It was just about one year ago now that at a special called meeting of the Presbytery of San Gabriel two churches were dismissed to ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO). In this two part piece I want to discuss the journey that this started as well as take an analytical look at where a couple of presbyteries in the synod are headed at this point. I don’t know if this first part is of any interest to others but what I first envisioned as a brief intro to where the synod is has now turned into its own moderately detailed discussion of my experience with this case. If you just want to see the quantitative analysis feel free to just jump to Part 2.

Part 1: Judicial Case Against The Presbytery of San Gabriel
On 20 October 2012 at a special meeting of the Presbytery of San Gabriel the dismissals of Glenkirk Presbyterian Church of Glendora, CA, and the First Presbyterian Church of Covina, CA, were approved. Polity wonks may recognize the timing of this action was just before the Synod Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) rendered its decision in the case of St. Andrews Session v. Presbytery of Santa Barbara (St. Andrews decision) and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) decided the case of Tom and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco (Tom decision).

Relevant to the San Gabriel action the St. Andrews decision called into question the validity of ECO as a reformed body and the Tom decision raised some issues with the details of the process and the terms of dismissal. The leadership of San Gabriel recognized the implications of both of these cases and began a process to take actions to bring future dismissals into compliance and to try to remedy deficiencies in the two dismissals already approved. In addition, a revision of the Gracious Dismissal Policy (GDP) included not just the specific requirements of the Tom decision but also the numerous lessons learned from the first application of the policy.

However, a remedial case was filed by 12 members of the presbytery specifying nine defects in the presbytery action based on the St. Andrews and Tom decisions. The SPJC accepted the complaint and issued a stay of action putting the dismissal of the churches on the agreement date of 31 December on hold. San Gabriel Presbytery itself put on hold all additional requests for dismissal and other presbyteries in the synod also stopped or slowed down their dismissal processes waiting for the outcome of this case since it might clarify the earlier SPJC decision about the status of ECO as a reformed body.

Before I go any further I need to do the full disclosure thing: I was asked and agreed to serve on the Committee of Counsel that responded to the complaint. Therefore, while I had a front row seat for this judicial process that seat was from the defense table so I have a particular perspective on all these proceedings. In addition, the comments, views and perspective that I will be sharing here are mine alone and, expect in the rare instance I state otherwise, do not necessarily reflect the perspectives and opinions of the other two members of the Committee of Counsel, our legal help, or the leadership of the presbytery.

Following the decisions the presbytery set about to try to retroactively fulfill the spirit of the St. Andrews and Tom decisions by doing three things. The first was to begin the previously mentioned revision of the Gracious Dismissal Policy. The policy was extensively rewritten, incorporating both the lessons learned as well as a great deal of language taken directly from the Tom decision, and this new draft policy was distributed early in 2013. Three opportunities were provided at open sessions outside of regular presbytery meetings for members of presbytery to ask questions and provide feedback. A first reading was done at the March presbytery meeting and the revised GDP was approved by the presbytery at the May meeting with a couple of amendments from the floor to the gracious dismissal process.

While the new GDP is loaded with procedural adjustments based on lessons learned, there are to my mind two significant changes based upon the Tom decision. One is the now explicit requirement for the consideration of the value of the property and the implications of the trust clause in the negotiated agreement with churches and the presentation to the presbytery. The second is the explicit inclusion of the requirement that a 10 year reversionary clause be included in any agreement so that if within the first 10 years after dismissal the church would leave a reformed body the property would revert to the presbytery or the church would have to make payment for the property. This was a point of a lot of discussion — not whether or not to have the reversionary clause but what to actually put in the GDP. In the modern world of the PC(USA) there is a line of thought that you don’t specify numbers in policy documents but take everything on a case-by-case basis. So there was discussion about whether to specify a number and if a number was specified whether to make it binding or advisory and how large a number to put there. It is worth noting that in the debate around these matters the two dismissed churches made it clear that they intended the switch to ECO as a permanent move and not a quick route to independence. I sensed that a few in the presbytery were skeptical of this claim but time will tell.

The second action the presbytery took was to hold a stand-alone debate and vote to approve ECO as a reformed body that a church can be dismissed to. In the original action this was bundled into the dismissal vote itself. This passed the presbytery with a roughly 2/3 approval. Following the vote Dr. Jack Rogers was given the opportunity to speak about, among other things, why his expert testimony against ECO in the St. Andrews case applied only to the union presbytery issue and not dismissals of congregations.

Finally, at another presbytery meeting a member of the pastoral engagement team for the presbytery presented all the financial information that the Tom decision now calls for as well as the ministry rational for the agreements negotiated with each of the two churches that asked to be dismissed.

At the same time that this was going on members of the presbytery leadership were meeting with groups of the twelve individuals who had signed the complaint. The objective was to share the steps the presbytery would be taking as well as discuss possible remedies they might be interested in. I was not part of these discussions and so can not speak specifically to them. Furthermore, I can not speak to anyone’s particular motivations, but over the next few months ten of the twelve individuals contacted the SPJC and asked that their names be removed from the complaint.

The two remaining complainants and the Committee of Counsel continued with the judicial process including entering into mediated negotiations and with those negotiations in progress asking for a postponement of a pretrial conference in March. By the time we reached the rescheduled confer
ence in May the complainants had agreed to drop all but the two charges that dealt sepcifically with the trust clause.

It was actually at the May pretrial conference, during an adjournment of the SPJC, that we finally all agreed in principle to a specific framework for a settlement. The SPJC set a trial date and we told them we hoped we would not need it.

Over the next few days the framework was filled in and a final settlement was worked out. This settlement included a statement acknowledging that while the presbytery acted in good faith in the decision of 20 October, in hind sight and with the new guidance of the Tom decision there were details of the process that did not meet that guidance on the implementation of the trust clause. In acknowledgement of the trust clause and the presbytery’s new GDP each church extended the reversionary clause to 10 years. In addition, they each made an additional payment as a symbolic gesture of a payment for the property and in recognition of the legal expenses the presbytery had incurred on their behalf.

Beyond that there was recognition of the revisions to the GDP, of which the complainants had their input, and the presbytery will be asked to send an overture to the 221^st General Assembly asking the Office of the General Assembly to provide more guidance for presbyteries seeking to discern which reformed bodies churches may be dismissed to. The settlement does not however require the presbytery to approve such an overture.

The churches fairly quickly made the necessary changes and payments on their side and in late June they, and their clergy, were transferred to ECO. The new GDP was approved in May and the pending overture is the last piece that needs to be presented to presbytery. Once that happens I am looking forward to having the Committee of Counsel being dissolved, hopefully with thanks.

Some reflection on the experience
First, it is impossible to ignore the emotional toll all this took on me at all points in the journey. I have many friends and colleagues in the two churches that requested and were granted dismissal. I fully understand that they did what they felt they had to do. It did take some doing to say goodbye and then help them on their way as I helped to defend the presbytery’s actions. Similarly, almost all of the original 12 complainants are friends that I have worked with over many years in this presbytery and synod. This was for me very much a family struggle and while I am glad that I could be part of the resolution, I am saddened by how this originally developed and the tensions and, yes, hurt feelings it caused.

Second, I believe that the eight months in which we settled this was
about as quickly as the judicial process would allow. It was done using
the alternative dispute resolution and did not go to trial. There was a
lot of work involved but we could set the pace of the mediation sessions
and make it happen without having to set those dates with the SPJC.

Having
said that, the logical extension is to ask whether this had to go to
the judicial process at all. The two remaining complainants did indicate
their view that the judicial process is an important part of our polity
and they felt it offered them the protection and supervision they sought
in resolving the complaint. From my perspective I would have rather tried to work it out earlier and gone to the judicial process if that failed. However, because of both the timing of the dismissals and the window to file a complaint – remembering that the charges were based upon cases that were decided in the weeks following the original action – the complainants felt time was short and if they were to keep the judicial option open they needed to file the complaint.

Finally, and this is one point where I think I can say my sentiments are shared by the rest of the Committee of Counsel as well as some of the presbytery leadership, I am very grateful for the patient way that the two dismissed churches stuck with us in the judicial process. They were as gracious about the delay as the presbytery was in dismissing them in the first place. We kept their leadership updated concerning what progress was, or was not, being made and when the additional terms were being discussed they might not have been eager to have modifications but they were extremely helpful in making it happen.

So that is a moderate-length version of where the Synod of SoCal and Hawai’i finds itself at the moment. While this case did not go to trial and so did not definitively settle the question of the eligibility of ECO as a reformed body that churches can be dismissed to, the fact that this case is no longer raising that and other questions within the synod means that presbyteries can once again feel comfortable with having their dismissal processes proceed.  In Part 2 I take a closer look at the dismissals in three of the synod’s presbyteries.