FPC-San Antonio schedules disaffiliation vote; Anonymous group urges church to vote ‘No’

What is going on at FPCSA – read more here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2WbCkxsI8j9eHRQZ3JtQWdFMlU/view?pli=1

I am one of the Friends of PC(USA) in FPC-SA (the Friends). We are not anonymous. As one of the Friends, I met Parker Williamson in one of the halls of Bexar County Courthouse on August 27, where he had made himself available as witness for the session of FPC-SA in its lawsuit against Mission Presbytery. I introduced myself to him, we shook hands and greeted each other briefly and pleasantly.

I find it interesting the The Layman suggests this “anonymous group” is somehow sinister when it is an anonymous group “of 23 families and one non-member” that is paying for the controversial litigation by First Pres Houston against its own presbytery which The Layman seems to applaud!

The worse thing mission presbytery could do is get involved with this vote when they point blank told the Judge they would not, it sounds like it may be time for an emergency hearing and restrainig order

Further news regarding FPC Houston. They have collected about $1.1 million from their anonymous donors, falling $400K short of the $1.5 mil they’ve spent. The difference will come from a ‘loan’ from the church’s general funds. Which will be repaid by these donors, honestly, despite the fact that nobody is still supposed to know who these donors are. They will pay you back, and it is none of your business who ‘they’ are.

At this point it is a reasonable question to ask if the session, if members are part of the donor group, are loaning themselves church funds.

If Scates believes God is calling people to leave the PCUSA, he should have done the ethical thing and left himself instead of taking interim jobs there. He didn’t have a congregation he’d be leaving behind. Totally unethical.

Sorry, that should have been $525K+ above that they’re short from their anonymous donors, not $400K.

Unfortunately, PCUSA has strayed from the reformed faith doctrine. There is no theological grounds for the actions of the 2014 General Assembly. One cannot hold the Gospel to be the true and authoritative word of God and defend the 2014 decisions. PCUSA was over 4.5 million strong after the reconciliation. It is 1.6 million weak now and headed for less than a million. Our church has been successfully hijacked by politicians who care little for the Word of God.

I have only been to Texas twice in my life, once on business and once to Arlington to see Nolan Ryan on the mound against Jose Canseco and the Oakland A’s (it was a disappointing no decision, I’m afraid). But one thing I know about Texans is that you people like to fight, and when you fight you do it tooth and claw.
The current brew-ha-ha in San Antonio is a battle for control of the First Presbyterian Church. It pits the congregation of the church and its teaching and ruling elders on one side, and the presbytery and its PCUSA allies on the other. I definitely hope that the congregation and its leaders will prevail in this contest, and I will be disappointed if they do not.
However, of one thing I am absolutely certain. When this battle is over and the dust has finally settled, there will be a strong, Bible-based and Gospel-centered Presbyterian church in downtown San Antonio. It will be composed of FPC members who at long last have freed themselves from the shackles of an apostate and disintegrating denomination. Whether these saints will be in their current buildings or in other buildings will be inconsequential. God will be with them, and a great and exciting future will spread itself out before them.
So go on, you Texans, have it out.
We outsiders will be looking on with great interest.

Who is in charge here? God is in charge and the out come will be
according to His plan whatever way it goes.
The vote should tell more about the kind of division in the membership.
Divisions in the Churches at the local level are real. The picture is playing out in many other churches across the USA. Jesus words that a house divided against itself cannot stand. You do not need a survey to know this.
Ten years from now we will look back and say God was moving in His church in this time for His greater purpose.
Thanks to the Layman for keeping the light shining and allowing the actions of all parties to be exposed.
To the Presbytery leaders: do not let “hardened hearts” stand in the way of God’s plans
To the Session at FPC San Antonio…….God be with you!

Excellent point, Scott. I suspect some current members of Session are among the few to whom the so-called “loan” is being made.

For decades, the majority within the PCUSA voted Biblical standards for ordination and marriage. Those who disagreed {if they didn’t like it, should they have been told to leave and form a denomination based on different standards?} continued to work their issues. They lobbied and organized and used the system to work the issue to their favor. That’s great! Yay! So why is it wrong for someone too use all means available to work the issue in their favor?

Scott and Counselor what do you care how much FPC Houston spends on court cost to defend their own property rights?

But, Robert Browning–nowhere on the blog page or the Facebook page does it list who these anonymous “friends” are! Maybe you have identified yourself, but are you the Facebook page administrator? The creator of the blog? Unless you identify yourselves as leadership, you are, by definition, anonymous authors. And it does look rather sinister when a Facebook page originally sent from Mission Presbytery attempts to erase it’s origins, yet continue to plan to disrupt the process at First Presbyterian Church.

Scott is a former member of FPCHouston (not a current member), and is in fact a professed Agnostic; but spends a lot of time on this website and the Save First Pres facebook page. I think you can derive what his true intentions are from that.

its actually pretty easy. FPC Houston filed suit, not the donors. The donors have committed to fund the attorney costs. As of now they are $400k short, but have committed (just like any capital campaign for any organization) to pay for the entirety of the costs. The church is not loaning them anything.

Your words are encouraging. As a member of FPC San Antonio who wants to leave the PCUSA I am in a win/win situation. Either the congregation votes to leave the PCUSA or God has an unexpected, unplanned adventure in store for me (and most of the current leaders/volunteers at my church) as we plant a new church in San Antonio. I’m good with either because I trust in the Lord.

I am thankful for Ron Scates and his leadership. This battle isn’t one FPC San Antonio sought out, it was brought to us from the PCUSA.

Mission Presbytery realized just how badly the invitation to disrupt the process was going to play on the day of the vote and they have tried to cancel the plans. The facebook page where the inviation was broadcast was linked to the Express-News article. I suspect that the wheels were already in motion and that distractors will arrive at the church on Sunday in an effort to disrupt the vote. The “hastily made” plans Mission Presbytery and their cohorts/”friends” made will turn against them. I don’t think that’s the first time God’s worked that way.

Martha and David – your comments here show your true colors. You are painting our partners at the Presbytery as enemies and then you wonder why those of us who view them as friends in the gospel are trying to organize and communicate. The session has locked out any one with opposing views to access the official FPCSA communication methods – what do you expect? There are many people want to remain PCUSA at FPCSA, we want and expect to be supported by our partners in the gospel at the Presbytery. Why are you acting like this is “sinister” – what is sinister is being locked out of communicating issues in regard to this ill-conceived disaffiliation path – just ask David Peeples…

Mark – why the ad hominem attack on Scott? Focus on the substance and the issues at play, ad hominem attacks are not supportive of good dialogue.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. Hey Rob: Where’s the list of people behind “Friends”? At least when I receive communications from the Church I know who’s behind it. I don’t read anonymous letters.

You fail to recognize all the dynamics involved. When we devote a lifetime of work, money and faithful work on behalf of the Presbyterian Church–as did our ancestors and friends–it’s painful and alarming to idly stand by and watch this slow motion train wreck, led by a small but vocal group of ‘progressive apostates.’

Mission Presbytery has allegedly sent letters to ordained staff and all session members explaining that the upcoming vote on Sunday is in violation of the book of order. There are implied threats in the letter. I guess they’re going to take legal action against them all. Funny, but this doesn’t feel like love.

FPCSA-PCUSA Friends – Scott has been on this website many times blasting FPC even though he has nothing to do with the church. The question was asked why he cares about the FPC lawsuit and how its being paid. I was providing the answer.

Hey Mark. I’m not “blasting” FPC. I’m merely reporting on their activities. I’m not making you look bad, your church’s “leadership” is. What I want to know is if unknown people are borrowing $500K from the church, what justification do you have for keeping them anonymous? Are session members among the people who have made the undocumented promise to repay? Were that the case, wouldn’t they be loaning themselves church money.

Did I make up the $500K loan to make you look bad, or is it a fact that makes you look bad?

Are church funds making up the difference, or not?

Mark, is there a “temporary” loan from general church funds, or not?

Mark, for the record, I walked into FPC a man who had been going to church since he was 13. I walked out agnostic due to the nonstop lying. That decision is only shown to be more justified by the fact that I can tell you that and your first, and only, response is “but our property, our sweet, sweet property!!”.

There are no “dynamics”. Scates claims God is calling people to leave, yet stuck around himself. I suspect had he been more honest, he wouldn’t have been approved for an interim position.

How is a Facebook page disruptive of anything?

Mark, does your God offer you and others something so huge and wonderful that the property you’re fighting over is meaningless and insignificant? You can claim liberal Christians are doing the same as you are. Sure. As you point out, I’m not a liberal Christian.

Brian P, sometimes love is tough, all parents undertand that. If the FPCSA session would stop acting like children, then maybe the tough love would not be needed.

Then maybe we should all start paying attention to our Father. That might be a good first step.

You are exactly right. Mission Presbyteries love of the property will destroy the church. If they were concerned about the health of the congregation they wouldn’t be attempting to block the vote.

It’s interesting that you admit you walked out of the church an agnostic yet retain the keen ability to know everyone’s mind in the church (I can tell you that and your first, and only, response is “but our property, our sweet, sweet property!!”). Either you have an uncharted gift of telepathy or you’re incredibly judgmental. It would seem that those accusing Christians of being judgmental might just be hypocrites themselves. Maybe we all are.

I’m curious Scott–since you admitted to walking out of the church an agnostic, why are you following this page. My hope/prayer is that while the church somehow let you down that you still know that God is seeking your heart. The church is a flawed institution since it’s made up of people like me, but Jesus is your Savior too. He loves you and has given his life for you. Please forgive the church it’s flaws. Look past buildings, bricks and people and to the Cross.

David, When you lock people out of a process and demonize them that is what tends to happen, they become gun shy. YOU say you don’t read anonomous comms – yet anyone can post whatever they want under any name they want on the layman? Why are you on here reading and commenting?

Matt – I agree, I think I am – but you probably do also. I sense we would not agree on what that means. That is why we need time to talk this out and stop this rush to decision – and we need real and open involvement from everyone on all sides of this decision, not the one sided communications we have been getting. I think our Father would agree with that.

The only rush needs to be one away from worldly issues. I can’t tell you what He wants in this situation…or in any situation. But I can tell you for sure that what He wants for me and for you is to not be swayed by all of the issues in this, or any other denomination. That’s what I believe. I have my own strong opinions on these issues. And those opinions get in the way of what I believe our Father wants. But that’s just me.

First Presbyterian in San Antonio has talked about little else but these issues for the past three years. We have had numerous town hall meetings, we have brought in speakers from the PCUSA, The Fellowship, EPC and ECO. The session spent a long year studying options. The Church Relations Committee has scheduled discussions and surveys. We’ve defoliated Brazil with letters and informational packets. Countless emails have been sent. The time has come to vote. While I appreciate your concern that this hasn’t been discussed fully it is time to vote.

At first I sort of thought you’d gone a little crazy Scott when you started going on about the lawsuit and secret supporters and loans from the church, then I realized you got Houston and San Antonio confused. Lands! You must spend a lot of time stalking the Layman online. It’s not too late to plant a winter garden. Maybe you could take up something like bird watching or crochet. You should get out more often and enjoy life. Spending all your time stalking the Layman could turn you into a bitter person.

If you walk into the Sanctuary of First Presbyterian Church San Antonio and you look to the right at the large stained glass in the middle, it says, “Go ye therefore, and make believers of nations”. That is our command. It is very simple…to me it is. But instead, we talk about politically charged topics and stick a cross on the letterhead. You don’t make believers of men by ticking them off before you witness to them.

Why am I on here reading comments and posting? There are some comments on here that are logical and encouraging. Granted, there are others that use twisted logic, incomplete truths and flat-out lies. I usually regret when I reply to the latter catagory.

The Session is characterizing it as a “loan with interest,” but since it is both unsecured and undocumented, the truth is that general funds of the church are now being used to finance this controversial litigation.

Sorry Martha, everyone needs a hobby. Mine is holding FPC accountable. I’ll post (elsewhere if necessary) and if that also means forwarding church documents (you’d be amazed at what turns up in various court proceedings) to members of the local media, so be it. Look at this very thread, with Mark saying there is no loan to pay for the lawsuit and Counselor quoting the session as saying it is a “loan with interest”. Does that sound like FPC is being straight with people?

Yes, I know, holding church leadership accountable is being “judgmental”, condemning gays and lesbians is “fighting sin”.

“Look past buildings, bricks and people and to the Cross.”

Is FPC looking past their buildings and bricks? Nope.

Brian P – respectfully I disagree. As you know, this is not something congregations should just be voting on based on internal decisions. There is a process to be followed and we are a member congregation of the Presbytery. Would the session approve if a group at the church asked to hold a congregation vote to hire a new pastor? or to fire a current one? Why not follow the process?

I think you’ve got First Presbyterian in San Antonio and First Presbyterian in Houston confused with the loan comments Scott. The leadership of the First San Antonio has been very forthcoming in how they’re funding the lawsuit. If the best thing you have to do with your time is to hold the denomination accountable then the least you could do is keep the stories straight and factually accurate.

I’ll assume you’re referring to the process of “gracious separation”. Any vote that makes a “no” vote worth 4X what a yes vote counts (80% vote require to leave denomination) is flawed and unfair. Couple that with examples of Presbyteries refusing to let congregations leave even AFTER they’ve met supermajority requirements and you’ll understand why First San Antonio felt they had no other option. Mission Presbytery proved (during the IPNC search about this time last year) that they are inept and not to be trusted. I’m confused though; why are so many so frightned of a vote that is fair and gives each member of the congregation the same voice?

I’ve been talking about FPC Houston the whole time. That’s been clear from Mark’s responses.

Thank you for the clarification Scott. It’s confusing because you’re making comments about First Houston on an article about First San Antonio.

There will only be one of two possible outcomes from this vote and the actions of Mission Presbytery to try thwart the will of the majority of the congregation at FPCSA. Either the vote will result in FPCSA becoming a “former” member of PCUSA or the church will financially disintegrate. PCUSA has adopted changes which ask many in the congregation of FPCSA to basically violate their core beliefs as Christians. In that they cannot abide. So, if PCUSA does manage to hold onto this church, the people who financially support the church will walk out and form a new church. The PCUSA and the group of “friends” (not) may prevail, but it will prove to be a Pyrrhic Victory, as the church will ultimately be forced to shutter its doors due to the dwindling congregation and finances. Yet, changing over to an ECO church will change very little within FPCSA; the “friends” if they remain members after the vote, will notice very little, if any, changes. The church will grow and prosper and resume its role in reaching out to young people and making Jesus visible in San Antonio. Why the “no” crowd can’t see this is mystifying.

How do you reach out to young people when you are, at the same time, condemning their gay friends? I’ve never understood this argument when the vast majority of millennials favor same sex marriage.

The current drive to vote is what is being driven by fear. Fear that somehow being a part of the PCUSA means we are all besmirched and that no one in their right mind wants to be a part of the PCUSA. Fear that even though God has placed us where we are, that if we follow the orderly process to be dismissed that God is not in control and that God’s will certainly will be subverted by the actions of the Presbytery. I would ask in return, what do you fear in following the process of the organization that God and our predecessors has placed us in? If God wants a PCUSA congregation to continue in community at FPCSA, why do you fear that?

Actually, this is a reply to Brian. You believe that voting with a 10% quorum and a simple majority vote is fair and not “flawed and unfair,”itself? Under these manufactured rules, a mere 5% of the congregation of 2100 could make this decision.

Actually, Scott is in no way confused, although it would be easy. Same litigation. Same lawyers. Except FPC Houston was told that the litigation had “nothing to do with leaving the denomination and was strictly about the property” –move along, nothing to see. FPCSA’s actions since the judge denied the TRO have clearly demonstrated that litigation against a presbytery in Texas is totally about leaving the denomination WITH the property.

Good luck to you, FPCSA-PCUSA Friends! The leadership at FPC Houston attempted to maintain exclusive control of communication throughout the discernment process. We understand your frustration and applaud your efforts to present alternative views. If they are so confident they are right, why are they rushing a vote in two weeks and being so totalitarian about the presentation of opposing viewpoints?

1.02 The Organizing of a Congregation
A congregation can be organized only by the authority of a presbytery and shall function under the provisions of this
Constitution.

Why the “no” voters continue to try to make this an issue about human sexuality baffles me. The informational packet from the Church clearly states the reasons the session made a recommendation to leave the denomination. I urge people to read that packet (on the church website) rather than take Counselors word. 1 Timothy 6:4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions.

“Reach out to young people” with what?
 
The only thing that the Church has to offer the world is salvation through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the Cross wrought on its behalf. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ died to save men, women, and children from the penalty, power, and (at His return) presence of sin, and that the only requirement for receiving this gift is to put one’s faith in Him and His atoning work. The Bible also teaches that homosexuality is a sin (one of many) from which we human beings must be saved. If we believe the Bible’s testimony on the centrality of the Person and Work of Christ, ought we not believe the Bible’s testimony on what God regards as sin?

If anyone thinks that this decision will be made by only 10% of the congregation they are not right in the head. It’s going to be a full house on Sunday. What I do think is unfair is when a super-majority of 80% is required. Counselor, imagine if you will: A political party captures our government in Washington, then passes a law that the only way they can be unseated would be if the vote to oust them exceeded 80%. Would any of us accept that? That is exactly what Presbytery brought on themselves in this instance. This is a revolt against an oppressive dictatorship (among other things).

Actually, it is pretty simple, David. ECO was formed in reaction to a General Assembly decision regarding human sexuality. It is called “cause and effect,”notwithstanding your alleged bafflement. As long as we are quoting Scripture though, look at 1 Corinthians 6:1 “When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers!”

Actually, we require supermajorities all the time. For example, you need 2/3s of the states to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. While 80% may be high, there is nothing unusual about requiring a supermajority on decisions of magnitude.

Can you keep a congregation of members in the PCUSA by using “legal” means? I don’t think so.
The Presbytery should consider gracious separation of the majority with their property.

I was at the ECO gathering in Atlanta 2 or 3 years ago. The only time the human sexuality question came up was during a Q&A. An attendee threw a fat pitch to Jim Singleton baiting him to discuss that issue. Jim responded something along the lines like “that is not why ECO formed, I will not be drawn into that conversation”. I’ve known Jim for close to 30 years. I’ve seen the fruits of his labors. He’s earned my trust. I believe him.

It’s like what happened to the Valley churches. One of them that Mission Presbytery fought tooth and nail to keep ended up closing. They would’t even graciously find a way to give the building back to the EPC church (which is flourishing and full of young people). That will happen to FPC if Mission Presbytery gets its way. If they love them so much, they need to let them go.

Well, we are using our names. My whole point was that you (FPCSA-PCUSA Friends) are determined to remain anonymous. On the Facebook page, on the blog, and in these comments. That’s not a way to engender trust. I’m not sure how my distrust of anonymous posters shows about my “true colors,” or what you even mean by that. My point was that Robert Browning was admirable in speaking for himself, but that the Layman article was correct when it said that the “Friends” are anonymous. Nothing more.

It was the plan to congregate outside the church and interrupt the vote that was considered disruptive, I believe.

L. Lee – that directive is from The ECO constitution , not the PCUSA (just left out “in ECO”). So if FPCSA goes to ECO, they will be under exactly the same mandate as they are now in the PCUSA. Wonder if they will abide by it then?
http://eco-pres.org/static/media/uploads/resources/eco_polity_and_discipline_020113.pdf

Scott argues that Ron Scates should have left the denomination because of his beliefs rather than stay and take interim positions. To stay, he says, is unethical. I’m rather surprised that he would take such a position. By extension, if a congregation (by overwhelming margins) has beliefs in serious conflict with the prevailing thinking of the PCUSA, then it would stand to reason that for ethical reasons it ought to quietly leave the denomination. In the same way that presbyteries can dismiss or transfer ministers, they can also dismiss or transfer churches. So why would Scott and others want to hang on for dear life to a church like FPCSA, but trip over each other to show Rev. Scates the exit door? The only thing I can think of is that they value the bricks, mortar, numbers and prestige of retaining big (and small) congregations, which will maintain the illusion that the PCUSA is alive and well, and by contrast they don’t value the voices of evangelicals who have become flies in the ecclesiastical ointment. I hope Scott can show me clearly where I’m wrong.

A restraining order request against the presbytery was granted today. This is the second TRO that has been granted against the presbytery.

L. Lee – how about the Presbytery allow those who want FPC-SA to remain in their historical home of the PCUSA keep on with ministry there. If others don’t want to be a part of that, they can choose on their own. Just as valid an outcome as dismissal, and it’s too late for it to be gracious for all, the session and pastors have sadly poisoned the well.

When I specified a congregation of members…I was referring to individual members who can walk away any time. No law of the PCUSA can keep members if they decide to leave.
That is why this vote is important. If the majority votes in the affirmative to separate from the PCUSA that would speak to the session and Presbytery.
I suggested the Presbytery offer gracious separation thinking the majority
may consider leaving and the offer would be a gift. Not sure of the numbers until the vote Sunday.
Until we get to the point of honoring the call of God on each person….each Church and saying it is good to go where God is leading …the emotions will run away with good judgement.
My response is about safeguarding the people in their faith walk and helping all people determine for themselves where God is calling them…to stay or leave the PCUSA. That may mean letting go of things we have been holding on to like buildings. Someone will be disappointed in this church and Presbytery. We need to affirm the higher calling of God for each person because God is moving. Change is hard, but God is still present.
I know many people wish their church would not enter discernment and just ride out the storm. But for some of us the wayward thinking of the Theological diversity has gone over the line of Scriptural and confessional boundaries. It just can no longer be ignored and the consequences of the GAs since PUP committee are being seen in this divided church.

Your attitude is very helpful! Trust God’s guidance in the circumstances and see what unfolds. Praying for all sides to see the higher call of God
and not be guided by emotions alone.

Individuals (Scates or any others) are free to leave the PCUSA separately at any time. As individuals. That includes FPC Hou leadership. If God says leave, then walk away from the building. If they can raise $1.5 mil, they have the resources to start over.

I’ve dealt with FPC Houston “leadership” long enough to know how they think.

Mateen, what about the 1/3 of FPC Houston who voted to stay in the PCUSA? Is your stance toward them “if the don’t like the ECO, they’re free to leave”?

Mark?

This conflict reminds me of the story in 1 Kings 3:16 about the two mothers who have given birth to babies but one dies. Both make claim to the one baby that is alive and they go before the King/ judge. They were fighting over the live baby and who was mother of the dead baby. The Judge wisely says let’s divide the baby in half. The real mother, knowing that would kill the baby, gives in and releases her rights to the baby. Her love of the baby was apparent. In the end the judge gives her the baby.
Putting emotions aside, the building is not the mission. What can the Presbytery and Session do to safeguard the mission of this church……and the little ones who need to know Christ? Isn’t that the goal…..for church leaders and the Presbytery? Some people are going to be disappointed
unless they look at the bigger picture, beyond the building, to the mission God is calling. The session is saying they can no longer agree to the mission set forth by the PC USA. I respect that the friends of the Presbytery are sincere in loving the people that is FPC of Antonio as their web site proclaims. I do not know how it will turn out, but my prayer is for God to act in a way that all will seek God’s way forward, surrendering your “rights” and emotions for what is best for the majority and leadership of this church who have not made decisions lightly but with deep praying and discernment. The rest of us on the outside can be in constant prayer for this church and the many churches that are in the same place of discernment and the Presbyteries that are involved.

Scott,
I would say that any actions concerning the 1/3 would depend on how unified the 1/3 are in their wishes. My own experience is that a significant portion of those who would prefer remaining in the PCUSA prefer even more remaining with the congregation they have been part of for many years. Of the rest, some do not want to pioneer a new church plant but would rather blend into other existing congregations of the PCUSA. If there remains a core group of sufficient size to make a go of a new church plant, I think the “winning 2/3 majority” should negotiate with that core group to provide them resources to help launch them as a new church plant within the PCUSA. I don’t think the presbytery should have the prerogative to “punish” those wishing to leave by forcing them to pay outlandish sums amounting to extortion, backed by the threat of legal action. Instead, the presbytery ought to help the two opposing groups in the local church to reach a gracious solution. The idea that the presbytery can legitimately decide in a schism which group represents the “true church” is laughable. As a group of all too fallen human beings, they inevitably decide that the “true church” is the group wanting to remain in the PCUSA, even if that group is a mere fragment of the whole, without the ongoing resources to maintain themselves as a congregation.

Counselor, I was at the Orlando Fellowship gathering. I saw no discussion of the human sexuality issue, and if people tried to bait the leaders, they never succeeded. The discussions were about the Person of Christ, the role of Scripture, and other doctrinal issues. In fact, at that time, there was great hope at the Fellowship gathering that non-geographic presbyteries would grow out of the Fellowship movement. Everyone was hoping to avert a crisis like the PCUSA is seeing now. Unfortunately, the PCUSA did not allow for non-geographic presbyteries.