FPC-San Antonio approves $1.5 million settlement with Mission Presbytery, joining the million dollar club

I am saddened by this. While it may have been the quick and easy way for this large and wealthy congregation to protect themselves, the small and poor congregations in Texas remain subject to extortion by presbyteries. Texas presbyteries like to settle because they know they would lose in court and, thus, their money-making process would end. What is needed is for one congregation to see their case all the way the Texas courts. Highland Park didn’t do it. Grace in Houston wouldn’t do it. Now First in San Antonio settled. Who is going to take a stand for the churches who can’t protect themselves?

I agree. Press them to the end. Don’t settle. It is extortion.

I believe many of these churches saw paying the extortion cheaper than paying lawyers to fight a possibly losing cause. It’s all about money to the PCUSA, plain and simple.

If not extortion, then “Graceful Dismissal” comes at a very high cost. Perhaps there are different degrees of gracefulness.

I think we should all demand an accounting of this money. The folks banking this money should be held accountable for every single penny. In fact, rather than retain it in the coffers, it might make sense to disburse the money to cover some of the initiatives the leadership supports but seemingly would rather have the taxpayers foot the bill.

There has been a bit of a problem handling other-people’s-money so it would seem a specific accounting of these funds would be appropriate.

I agree with you, Leigh. I imagine it’s difficult as an elder to balance the care of your immediate flock with your responsibilities to help smaller churches on these larger matters. I can see how fighting this for two more years in the courts could harm a congregation, but is FPC sacrificing the smaller congregations that you mention in order to take care of their own? Possibly.

What might be interesting is to look at these “Bride Prices” on a member basis. Divide the payment by number of members. Some smaller congregations may be paying more per person.

Well, Leigh, First Pres Houston should come to a conclusion sometime this year. The courts ruled that they owned their property, but the New Covenant Presbytery appealed the decision. I think it is likely that the appeal will be defeated and there will then be precedent from the State that the local Church and not the presbytery does indeed own the property. This should make leaving with property easier for some of the smaller churches.

The test case in Texas will be First Presbyterian Church of Houston. The trial judge there held the Trust Clause invalid under Texas law. The presbytery did not appeal the ruling on the Trust Clause, but on another theory (a 1925 clause in the PCUS Book of Church Order). In San Antonio, the presbytery did not argue the trust clause, but another theory–that a “charitable constructive trust” should be created on FPC’s property for the benefit of the PCUSA. That’s the challenge. The facts are different in every church. A different theory is raised in each legal dispute, so it’s hard to have a precedent that applies in each case. That said, hopefully the Court of Appeals in Houston will rule on the validity of the Trust Clause under Texas law. And in Texas, the legal precedent was by the Texas Supreme Court in the Masterson decision in 2013.

There are other legitimate considerations: the costs–in terms of time, energy, disruption, distraction, and legal fees–from the true mission of the church. How many members leave because of the controversy? How many withhold financial contributions? How many decide not to join? The public hears about Christian infighting and decides to go elsewhere.

To my knowledge, this is the first time there has been a settlement a departing church and the presbytery in which there has been a gift to a mission of the church–reconstruction of a camp building destroyed in a flood. It will hopefully set the right tone for continued joint efforts even after the church’s departure from the denomination. Projects such as Presbyterian Disaster Relief and other ministries can continue to receive support from all sides.

You’re right about the difficulty of getting a one-size-fits-all precedent. However, I believe the “charitable constructive trust” theory would have been laughed out of Texas courts. Court fights are never fun, but they are sometimes necessary. The amount of the settlement going to the camp is negligible. Mission Presbytery just got a $1M windfall from a church that existed long before the denomination. Here’s hoping First Pres Houston’s persistence pays off.

Caution should be exercised before reaching any conclusion about whether any settlement is a good one or a bad one, regardless of whether the settlement is for a thousand dollars or a million dollars.

Key questions that have to be answered before reaching any useful conclusions include: What is the law like in the state where the property is located? What are the facts of the case? What is the total value of the assets at potential risk ( and therefore does the dollar amount paid represent 5% or 15%)?

In California, the law holds the denominational trust clause valid and enforceable even if regular California trust law is ignored. Menlo Park thus had little negotiating leverage. In Texas, the law holds that the denominational trust clause is NOT valid or enforceable if regular Texas trust law is ignored. Texas churches thus may have a lot of negotiating leverage, depending on their specific facts.

In the case of FPC San Antonio, one can’t judge whether it was a good settlement or not by just the total dollar amount to be paid. One would have to know the total value of all of FPC San Antonio’s assets in order to know whether the settlement represented 4% of total value,8% of total value or some other percentage.

As for establishing a precedent that could benefit other, smaller Texas churches, this has already happened in the Masterson case, when the Texas Supreme Court held that The Episcopal Church’s virtually-identical trust clause does not establish an enforceable trust and that regular Texas trust law must be complied with in order to actually establish a valid trust. A further useful precedent was also already established in the Windwood case, when the Texas appellate court held that Masterson decision applied to Presbyterian churches. These cases don’t guarantee victory for every other Texas church — because under neutral principles of law outcomes are not foreordained but instead may vary depending on facts specific to that case. But they do already establish as strong a precedent as any Texas church could possibly hope for — so long as that church has decent facts that allow it to apply the holdings of Masterson and Windwood .

Perhaps Legal Extortion. If it walks like a duck……Looks a bit like desperation, too. I like the idea of analyzing the Price by the number of members. That doesn’t necessarily account for the location of the asset but it would be a relative number. Again, what is price of Graceful Dismissal? Better yet, what is the definition?

There is also a benefit to putting the case behind FPC San Antonio. It would be very hard to put a dollar value on that, but the momentum the church has achieved since the disaffiliation vote is remarkable: Balanced budget, large class of new members just joining the church and increases in both the number of pledges and the amount pledged from members who have been regular givers. Clearly this church is moving forward.

Some court fights are necessary. This was FPC San Antonio’s fight and it was FPC San Antonio’s decision whether or not to settle. The settlement was approved unanimously by FPC’s session, trustees and congregation.

FPC San Antonio filed an amicus brief in support of FPC Houston’s position. You have missed the deadline to do that, but you can still send a check to FPC Houston to help with their legal fees. A million dollars would help. The legal fees for that presbytery are over a million dollars. As you march forward, keep in mind that you are betting all of the church property and the future of that church. That’s a decision that only the players can make.

BUT…..Mission Presbytery is virtually bankrupt and the real question was, would the Presbytery mount a legal challenge to FPC and risk paying what little funds the Mission Presbytery had on the chance that they might be victorious in court? They likely would have gone away after an anemic challenge; however, now they have received a significant sum of cash that they can use to intimidate other Presbyterian churches seeking such “gracious separation” (not).

Exactly, Lee. Exactly.

I’m happy for FPCSA. Unfortunately, though, they have now provided Mission Presbytery with over a million dollars that can now be used to fund fights against smaller churches who are trying to leave.

I apologize–that was much too strong. I believe it was in FPC San Antonio’s best interest to conclude the dispute and recommended the settlement. The congregation approved it unanimously. We are a connectional church, however, and many people at FPC San Antonio are concerned with how the settlement will affect other churches. The fact is we can’t control what presbytery does with the money. We hope that with a more gracious separation that the tenor will change. But either way, this is not the end of the larger picture; it is just one chapter. We have made a number of new friends and contacts in this process. We look forward to seeing where God takes us through those relationships.

The settlements from churches will only prolong the danse macabre of the PCUSA. We are witnessing the slow-motion implosion of that denomination. Exit paths are demonstrated by churches that have left: I am hopeful that First Houston’s decision will come quickly and open the floodgates to other Texas churches that are anxious to be done with a denomination more interested in pleasing our culture than in pleasing our God.

Why do the faithful negotiate with satan? (No, he doesn’t deserve to be capitalized). The P.C.U.S.A. has clearly declared willful separation from the true Congregation of Christ. Let it have the hollow, worldly property it so desires more than the Kingdom of God. Let them wallow in wealth, presuming victory, until the Lord returns and makes all the money and material dust. Most High God owns it all. It’s not ours, or theirs, worth the distress and ugly display before a world that needs to see Christians eschewing worldly stuff in preference for divine reality and economy.

1.5 million dollars goes a long way in keeping a bully in the bully business.

This is still stealing/blackmail by any other name.

Yes it is. No argument over that.

I think you might be wrong here. An attorney who wanted to keep himself in new houses and new boats would have wanted to avoid resolution. Now that this case is resolved there will be no more legal fees. For the record, I am not an attorney.

While the facts of this case have not been made public, in view of the Masterson case that made neutral principles of law the rule in Texas:

“We conclude that greater predictability in this area of the law will result if Texas courts apply only one methodology. We also conclude that the neutral principles methodology should be applied because it better conforms to Texas courts’ constitutional duty to decide disputes within their jurisdiction while still respecting limitations the First Amendment places on that jurisdiction. Under the neutral principles methodology, courts decide non-ecclesiastical issues such as property ownership based on the same neutral principles of law applicable to other entities, Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 603–04 (1979), while deferring to religious entities’ decisions on ecclesiastical and church polity questions. See Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 708 (1976).” – See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme-court/1643315.html#sthash.SrihAwCd.dpuf

one is surprised that San Antonio should have to pay a single dollar.

It appears that this is a settlement in which no one loses. San Antonio gets its freedom and ownership of its property while the prebytery gets some money to save face and the the trust clause has not yet been declared unlawful.

That decision will have to await another case to come to bar.

On reflection, I am feeling more and more convinced that the leaders at FPC have thrown the smaller congregations in Texas trying to get out of the devil led PCUSA “under the bus.” These leaders should be held accountable to running away like traitors; repent and back out of this decision in order to let this go to court.

Agreed. At the very least, they should have made Mission Presbytery agree in the Settlement Agreement that the money would be spent on specific programs instead of leaving it up to the Presbytery. With Texas law in their favor and the Presbytery without funds for a court fight, FPCSA held nearly all the cards. But they inexplicably folded.

Mission Presbytery’s latest: “COM recommends that Presbytery approve the removal of the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO) from the list of Reformed denominations to which this presbytery will dismiss congregations and teaching elders, until such time as they can demonstrate that they will act in good faith and require congregations and ministers to have followed constitutional processes for dismissal, with the following exceptions: First, San Antonio, since their dismissal to ECO is part of the mediated agreement between the church and the presbytery; and Leon Springs, San Antonio and First, Ingram, both of which have followed the Gracious Separation Process and are currently in its final stages.”

You are absolutely correct that extended litigation damages the congregation but also the reputations of all churches. We have seen that graphically at First Pres in Houston where litigation has been going on for nearly 2 years now.

The reputation of the church in the community has been damaged. Long time congregants continue to leave and giving is down. Who wants to donate to a church spending general funds on lawyers? Jesus wept.

Actually, it was clear from the appellate hearing that the lower court summary judgement will be resversed in whole or in part. It is never a good sign when 2 of the 3 appellate judges laugh at parts of your decision!

You are correct in terms of costs at FPC Houston. In addition to at least $1.4 million that could have gone to ministry, there are the incalculable costs of losing long time members and irreparable damage to the church seen as Christians fighting among themselves.