UPDATE:
A message from the church session has been posted on the First Presbyterian Church, Bethlehem web site, explaining why it asked the “Trustees to seek definitive answer to the question of the ownership of the Church’s property. Accordingly, the Trustees filed suit in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas to simply seek confirmation from the civil courts of Pennsylvania that they do, indeed, hold title to all property of the Church as mandated by the corporate bylaws of the Church.” The message read, in part:
” … we expect that when the Presbytery steps into our Bethlehem church they acknowledge that they are on holy ground and are obligated to operate with the highest levels of integrity, candor and competence.
Sadly, the Lehigh Presbytery has not operated in this manner. The entire Presbytery process has been sloppy and arbitrary culminating with the straw poll. Straw poll ballots were sent to deceased members and not sent to some active members. Even more troubling, the individually assigned voting codes were inadvertently sent by the vendor to the Presbytery Engagement Team at the beginning of the voting process. The Presbytery did not disclose or admit this fact and denied it when asked directly. The Session is unanimous in its concern that the recent straw poll results are suspect. This concern is based on the May 2015 survey results, focus group results, voting results at our congregational meeting, the PET’s own admission of the majority of our congregation’s convictions to move to ECO, and the PET’s inappropriate access to the survey codes.
This compromised straw poll (which was not even a required part of the Presbytery’s written dismissal) was to lead to a congregational vote, which the presbytery will now not allow. This unilateral decision to end the process was reached by the Presbytery team alone while ignoring the majority voice of the congregation heard at each point of the process.
Of critical importance is the fact that the straw poll was never intended to be determinative or dispositive of the dismissal process. Its results, whether compromised or not, were to be a gauge assisting in the process, not an end unto itself. Using it as such is improper and undermines the manner in which our church is designed to operate. The majority of the church unquestionably seeks dismissal to ECO, which as a right of conscience the congregation should be able to do.
By our church charter property use is determined by majority rule, not minority veto or presbytery fiat. We, therefore, feel it is imperative, and in the best interests of the majority of the congregation, both spiritually and from a stewardship perspective, to protect the rights of conscience of the majority.”
By Sarah M. Wojcik, The Morning Call.
BETHLEHEM, Pa. — In a signal of their determination to move forward with a break from the mainline Presbyterian denomination, the First Presbyterian Church of Bethlehem filed litigation Friday requesting the court’s assistance in determining who owns the church’s 31.5-acre property worth millions of dollars.
The church claims ownership of the property, assessed at $7.9 million according to Northampton County records, because their name is on the 1955 title for the property. But that runs counter to the position by the Presbyterian Church (USA), which has ruled that a congregation’s property is “regarded as held in trust for the benefit” of the denomination.
On Friday the church filed an action seeking the court’s confirmation of its ownership of the property as well as an injunction to stop the Lehigh Presbytery, a governing body in the Presbyterian Church (USA), from seizing any property or replacing the elected leadership.
Jackie Etter, executive director and interim head of staff, said the church’s leadership is determined to follow through on what they say is the wish of the majority of the congregation to join a “denominational home more fitting.
“We had to determine what God was calling us to do here in Bethlehem,” Etter said of the church’s decision to pursue legal action. “This has become such an issue for so many churches across the country.”
7 Comments. Leave new
Anybody know if Pennsylvania is a neutral principles state regarding property disputes?
I do have to feel for the job ahead of Lehigh. To prevail in this legal tussle they must do the physically impossible, raise the dead for their testimony. In that they must prove beyond a legal definition of reasonable doubt, that the founders of that church, in its documents, wills, trusts, etc, implied or meant to cede legal deed and title into the current legal entity called the PCUSA, circa 1983. And that is meant to be implied into perpetuity, like forever and ever, case closed. Good luck with that.
Or that the PCUSA by some absurdity of logic and legal gymnastics, is the rightful repository of all things presbyterian, christian, faith, material, physical and otherwise. Good luck with that. That the church fathers and mothers any time prior to 1983, be it 1958, 1869, 1816, 1780, really, really meant to vest all its collective future into some future entity regardless of it purposes and designs. Good luck with that. Or that the current version Book of Order takes prescience over the US Constitution on matters of freedom of association and assembly, or that people who call themselves members of FPCB, sort of voluntarily renounced the Constitution, or citizens ship, in their membership to said church. Good luck with that.
The PCUSA cannot have it both ways at the time. It cannot claim 1st amendment church/state rights and protections, in essence leave us alone in matters of individual property, more or less like a club against nonconforming churches, only to try to use the same said Amendment to hide behind when their tax exempt status is challenged in their blatant secular political/social actives. That knife cuts both ways. Lehigh will lose this eventually, they know it as well. I would sit down and settle this, and hope this never sees the light of a civil court.
If this goes to court—which it probably will—Lehigh’s tack will be to claim that the 43% who wish to remain affiliated with the PC(USA) represent the “true church”, remaining continuous since Bethlehem First’s founding in 1875, and should, therefore, be awarded the property, name, and assets of Bethlehem First. Appeals to the immoral trust clause will be secondary to, and used to support, that claim. If the percentage of Bethlehem First members wanting to separate was truly overwhelming (e.g., 90% or better), the Presbytery would have much less ground on which to stand, and would have to rely much more heavily on the trust clause. But given the results of the “straw poll” (which is, nevertheless, contested by those seeking to separate Bethlehem First from the PC[USA]), the Presbytery stands a better chance in civil court than you give it credit for.
“We had to determine what God was calling us to do here in Bethlehem,” Etter said of the church’s decision to pursue legal action. “This has become such an issue for so many churches across the country.”
—-
There is always 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, but I suppose you can always pray and feel ‘moved by the Spirit’ to do something different.
This has the louisville sluggers finger prints written all over it, just like with MDPC and others, the presbytery keeps changing the goal post during the game, and for two reasons only, either to get the property or to extract more money from FPC, they DO NOT care a rip about the congregation, its ALL about the property/money that the presbytery NEVER paid one dime for.
God Bless First Pres. as they move forward.
it is a nuetral principles state
In 2007, the church, then known as Peters Creek United Presbyterian Church, voted to leave Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) for the more conservative Evangelical Presbyterians. In May 2014, the Commonwealth Court ruled the title to the property belongs to the minority, not the breakaway group.
The congregation has given the Washington Presbytery a 30-day advance notice required to leave the property. Its last Sunday service will be April 26. It will also mark the end of 220 years of continuous worship at the location.
Rev. Doug Brandt, the church’s senior minister and designated spokesman, would not comment on the vote. He would not disclose whether the church was looking for a permanent home, but said more announcements would be forthcoming.
Besides ruling in favor of the minority, Common Pleas Judge Gary Gilman ruled the Evangelical group – effective Oct. 29, 2014, had to pay $3,000 a month, or any portion of any month to Peters Creek United Presbyterian Church for occupancy. The minority has rented property at 800 Venetia Road, Venetia.
Rev. Kris McInnes of St. David’s said they are in the process of finishing up negotiations with Peters Creek United Evangelical. He said both churches will operate in different locations in the building and there will be very little overlap with the exception of adult education classes.
“We are in the process of putting together a temporary agreement,” said McInnes, adding that St. David’s could serve as a temporary base for the church for anywhere from eight to 12 months
Loren Golden is undoubtedly correct. I am personally familiar with an old PCUS case (from the 1970s) where a judge awarded the historic church building and most of the liquid assets to a loyal PCUS minority group while giving the manse and some of the liquid assets to the PCA majority. This was in a neutral principles state, and the PCUS minority represented only about 35% of the membership. I am not at all sanguine about the chances of the 60% ECO majority retaining all or even most of the assets of this church if the secular courts rule on this. 43% is a very large minority. It may be wise for the biblically faithful group to consider making a new beginning.