Anagrams sum up state of affairs in PCUSA
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Here are two Halloween anagrams that sum up our current state of affairs.
1. The membership
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, USA
CHIRPY BUREAUCRATS; HENS
2. The leadership
CLIFTON KIRKPATRICK
I TRICK RAPT KIN-FLOCK.
Mark Miner
Churches try to steal property from PCUSA
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Save your crocodile tears about GA advice on property You insist the stated clerk uphold the constitution to the letter when it is your favorite issue, yet insist they do nothing when churches violate it by planning to walk away with their property and pastors’ violate their ordination vows by facilitating it.
Many church groups are strategizing how to steal church property from the denomination and offering detailed legal advice. Why wouldn’t our General Assembly staff be advising presbyteries on how to maintain order and uphold what we believe.
Steven E. Wirth, pastor Grace First Presbyterian Church , Long Beach, Calif.
PCUSA warning signs began years ago
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2006
In my opinion, The Layman is correct on these issues that we face. The general staff is leading us in the wrong path. I see them as too much like a corporation and a lawyer-type outfit.
In the July 2006 edition, there was a letter from Black Mountain, N.C., in which the writer claimed we are feeding dissension. Although I think he is on the other side of these issues. Years ago, when we got into close working arrangements with the liberal branch of the United Church of Christ, it seemed a warning that we were headed for trouble.
Three or four years ago, I was a commissioner to the Presbytery of Northern Waters, representing the James Presbytery from Tower, Minn. The majority of the issues passed by an 11-vote margin on the liberal side. As a pessimist, it seems to me they will get it through in some presbyteries and we will be told, “Live with it.” Let us pray this will be stopped, but it is hard when the General Assembly votes so nutty as to run around our constitution.
Ray J. Peil Mountain Iron, Minn.
Anything coming from Louisville is suspect
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2006
I hope that Keith M. Wulf, coordinator of Research Services for the PCUSA, understands that few of us believe that the stated clerk is not asking for the financial information on the stated clerk’s annual survey of session clerks. It is because of the heavy-handed, draconian tactics from the stated clerk’s office that anything coming from Louisville is suspect. That office claimed to have no power or even warrant to enforce the PCUSA Constitution, yet it drew up and is executing plans to punish ministers, dismiss sessions, extort money from congregations and take congregational property if the congregation even discusses leaving this institution.
James Logan
Extend presumption of honesty to others
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2006
In his letter, published on Oct. 27, the Rev. Thomas Warren makes a number of unsubstantiated claims about the Presbytery of Baltimore including: “When asked to ‘receive and adopt the confessions,’ at ordination, they lie.”
Earlier in his letter he identified himself as one of those “who actually believe that the confessions (except ’67) really do reflect God’s will for believers in Christ.” Does he not believe that the Confession of 1967 reflects God’s will? If not, how did he handle the question when he was asked to receive and adopt the confessions?
I do not presume that he lied. Rather, I presume that the examining body took their responsibility seriously, examined him carefully, and decided that he was fit for ordination. I would hope that he would extend the same presumption to others.
James D. Schroll Pasadena, Md.
A common-sense opinion on church property
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2006
This is not a legal opinion because I am not a lawyer. I hope it is a common-sense opinion because I am a common man. The issue of property in the Presbyterian Church is simpler than we think and both sides are missing the point, which has little to do with church polity. It is actually surprising how much we agree on. Church property is held in trust. The session, or in some jurisdictions a board of trustees, acts as trustees of the property and assets of the congregation. The courts should be appealed to only under exceptional circumstances and are then bound by neutral principles of law. All that is fairly clear but the matter is soon clouded by disagreement over legal principles and church polity.
Basic trust law is fairly straightforward. For instance anyone who writes a will creates a trust. The executor is the trustee, and the beneficiaries are listed within the will. The trustee has no right to any of the assets of the estate but is charged with distributing them according to the instructions of the creator of the trust. The key is that the person giving the assets determines who the beneficiary is to be. In the case of churches it is those who donate to the church who decide on the beneficiary of that trust without regard to any questions of polity. If this theory is correct then even knowledge of the “trust clause’ would be irrelevant unless it could be shown that the donor endorsed it.
Lest you think that it is heresy for a Presbyterian minister to espouse this principle let me assure you that this is, in fact, the way in which the church currently operates. Reversionary clauses are not uncommon. Property is given to a congregation with the provision that if the church ceases to exist the property will revert to the original owners or their heirs. In these cases the instructions of the donors trump the Book of Order every time. There are also much less formal examples of such instructions. If a donor writes “Cemetery Fund” on a check placed in the offering, it designates the funds for the care of the cemetery and neither the Session nor any other court of the church can use the funds for any other purpose.
Those facts leave us with a relatively simple question: Did the donors to a particular church intend the beneficiary to be the congregation or the denomination. That is the question the courts should be deciding and it isn’t that difficult. If the denomination is the beneficiary then it can only benefit financially. There may be some intangible benefits given the religious nature of the organization, but those are beyond neutral principles of law, and these cases are about property and money.
Even a small church in these days might be worth almost a million dollars, and that church might remit five thousand dollars to the denomination each year in per capita and other giving. From a financial point of view that is a return of only half a percent on investment. If the denomination is the beneficiary of the trust the session would be legally and morally bound to sell the church property and turn the proceeds over to the denomination where almost any investment would earn a far greater return. It is absurd to claim that the donors who gave of their time and money to build up a local congregation actually intended the denomination as beneficiary. If there is any doubt about their intentions remember that members of the church have always had a way to make the denomination their beneficiary through giving directly to denominational causes.
It seems clear to me that those who have donated money to congregations through the years have intended those congregations as the beneficiaries. No matter what decisions the congregation makes concerning participation in, or affiliation with, any denomination the trustees are bound to use the assets under their control to benefit the congregation, and that duty transcends any polity. The Presbyterian Church controls its own governance of course, and that is beyond the reach of the courts but the use of the assets of the congregation is in the hands of its trustees who are responsible to donors and not polity.
This opinion would probably be torn to shreds by lawyers, but we are all used to them telling us that black is white and that we are too ignorant to understand the reasons. Louisville would also reject it out of hand but those of us in small churches have long ago given up the hope of having Louisville respect our opinions.
In spite of that I can tell you that this is the way that most small churches, and many not so small churches, see the issue. You can only express contempt for your donors for so long. Even if Louisville has the legal right to mistreat its members, in the end people will not continue to fund an organization that patronizes them. The division within our denomination is very sad but if our stated clerk thinks his actions are going to inspire congregations to remain within the denomination out of love and trust I will have to respectfully disagree with his opinion. That much I can do even if I am no lawyer and cannot afford one. It disturbs me that some court might mistakenly believe that Louisville’s amicus curiae briefs speak for me.
Rev. Thomas Gilliland Maryville, Tennessee
Jesus, not Mohammed, is the true prophet
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Upon reading about the Kirk of the Hills in Tulsa and Tom Gray’s plight, I had a blessed thought come to mind, which goes this way: “I’m beginning to see the ‘Church’ (Presbyterian) coming back to the Bible, God’s Word.” Amos 3:3, “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” Second Corinthians 6:17, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.”
I understand the struggle. It’s why it took me so long to depart. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was when serving as a lay pastor I preached a sermon on the qualifications for a true prophet, and that Jesus our Lord fulfilled this office because he was not only the Truth, but all he said was truth and would/will come to pass. After the service, my wife and I were accosted and questioned with indignation as to whether we had ever read the Koran. “Why are you to say who is lost or saved, etc.?” The man who questioned me seemed to resent Jesus as prophet in opposition to Mohammed. He said he and his Muslim friends had been discussing it. It was very unpleasant.
Well, I’m out of the Presbyterian Church now, as of Dec. 2, 2005. Guess I’m no longer an elder or lay preacher. My only “rightful” title is wretch, sinner, saint. Praise the Lord. His grace is amazing.
Glenn Frank Antlers, Okla.
Article is disingenuous and misleading
Posted Friday, October 27, 2006
I am a member of a New Wineskins supporting church and an avid reader of The Layman Online. I appreciate The Layman as a credible source of information regarding our denomination. However, I must agree with others that John Adam’s article “Stated clerk to seek financial information from clerks of sessions” is disingenuous and misleading at best. This financial report is nothing new, it is submitted every year. That doesn’t justify the request for the information by the Stated Clerk but it has been asked for annually for a while. When a reporter uses even one column to intentionally mislead, it calls into question the totality of his work. John should know better, and should apologize to the readers of The Layman and set the record straight.
Bob Harmon
Yellow journalism’ seems to work
Posted Friday, October 27, 2006
I found it most interesting that the article by Parker Williamson “God Bless the Kirk” was printed on a yellow background. Whatever the purpose, it served to reveal the true nature of such an article as “yellow journalism.” These are some of the phrases that show the author’s true color: cultural compromise; end in apostasy; compromise; promoting the agenda; blatant defiance; apostasy is intractable; Theological estrangement; will not obey God’s Word; they could not be trusted; heavy-handed assaults; gifts spent on lesser lords. All of these and more pejorative terms for the denomination, and nothing but praise for the Kirk.
No wonder Mr. Williamson is smiling, the agenda of The Layman is being fulfilled in the action of the Kirk, and “yellow journalism” seems to work (even though it is unethical).
R. Shipley Solon, Ohio
Research Services was responsible for developing the questionnaire
Posted Friday, October 27, 2006
I am writing to you to clarify information in the recent Layman article, “Stated clerk to seek financial information from clerks of sessions.” We in Research Services are responsible for developing the questions referred to in that article-not the Stated Clerk.
While Research Services is responsible for the questions, we do develop this form as a service to all entities of the denomination. Frequent users over the years have been the Presbyterian Church Foundation, Presbyterian Investment & Loan Program, and General Assembly Council agencies and programs. We compile the results and share our findings both with individual entities that asked to have questions on the form and with the larger denomination. Our Web site shows the topics and results from each questionnaire going back to 1993. I have worked for Research Services since 1982, and in this period of time I do not think a stated clerk has ever asked to see the data or ever referred to this information.
Many of the financial questions that are mentioned in the article have been asked for a number of years. Until a few years ago (before congregations were able to answer on the Web), completed surveys first went to the presbytery and then to us. Now if a congregation answers on the Web, the information comes directly to us. If a presbytery requests it, we send to them the data that their congregations sent directly to us.
This form has had many names over the years. Currently it is the clerk’s annual questionnaire, but I refer to as the supplemental form to the clerk of session’s end of year report. The word “clerk” in the title refers to clerks of session, rather than to the stated clerk. This supplemental form has been used in the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. at least since the late 1960s. The types of questions have changed over the years. Sometimes the General Assembly requires that we ask a certain question. The questions about guest speakers are one example.
This questionnaire provides a unique way to learn more about our congregations-information that is helpful to PCUSA entities, to others interested in understanding what is happening across the church, and to individual congregations. The Layman article mentioned that these questions do not focus on the great ends of the church. Yet last year’s form did. From those questions, we learned that just 39 percent of congregations report having goals or objectives for church growth. (2005 results have not yet been posted on our Web site.)
Keith M. Wulff Coordinator, Research Services, Presbyterian Church (USA)
Tell stated clerk: ‘None of your business’
Posted Friday, October 27, 2006
I would tell Cliff, knowing our finances is, “None of your business.” Seems like the PCUSA is becoming strapped for money wanting to know the affairs of PCUSA churches. Is Cliff and his lefties beginning to see the handwriting on the wall? With war and terror worldwide, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is needed more than ever, and is Cliff concentrating on obeying the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20? I guess not. What is more important to Cliff is other people’s money.
Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del.
Questionnaire not aimed at congregations considering leaving PCUSA
Posted Friday, October 27, 2006
The article by John Adams about the stated clerk seeking additional financial information from clerks of session is misleading and indicates a lack of knowledge about statistical forms sent to clerks. If his information came from Jim Berkley, this also indicates his lack of knowledge about the statistical reports from previous years and a rush to further escalate the dispute over property. The financial questions on the questionnaire have been there in previous years. They were placed there in order to gain information for the Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program and the Presbyterian Foundation as a way to offer their services to congregations. The only questions on that document that are new are related to investment criteria. The documents are not aimed at congregations considering leaving the denomination and hoping to retain their property and assets, as falsely claimed in the article.
Mary Ellen Lawson Clerk of Session , Westminster Presbyterian Church, Greensburg, Pa.
Document below might meet the intent of I Corinthians 5:9-13
Posted Friday, October 27, 2006
The following has had no legal approval and any organization thinking of developing something similar should consult proper counsel before proceeding. I have been reluctant to forward this to others through The Layman Online because I am sure the idea will be vigorously challenged. However, based on several recent Layman Online letters to the editor, the concept shown in this “document” might be of some use if prayerfully considered.
I must clearly state I am no longer associated with the PCUSA, but the document below was initially developed while I was. And, certainly, I do not speak for any particular church or person or persons now associated with the PCUSA in this area of Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter.
I am not an attorney, nor have I had any training in law, but I have carefully thought this through and believe this approach might meet the intent of I Corinthians 5:9-13 where we are told to “purge” (or, at least, “separate ourselves” from) those who refuse to acknowledge the evil in which they are indulging “as seems right in their own eyes.” It seems appropriate to me to consider the source of this advice (the Word of God) to have precedent over any man-created document(s) of the PCUSA.
Might be interesting to be in Louisville on a day when 875 such letters reach the denomination’s kingdom castle!
- [church letterhead] [date]
- To: [Presbytery Name] [Address]
- Attn: [Executive Presbyter]
- Re: Affiliation of [name of church; Address, City, State] with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and [Presbytery Name]
- To [Executive Presbyter name]:
- The Session of the [church name] is hereby advising the [presbytery] and the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) of our decision to separate this church from both of the stated organizations.
- The session has authorized me to forward the enclosed cashiers check in the sum of [$1, $100, $1,000, $10,000 or whatever is decided] to you in full payment of all separation costs for all real and intellectual properties associated with [church name] of [city, state]. This includes, but may not be limited to, the church building proper [address], the manse [address], [other properties with addresses], all grounds, parking, drives, major and minor fixed and portable furniture and equipment, supplies, books, other reference materials, etc., associated with the [church name].
- Upon your cashing or depositing this check and your signing and returning the signed original of this agreement, we shall ask our counselors to begin to work with you on whatever presbytery and PCUSA requirements are appropriate and reasonable to complete the process in accordance with applicable and reasonable sections of the current PCUSA Book of Order. Please return the original signed agreement by certified US mail.
- This decision has not been made lightly and has been approved by [number] ([percent]) of the current elder board and by ([percent]) membership of [number] in our church who are eligible to vote according to the appropriate by-laws and/or constitution sections.
- We ask for your straightforward cooperation through this process which we expect being completed in no more than 90 days.
- If you believe the valuation of the properties indicated exceeds the amount tendered, we suggest you consider the additional amount as a donation to the Lord’s work in this geographical area.
- Should you choose not to accept this proposal, we are prepared to pursue release with property from this presbytery and the PCUSA through other means.
- **********************************
- AGREEMENT: I, _________________, (name typed) the executive presbyter of the [presbytery Name], do hereby acknowledge receipt of this document dated [date] and delivered to my office by certified mail on _______ (date). In response to the request by [church name] of [city, state], I accept the cashiers check and the request for release with property of this church from the [presbytery] and the Presbyterian Church (USA). I also hereby agree all actions necessary to accomplish this shall be completed no later than 90 days of the date this certified mail document was received at my office from [church name].
- _______________________________ Executive Presbyter
- _______________________________Signature date
- **********************************
- I shall be your initial contact and the following elders shall form the committee representing our church in this process.
- [name of initial contact]
- [name of elder(s), active/inactive on the committee; number as determined by the Session]
- Sincerely, [signature]
- [name typed],
- Clerk of Session [or other as chosen by the Session]
- c: [name], PCUSA Stated Clerk
- [name], PCUSA Moderator