also around the meaning of congregational independence and connectionalism/congregationalism.

As I read this report I kept thinking that the task group, and often the denomination as a whole, seems to miss the tension inherent in the trust clause and only concentrates on the ultimate communal ownership of the property. Yes, we have the trust clause (G-8.0200)

All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)… is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

But the question that I don’t hear asked as loudly, here or anywhere, is why do we have the concept of the trust clause to begin with? While the language of the trust clause itself was inserted to make the concept explicit following a U.S. Supreme Court Decision (see that historical note ) the report and a PC(USA) OGA Advisory Opinion (#19) are correct in pointing out that it intrinsically flows from our view of the church as a connectional system. We belong to each other not because we chose to belong but because Christ calls us together.

But this is then viewed in the light of why Christ calls us together and in Chapter 3 of the Book of Order titled “The Church and Its Mission” it says (G-3.0400) “The Church is called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.” And regarding the list of responsibilities of the presbytery all relate back to the opening statement that (G-11.0103) “The presbytery is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district.” The tension of holding property is to be good stewards so it does the most good for building the Kingdom and furthering the mission given us by Jesus Christ. I’m not sure we are as good as we could be about “a time to keep and a time to let go.” In light of the ultimate call to forward the Kingdom, and acknowledging the theology behind the trust clause, I see no reason that the line from the report could not be rewritten to say “The PC(USA) and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission.” In both branches the property is for the purpose of mission, the branches differ as to which governing body has responsibility for discerning the best use of the property in furthering mission.

Following from that the most meaningful part of this report, to me, is the section of the findings that demonstrate how our “keeping” and “letting go” need some work. Here are excerpts from the report:

j.    In several cases, both New Wineskins representatives now in the EPC as well as PC(USA) representatives said that when presbytery processes were followed, the outcomes were better than if a congregation entered into litigation against the PC(USA) presbytery. In every instance where the civil courts were involved, representatives of both New Wineskins and loyalist PC(USA) leaders said it became extremely painful. (VI.2.j)

b.   The size of the congregation was often a driving factor in the approach to discussions and the process for departure. Smaller congregations with fewer human and real property assets were often more easily resolved. In other cases, especially when the congregation was larger, the presbyteries recognized the need to be immediately engaged, and the situation often led to civil litigation, resulting in very large costs—emotionally and financially—for all involved. (VI.4.b)

c.   In general, those congregations that followed an ecclesiastical process… fared better. Although it depends upon the state, courts generally have sided with the PC(USA)’s understanding of Chapter 8… In some cases, departing congregations relying on a legal strategy alone or in concert with an ecclesiastical one, lost additional money or property, and would have been much better off without civil action. Situations that involved a higher degree of trust and communication usually resulted in a negotiated settlement with which all parties could live and still feel respect for one another. Some of these situations even seemed to result in what was perceived by many as a “grace-filled” process. (VI.4.c, emphasis mine)

Friends, the single most important thing I took away from this report was those two final lines. We need to remember the “trust clause” is ultimately there for advancing mission and nothing else.

Having said that I want to highlight one more plus and one more negative I see in this report and then get on with the recommendations to the 219th GA.

First, looking beyond the trust clause and discussing Presbyterian connectionalism in general, the report does a good job of developing the concept that congregations must be dismissed to another body. There is no such thing as an independent Presbyterian church within the Presbyterian understanding of the church. For those not familiar with the issue at hand, the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery is a transitional presbytery and is simply a place that a congregation can momentarily stop on their journey. While there may be an intent to join a geographic presbytery there is also the possibility of being released as an independent congregation. Unless the relationship is fixed and not transitional the PC(USA) understanding of the relationship finds it wanting. (Now I want to go back and look at how churches transferring into PC(USA) non-geographic presbyteries were handled since those were also intended to be transitional presbyteries with limited life times.)

Second – On the one hand I found the report refreshing in the acknowledgement of the existence and role of what have come to be called the “Louisville Papers.” These are documents put together by the Stated Clerk’s office to help guide presbyteries in the legal work of property disputes. It is important to remember that they are legal memos and read as such. They are strongly worded and have the touch of a lawyer out to win his/her case. I talked about all this back in August 2006 when they were made public by the Layman.

The report also makes a big deal of a document that in some ways serves a similar role produced by the New Wineskins Association of Churches, New Wineskins Initiative: A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven. It is a publicly released document that talks about the future of the NWAC and in part acts as a guide for NWAC churches for the disaffiliation process. Section VI.5 of this task group report says “The task group’s findings in local situations regarding a desire for ‘theological clarity’ mirrored the language of the New Wineskins Initiative’s national spokespersons.” The report also constantly refers to the various disaffiliation options mentioned in the strategy paper. What I did not see in the report was the view from the other side — when viewed from the perspective of a church trying to depart the PC(USA) the legal action taken by a particular presbytery followed the advice in the “Louisville Papers.” Now I agree that the legal documents covered the full range of responses so basically anything the presbytery did could be seen as following that guide, but what the report does not say is that each side saw the other as having their own strategy piece.

Most of the Findings in the report were gathered from visits to presbyteries where members of the task group spoke to the presbytery leaders as well as leaders and members of churches, including disaffiliated churches, in that area. It is worth noting that the group visited nine presbyteries out of around 40 that one list shows having churches that disaffiliated or considered doing do.

There is a lot more in the report but having covered the major points I got out of it let me turn to the recommendations.

1.   Affirm that

a.   the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is in correspondence with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, by virtue of our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches;

b.   our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches is a visible sign of our oneness in Jesus Christ; and

c.   as members of the body of Christ, we are all called to treat one another as followers of Jesus Christ.

2.   Request the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to create guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.

3.   Call the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to

a.   confess to the rich tradition of freedom of conscience that we claim as Reformed, Presbyterian Christians, and

b.   recognize that this same tradition causes us to be prone to separation, demonization of those with whom we disagree, and a captivity to insistence on our own rightness.

4.   Invite the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to enter into such a season of confession with us.

5.   Acknowledge the unique complexity of the relationship between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, given the fact that the ecclesial roots of many churches, members, and ministers now in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church lie in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its antecedent denominations.

6.   Invite the General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to engage in bilateral dialogue concerning various dimensions of the relationships between the two denominations and its member churches, members, and ministers; and that a report from this dialogue be made to the 222nd General Assembly (2016), with an interim report made to the 221st General Assembly (2014).

7.   Direct the Office of the General Assembly to develop resources to support presbyteries with congregations and/or ministers engaged in a process of discernment or undergoing the process of dismissal, in light of denominational learnings in the recent past.

8.   Acknowledge the deep pain caused by the experiences of congregations departing or going through schism and of ministers departing, and call upon synods to consider developing care teams to listen to people’s stories, thereby enabling healing, with presbyteries also urged to extend extra care during such vulnerable times of congregational and presbytery life.

9.   Encourage presbyteries, congregations, and individual families who experience the pain of separation to recognize that there is more than one way to understand the same event and to pray for one another through our shared faith in Jesus Christ.

I will not analyze these recommendations on a point-by-point basis but take an overview of them generally. It is important to note that they all reflect a sense of restorative and not punitive church discipline.

Having said that, I have to admit that after reading the report I am very surprised at the nature of the recommendations. The first six recommendations, some with sub-points, of the nine total (two-thirds of them) in one way or another touch on the PC(USA)’s relationship with the EPC. While the report discusses the NWAC very heavily there is only a light treatment of the EPC role in the text as a whole and the findings in particular. The process says there was a meeting with four representative of the EPC but I did not see any discussion of how that meeting went, specifics of the discussion, or any formal or informal agreements mentioned in the text and therefore don’t see from where these recommendations derive. After having had bi-lateral contact why do the recommendations have such a unilateral nature to them? While I don’t expect a specific agreement with the EPC in the recommendations, I was searching the text for some indication of how these invitations would be received. Yes, at present the PC(USA) GA action would be an invitation from us, but the body of the report characterizes the current situation only from the perspective of the one side. Can it give us an indication of how the EPC would take the invitation “to enter into such a season of confession with us”?

So I don’t see the same proportionality of rational in the text as I see in the recommendations and from the information in the body of the report I have having trouble “connecting the dots” to arrive at what is asked in the recommendations.

I really like recommendation #2 that would have WARC create the “guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.” As the history of this situation shows the PC(USA) and the EPC have been operating with different expectations and procedures for the exchange process and to somehow come to a standard understanding would be helpful for all involved and may help relieve pain and confusion that result when different bodies have different expectations. The report says (VI.3.a) “In various conversations with PC(USA) presbytery representatives, their expectation that normal, standard ecumenical courtesy would be extended by local or national EPC judicatory leaders was repeatedly frustrated.” Is “normal, standard ecumenical courtesy” something that is codified somewhere (Miss. Manners for the Ecclesiastical?) or an unwritten set of expectations that can vary from denomination to denomination even in the Reformed stream? It appears to be the latter if WARC is being asked to develop these.

Similarly, I appreciate #7 which would have the church develop resources that are pastoral rather than legal.

Finally, I think the task group did a good job with recommendations 8 and 9 that acknowledge the pain involved in these events and encourage everyone to recognize that “there is more than one way to understand the same event” and to deal with this in a pastoral manner.

UPDATE: The EPC has now issued a press release saying it is “grateful” that the task group find the accusation unsubstantiated. It with holds additional comments until after the GA acts on the report.

So this report took 15 pages to not only answer the original question but to look at the whole mess, and yes it did get messy, and to provide us with a perspective and lessons from what has happened and recommendations to help heal the pain and move on with being the Church. With that in mind let me return to, and close with, one of those quotes that made the report for me. Remember, the 218th GA also called us to a “Gracious Separation” and it is not just what we do but how we do it that is a witness to the world. This report has much to support that Gracious Separation — And the world is watching . From section VI.4.d:

In those situations where matters went to civil court… the time, energy, and money expended on both sides was enormous. Some New Wineskins leaders who sought membership in the EPC expressed that if they had it to do again, they would likely follow an ecclesiastical process with the presbytery. Likewise, the presbyteries that had to respond to civil action, or that chose to initiate it, regretted the court costs and intervention into the life and work of the presbytery. Court proceedings were universally perceived as draining of the financial and other resources of the presbytery. Also, what trust might have been present prior to legal proceedings was often ruptured once those proceedings began.

Follow-up To The Oakfield Sale — The Going Price Of An Historic Church Building In Upstate NY

1 Reply

Just a very quick note as a follow-up to my previous post “An Interesting Tale of Stewardship, Property, and the PC(USA) Trust Clause.”

In that post I described the sale of an historic church building at auction back to a new congregation made up of many members of the old congregation, First Presbyterian Church of Oakfield, NY. In that sale Genesee Valley Presbytery got $50,000 which seems to about cover their legal fees in this whole incident. The various reports placed the value of the building at greater than $200,000, and probably closer to $400,000. An anomaly?

It turns out it is not. VitureOnline reported yesterday, and I don’t think it is a hoax appropriate to the day, that a vacant historic church building in Binghamton, NY, acquired by the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York through trust clause litigation when the congregation that was there departed the Episcopal Church for the Anglican Communion in North America, was sold back in February to the local Islamic Awareness Center for $50,000. Again, the assessed value of the property was $386,400. The Diocese saw about the same return on the property as the Presbytery — cash payment of roughly 1/8th the value and no longer having to worry about and care for a vacant building.

For reference, sale of church property below assessment is not unusual. The Episcopal Diocese of Rochester in June 2007 sold off the All Saints church building, now assessed on the tax rolls at just over a million dollars, for $475,000. So that sale was at roughly half the value of the property.

So, $50,000 seems to be the going rate for a $350,000 – $400,000 valued unoccupied church building in Central/Western New York. The macro-economic supply and demand implications are left as an exercise for the reader.

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism

Category Archives: Property

Mid Councils Commission Report To The 220th GA Of The PC(USA)

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending May 12, 2012 — WCC, Leadership, Dismissal and Jobs

Presbyterian Church of India decide not to join WCC

A Presbyterian Presidency?

Gay-led Los Angeles parish breaks with Presbyterian Church

Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) plans job cuts

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending March 31, 2012

PC(USA) Santa Barbara Presbytery lays the groundwork for a Union Presbytery with ECO

Presbyterian synod approves parish split with property

Sanctuary Movement Turns 30

Church moves to combat metal theft after sharp rise in incidents

PC(USA) Synod PJC Decisions — Per Capita And Property

181st General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church

An Interesting Invitation And Some Of My Preliminary Reactions

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Recommendations Of The Committee On Ecumenical Relations Regarding The Evangelical Presbyterian Church

Follow-up To The Oakfield Sale — The Going Price Of An Historic Church Building In Upstate NY