Just months after a vote to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) failed, the session of First Presbyterian Church (FPC) in Houston, Texas has filed a civil lawsuit seeking clear title of its property.
The session initiated a court action on May 29, seeking to clear the title of the church property from claims by the denomination that it holds a trust interest in FPC’s property.
During the time that FPC-Houston worked with New Covenant Presbytery and its “Reconciliation and Dismissal Procedure” to leave the PCUSA, the presbytery “made it clear that it believes that FPC owns its property for the benefit of the PCUSA. The FPC session believes it is necessary to resolve this issue once and for all – does PCUSA have any interest in FPC’s property?” according to a May 29 letter from the session to the congregation. “Clearing up property rights will honor the legacy of our past and provide stability for our future.”
The clerks of session – Jane Costello, Lesley Lilly and David McCarty – wrote that “It’s important to stress what this lawsuit is not. FPC is not seeking to leave the PCUSA through the filing of this legal action. Nor is this lawsuit seeking another vote on whether FPC should leave the PCUSA. All this action seeks is a determination from the court of whether FPC completely controls the use of its property.”
During a congregational meeting held Feb. 23, a vote to leave the PCUSA to join ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians fell 36 votes short of attaining the required two-thirds majority.
Out of approximately 3,100 members, 1,681 attended the meeting, with 1,085 of them voting in favor of leaving the PCUSA. The congregation needed at least 1,121 votes in favor of the motion for it to pass.
The policy required a quorum of 30 percent of the active membership attend and cast votes at the congregational meeting, with at least two-thirds of those present voting in favor of requesting dismissal to another Reformed body for the proposal to pass.
Had that two-thirds majority voted in favor of requesting dismissal, the presbytery would agree to it, allowing the congregation to depart with its property and name intact.
In an earlier Layman article, Senior Pastor Jim Birchfield said that the church had made a covenant with the presbytery that if the vote to be dismissed did not pass, the congregation would move into a time of intentional reconciliation between the bodies.
“We will do what we are called to do. We need to be a people of our word and move forward with the presbytery to begin a process of seeking healing with the denomination and members of our church,” Birchfield said. “It’s time for healing and reconciliation.”
The letter cites a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling which “is very favorable to local churches such as FPC and presents an historic opportunity to end a longstanding disagreement over the right of FPC to control its property.”
The court ruled that “no trust existed merely on the basis of a trust clause in the denomination’s constitution and, if any trust were found to exist, it would have to be as a result of compliance with Texas trust, property, and corporation law.
“Because FPC never agreed to place all of its property in trust for the denomination, we believe that we should be successful in this action,” the letter continued.
Related articles:
15 Comments. Leave new
I suppose there is a way to get what you want. We all learned how to do this when we were children. Only thing not everything we wanted was really good for us, or a good thing. Then again, only time will tell.
Blake, it appears you view First Houston’s action as an immature temper tantrum. I see a group of faithful Presbyterians taking necessary steps to disassociate from a denomination that has lost its way. The disparity between your view and mine is a good representation of what has become an unbridgeable gulf between conservative and liberal Presbyterians. There will be more stories like this one.
“Presbyterians taking necessary steps to disassociate from a denomination”
Except that what First agreed to concerning “disassociating from a denomination” involved taking a vote that ‘disassociation’ lost. The vote fell short. Sorry. It is unethical to agree to a discernment process, then decide that “God’s word” supersedes it when you don’t get what you want. If an agreement has a very possible outcome God opposes, then don’t sign it in the first place. The individual Christians in First Presbyterian are free to leave if that is what God calls them to do. FPC made an agreement concerning property. Ethics requires them to follow that agreement. If that costs FPC money, so be it. Does FPC consider money and property more important than ethics and integrity?
Scott, I’m actually in partial agreement with you. They thought they had the votes, and decided to proceed by presbytery rules. Having learned that they miscalculated, they’re now doing what they should have done in the first place — renouncing PCUSA authority and asserting ownership of their property. So, perhaps their series of decisions has been less than ethical. So have been many actions taken by many PCUSA presbyteries in trust clause disputes. It’s ugly, and will stay ugly for the foreseeable future.
Don, are you saying that since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (including the Presbyteries), that absolves the church of any responsibility to act ethically? I’m not going to accept “We’re obeying God, we don’t need ethics” from FPC. They’re all free to leave tomorrow as individuals. I don’t buy that the man who flipped over the money changers’ stalls in the temple would be OK with a church cutting ethical corners to protect their property.
No, Scott, I’m not saying that, and I respectfully choose to end our dialogue at this point.
Your call. I do think its a fair question – what does a Presbytery have to do to keep a church in the denomination that is so far over the line that behavior justifies a church being “less than ethical” (your words) in its response. Remember, that same church will then turn around and claim to provide moral and ethical leadership. If a given church will lie to the denomination to keep its property, why would someone expect it to never lie to the congregation to keep them paying for that same property?
If a church takes out a loan, and then finds out that the bank, and all its officers, are giving to Planned Parenthood, does the church have better things to do with their $$ than to repay that loan so the bank can use it to do wrong, or does the church have a moral obligation to pay what it agreed to despite the church’s moral disagreement w/ how that bank spends its money?
What is more important to God, a church’s reputation for honesty, or their property?
Scott,
I think you missed something in this article. FPC states their intent to seek the courts decision about who
has clear title to their property is not about leaving. rather, I see this as move to take a position of ownership of what happens ON that property. That is a place of integrity…..moral and spiritual integrity. if the courts indicate they have title then the leadership is in a better position to lead according to scripture and conscience. integrity is a matter of obeying God and conscience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. EveryChurch that is in the Fellowship should take note of this decision because at some point the edicts coming out of the General Assembly may require them to act against their conscience and against (their) reading of Scripture. May be that is why having title is important,
so they can act and lead with authority, with a clear conscience, with integrity before God on their own property.
I agree with Blake. They lost the vote, so they are holding their breath and stamping their feet to try to get what they want at the congregation’s expense.At this point, the proceeding is as much about job security as it is property.
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? . . . if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother takes another to court — and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
1 Corinthians 6:1, 4-7 (NIV)
FYI – last Friday FPC Houston received a summary judgement that PCUSA did not have control over their property by a trust arrangement. Most probably PCUSA will appeal, but its great news for FPC Houston and possibly other PCUSA church’s in Texas
The Presbytery will definitely appeal as they should to protect the 175 year institution from the current ultra-right leadership.
It seems to me that the session is now doing what it should have done first, which is to clarify that the congregation does own its own property.
Scott:
Real estate ownership is governed by civil authority. For that reason, it is necessary to resort to the civil courts to resolve issues, the guidance of Paul notwithstanding.
The civil courts do not adjudicate ecclesiastical matters.
Scott:
My understanding is that the First Presbyterian Church of Houston never entered into any kind of trust agreement about who owns its property.