The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) came out of its 218th General Assembly with an interesting tension.  On the one hand, it created a $2 million dollar legal fund to help presbyteries with legal costs of fighting churches wanting leave the denomination with their property.  (PC-biz and my post)  On the other hand, it passed a resolution “urging a gracious, pastoral response to churches requesting dismissal.”  (PC-biz and author’s comments)

Much of the legal action that has happened in the last couple of weeks was in process at the time of GA and I find interesting the tension, or paradox, that each side had in the arguments before the California Supreme Court two weeks ago.  From the congregations’ point of view, in spiritual matters the congregation agreed to the denomination’s rules, but the property is not a spiritual matter.  From the denomination’s perspective, in this and other cases, if a church chooses to leave the denomination that is one thing, but they can’t take their property with them.  So we are getting the property separated from the spiritual and the mission aspects of the church.

As you have probably heard, in another current property battle Kirk of the Hill Presbyterian Church in Tulsa, OK, has decided by a narrow margin to buy back their property from Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery after the court awarded the property to the presbytery upon the Kirk’s departure from the PC(USA) to the EPC.  The congregation’s vote was 508 to 483 to pay the Presbytery $1.75 million for the property settlement.  (More details in the Tulsa World article)

In the midst of these court battles and financial settlements individuals are beginning to ask the question about the financial cost of these actions and how it diverts resources from the mission of the church.

One person who has publicly asked this question is Dr. Richard Mouw, PC(USA) elder and President of Fuller Theological Seminary.  In his October 13th Mouw’s Musings he talks about a conversation with a friend who suggests that the disputing sides should negotiate a compromise and contribute the amount they would have spent on legal costs to the care of AIDS orphans in Africa.  Dr. Mouw notes:

And he closes with this:

The second article along these lines comes from Jim Oakes on the blog VirtueOnline where he points out that in the Virginia Episcopal cases millions of dollars have been spent on both sides in the legal action when “so many alternatives have been available.”  While he notes that the issues are important and complex he also says “We can only hope and pray that Episcopal leaders will realize that the
high cost of this litigation has not done one thing to further the
mission of God’s church in any way.”

So what we as the church do is an important witness to the world about our faith and life.  Yes, I know that there are a variety of circumstances and in different cases different parties have exercised the legal option first.  But in this do we all consider the way the world views it and in the end, if the denomination is left with an empty building, what has been accomplished?  It is interesting that Dr. Mouw uses the phrase “opportunity to be gracious toward our opponents.”  Remember the central part of what the GA passed in June placing responsibility on all parties:

2.  
Believing that trying to exercise this responsibility and power through
litigation is deadly to the cause of Christ, impacting the local
church, other parts of the Body of Christ and ecumenical relationships,
and our witness to Christ in the world around us, the General Assembly urges congregations considering leaving the denomination, presbyteries, and synods to implement a process using the following principles:

• Consistency: The local authority delegated to presbyteries is guided and shaped by our shared faith, service, and witness to Jesus Christ.
• Pastoral Responsibility: The
  requirement in G-11.0103i to consult with the members of a church
  seeking dismissal highlights the presbytery’s pastoral responsibility,
  which must not be submerged beneath other responsibilities.
• Accountability: For a governing body,
  accountability rightly dictates fiduciary and connectional concerns,
  raising general issues of property (G-8.0000) and specific issues of
  schism within a congregation (G-8.0600). But, full accountability also
  requires preeminent concern with “caring for the flock.”
• Gracious Witness: It is our belief that Scripture and the Holy Spirit require a gracious witness from us rather than a harsh legalism.
• Openness and Transparency: Early, open
  communication and transparency about principles and process of
  dismissal necessarily serve truth, order, and goodness, and work
  against seeking civil litigation as a solution.