The big news over the weekend in the Politics of Presbyterianism was that the Synod of the Sun established an administrative commission to work with the Presbytery of South Louisiana regarding the Presbytery’s handling of church property cases.
Background
Back on October 28, 2007, the membership of First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge, LA, voted 422-60 to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and transfer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). It is interesting to note that the pastor of the church is the Rev. Gerrit Dawson, who is co-moderator of the New Wineskins Association of Churches along with the Rev. Dean Weaver. Rev. Weaver’s church, Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Allison Park, PA, just came to terms with Pittsburgh Presbytery concerning its release to the EPC.
The total number voting at the meeting, 482, represents only one-quarter of the membership of the church according to the article published by the Presbyterian News Service.
The significant piece of background noted in that article is that the Presbytery of South Louisiana had granted to First Presbyterian clear title to their property roughly a year before the vote so the church was free to take their property with them without further legal action or negotiation.
Synod Meeting
The published facts in this action are from a single source, a Synod of the Sun news story about the matter on the Presbyterian Neighbor News. The action appears to have been taken at a twice-annual stated meeting of the Synod of the Sun but the packet for the meeting does not contain any advanced information about this business.
The news story says that in a letter to the Synod Executive dated April 8 presbytery pastors and elders “expressed a concern regarding our presbytery’s leadership,
particularly pertaining to the presbytery’s response to churches
seeking title to their properties.” The letter “further stated that presbytery leaders gave insufficient
consideration to denominational protocols on such matters and gave
insufficient consultation with other churches.” Finally, the letter is said to ask for an administrative commission to look into this.
According to the article the next step was a meeting:
Synod Executive Judy Fletcher met with members of the presbytery
council of South Louisiana, April 22, and said they concurred that
outside consultation would be helpful. The council sent a letter to
synod supporting an administrative commission but asking that the power
of original jurisdiction not be given.
The news story says that this past weekend those at the Synod meeting unanimously approved the administrative commission:
Synod commissioners established an administrative commission charged
with determining the “validity of the presbytery’s procedures and
decisions (past, pending, and future) regarding various congregations
and their properties.”The synod document further stated that
“All pending and future decisions regarding property in the Presbytery
of South Louisiana shall require the approval of the commission.” The
commission shall also listen to expressions of concern regarding the
presbytery’s leadership and suggest ways the presbytery can move toward
a fuller expression of the ministry of Christ’s Church.
Reaction
I probably don’t need to tell you that from the conservative quarters of the PC(USA) the reaction has been swift and strong. With the past history of the “Louisville Papers” and the perception of the Office of the General Assembly wanting to hold onto the property at all costs this appears as top-down punitive and corrective action on the Presbytery for being gracious and pastoral with churches that wanted to depart the denomination. In particular Bill Crawford at Bayou Christian, Toby Brown at A Classical Presbyterian, David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor, and Michael McCarty at Around the Scuttlebutt have particularly negative views of this action and the possible conspiracy with Louisville it represents.
Comments
On one level this action can just be viewed as the way that our connectional system operates. When there is a disagreement on one level we move up to the next-higher governing body to get help and direction from the collective wisdom of that body to help us get around a disagreement or rough patch. Not knowing any facts from other sources, and ignoring that a controversial topic is in play here, the sequence of events, steps taken, and the unanimous vote, all would make it appear that this is our Presbyterian system working properly, decently, and in order.
But as the reaction in the blogosphere demonstrates this is a loaded topic. It is my view that there has been a disconnect between the national structure of the PC(USA) and the “people in the pews” which makes an action like this, even if innocent, appear disciplinary and controlling. And with the Louisville Papers in circulation this can also be interpreted as conspiratory. The press release is carefully crafted and with no other sources to go on it appears that a concerted effort was made to put a controlled positive public relations spin on this. The two areas of concern for me are the short lead time which prevented information from being in the advanced packet, and that the only governing body to speak on this is the Synod of the Sun and there is no comment from the Presbytery of South Louisiana.
But related to both the “innocent” and the “conspiratory” interpretations of this action is a question I always ask: Is an administrative commission the best option? I always keep in mind that an administrative commission like this one is the second most powerful action a governing body can take regarding a lower governing body. It is only out-done by an administrative commission that is granted the power of “original jurisdiction.” In a real sense this can be the “Ecclesiastical Nuke” that Rev. Fischler refers to it as.
For those readers who may not understand the full implications, in Presbyterian lingo a “commission” is a group elected and given certain powers and responsibilities to act on behalf of and with the authority of the governing body that created it. When granted original jurisdiction, the commission can take full control of the lower governing body. When a presbytery establishes an administrative commission to work with a church, if that commission has original jurisdiction they can set themselves up as the session of the church if they decide it is necessary. In general Presbyterians have two types of commissions, administrative and judicial.
So, was an administrative commission the best option? Not being there and having all the facts I can not say. I will say that when I was working with my presbytery, particularly as the moderator of the Committee on Ministry, it was my view and experience that an administrative commission was a last resort. Creating one to work with a church was often viewed as a power play by the presbytery much as this is viewed in some quarters as a power play by the synod. Yes, there are cases were a body with the authority was needed and yes there are cases where an administrative commission is welcomed. But I have found that beginning with task forces, listening teams, or discussion groups was at least a “kinder and gentler” way to begin the process. Showing up at the door as an administrative commission, however well intentioned, was not always viewed as a friendly gesture. “Hi. We’re from the presbytery and we are here to help you.”
I was aware that in other presbyteries and other synods some of my counterparts felt that administrative commissions were the way to go. The idea was to send in the big guns, get things cleaned up quickly, and get out. (Commando Presbyterian governance?)
Maybe they are right but it never sat well with me both from a connectional and pastoral perspective. This is a view reaffirmed by a friend of mine at a recent presbytery meeting where the administrative commission he was chairing made their final report and was dismissed. After delivering the final report he was allowed some personal comments in which he said that administrative commissions are a painful solution in many situations and while they sometimes may be necessary they should only be used as a last resort.
Preach it brother!
I think there is one issue and a factual oversight in the action of the Synod that you did not really address in your comments.
1. This action creates a constitutional crisis in that the Consitution of the Presbyterian Church grants to Presbyteries the exclusive right to dismiss local churches to another reformed body. There was a vote by the Presbytery, it was done decently and order, and the majority voted to dismiss. Does the Synod think it has the right to overrule a majority vote it does not like that is in order with the Form of Government? Does the Synod have the right to usurp the authority of a Presbytery granted by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church when there is no evidence that the Presbytery exceeded its authority in it action or acted irregularly? In other words are we a church of popes or constitutions?
2. The Baton Rouge Church was not just granted its property by the Presbytery, it was awarded its property by a court of law. The secular courts and not ecclesiastical courts have jurisdiction over who is the owner of the property. The Presbyterian Church asserts a claim of a trust, but it is the secular courts which determine if such a trust exists.
Timothy-
Thanks for these two points:
Regarding #1 you are absolutely correct that authority and power is vested with the Presbytery for dismissing congregations, and for that matter for any business not assigned to another governing body. In American Presbyterianism we derive power from the Presbytery. That is a point I thought about but took my comments in a different direction.
Regarding #2 – That is a point I had not chased down so that information is very helpful to know.
I appreciate you adding these to the discussion.
I would add that since First Pres. Baton Rouge sued the Presbytery for title to property one and a half years ago, at least five more congregations within the Presbytery have taken similar steps. I suspect the request for a synodal AC was a reaction to that cascading effect as much as to First Pres.’s initial lawsuit. There is considerable discontent and distrust within the PSL, so I am not surprised to hear that some felt this recourse to synodal authority was necessary.