By Joseph Duffus, Small-p Presbyterianism blog.
Perhaps the saddest event taking place in the presbyterian world is the process of seeking “gracious dismissal” from PC(USA). As we know, this denomination is splintering and withering due to overall membership declines — fewer people becoming members of PC(USA) churches. But this is common to all of the mainline denominations.
In American presbyterianism today, though, entire churches are seeking dismissal from the PC(USA) to other reformed bodies. They leave for “ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians” or the slightly older Evangelical Presbyterian Church. These upstarts share basic principles of presbyterianism such as the Confessions, a Book of Order, and the peer-accountability and group discernment ethos.
The reason they want to leave is that they believe the denomination has, in essence, already left them. The dispute flares over same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals, both of which have been approved by General Assemblies in the past four years. Stepping back, though, there are many other issues beneath these flashpoints. These include the church’s political stances and “social witness” activities. They also include core theological issues including atonement, scriptural authority, Christ’s uniqueness, salvation as being by God’s grace alone and by faith, alone. These are deeply presbyterian values, some common to all reformed churches, and others bespeaking its connectional nature.
Yet the process of seeking “gracious dismissal” itself becomes ultimately a question of money. Churches in discernment may grapple initially with the theological and philosophical issues, but leaving becomes a question of cash. This distortion is caused by the PC(USA) constitutional “trust clause,” which states that all property owned by a local church is “held in trust for the denomination.” Of the three presbyterian denominations I have named here, PC(USA) is the only one to impose this clause. The others, formed in schism and made up of past members of the former, specifically declined to incorporate themselves in this way, perhaps as an inducement to other churches to join them because of an easier escape clause.
So, leaving means negotiating a financial settlement with the local presbytery or, worse, abandoning church property completely and starting over, bloodied but finally free of the clause and the claim.
37 Comments. Leave new
It’s certainly something to think about, when considering starting a new church, that if you are affiliated with the PCUSA, it’s so hard and expensive to leave. Why would you do it? Why not affiliate with the other Presbyterian denominations, or just remain non-denominational. The PCUSA has made a hymn out of “Hotel California.”
Referring to Janet Edwards comments that she will not support an activity that breaks the Body of Christ, does that mean she is actively trying to get rid of all of the gracious dismissal policies? That the Churches should have no recourse to leave the Church? Or is the gracious dismissal policies okay as they are written because the departing churches have to pay something to break the Body of Christ? Just curious
So Janet Edwards wont participate in anything that breaks of the body of Christ? Two things: (1) She’s quite the fundamentalist when it comes to John 17. (2) She wont break the body of Christ, yet she will remain in a denomination that intentionally keeps it broken by her refusal to go back to Rome. Why wont she leave the PCUSA and go back to the mother church if she is so concerned about institutional unity? I guess she thinks the RCC is not the body of Christ.
Having checked their books of order, the OPC and the EPC both have means of leaving the denomination for another. I didn’t check the PCA, but I believe they do too. The PCUSA is one of the few being ungracious in their dismissal policies. The OPC requires two separate congregational votes to leave. That’s the most difficult part about the OPC’s procedure.
What about this real world example (forget about theology).
1. Each time the GA meets you lose members. (If every time your pastor opened his or her mouth, you lost members; that pastor would be gone. You are now know in the community as one of “those” Churches who have a “casual” relationship with the Bible. Prospects aren’t good.
2. You are a small Church with a dwindling elderly congregation. Your Church is a building that is over 100 yes old and it needs money to keep it up. Upkeep is getting harder and harder to do and finance.
3. You don’t have the money to leave the denomination so you are stuck – unless you just walk out.
In the business world, if a board or the officers of a company knowingly did that which causes a loss of revenue and diminishes the business; they would be sued for breach of fiduciary duty.
Another analogy…if negligence of the operation of an oil well polluted your coastal area, they would be made to pay money to compensate those who suffered loses (ex: BP). We are suffering loses through GA actions.
As a former PCUS southern Church, you joined, fully, in thought and spirit with the new PCUSA. Although your had a 2 year window to exercise the “trust clause,” because you believed in PCUSA you did not do so. Why would you be tentative about it?
Presbyteries lose congregations and money, Presbyterian Missions revenue is down to the point of cuts. Gradye Parsons told the GA that they could stand to lose up to a third of their members. Yet, the current agenda is “full steam ahead.”
What it amounts to is that we are “collateral damage” in the culture wars. Mutual forbearance? Discernment? Denominational brothers and sisters in Christ? Forget about it.
Sometime, you all should “google” Joseph D. Small (former PCUSA head of Theology and Worship). He has written 2 excellent articles entitled “Presbyterian’s Democratic Captivity” and “Presbyterian Procedural Problems.”
Interesting article, that, “Presbyterian’s Democratic Captivity” by Joseph Small. The Departments of Theology and Worship appears to be the hot beds.
Mr. Small decries “two party Presbyterianism,” and well he might. The title reveals a thought when it refers to democratic “captivity.”
Many of our problems in this country seem to stem from the corruption of democratic process, “We have the numbers, so we get to make the rules.” With all this money and power at stake, and Mr. Small concedes those issues are far from incidental, the door to tyranny is opened. Tyranny in the sense of making it hot for members of the opposition party.
In the last 6 years my church and I started, housed, nested, two hispanic worshipping communities, which have gone on to plant 3 other worshipping communities in the Trenton NJ region. As my current presbytery struggles to get a 1001 off the ground and functional.
My comments to the pastors as well as their leaders in the original core groups, stay away from anything with the term PCUSA attached, never, never allow an outside organization or entity tell you that you do not own or control the means and process of ministry, or the ground under your feet. Advise and counsel well taken.
Have there been proposals to drop the P word altogether, for the sake of simplicity? Or, proposals for a blanket merger?
Don,
that’s a question I once asked, too. For churches that get involved in litigation during their attempts at “gracious” dismissal, would the argument that the PC(USA) had so changed the terms of what it believed that it was essentially in “breach” of its own constitution have any force with a judge in a civil court? My sense is, no, because all these changes were voted in, but it’s an interesting question still.
Since you mentioned being a former PCUS church, my pastor told me that southern churches were given the option of checking a box to place their property under the “trust clause” during re-unification. Our church did NOT check that box.
Scott,
I want to be clear. I mean no disrespect to Rev. Edwards. Quite the contrary, I sought her out because I respect her and she is considered a leading voice on the “winning side” of the late changes that have led us to this point. My belief then, and still now, is that it would truly be gracious indeed if the victors in these battles were to help the wounded off the battlefield.
So, I asked her if she would lend her voice in such a way. She declined. But she’s not part of any strategy to make it harder for churches to leave. She simply wants to stay focused on trying to change our minds about same-sex marriage and ordination. Even though we disagreed, I still respect her a great deal, particularly because she has never declined to discuss these issues with her opponents. I cannot say the same for the denominational authorities in Louisville.
David, please see my reply to Scott, just above. I don’t believe Rev. Edwards has anything at all to do with presbyteries “hardening up” their gracious dismissal policies. Far from it. She’s focused on trying to change the minds of orthodox presbyterians on the issues she has pressed for. But she’s not into making any church’s path to ECO or EPC harder. She just would not agree to lend her voice to making it any easier.
Probably why ECO and EPC (PCA, too?) has no such trust clause.
The textbook case for avoiding any trust clause in my opinion is the Episcopal Church. Much as I might be frustrated at PC(USA)’s process, ECUSA is positively horrifying. They have committed to spending close to $60 Million to fight in court churches seeking to dismiss to the Anglican denomination. What a colossal waste! What a shocking misuse of funds that is.
You can always get anonymous outsiders to fund your property suit against the PCUSA, like FPC Houston is doing. Their law bills are off the books and the congregation doesn’t know who is paying them or how much they are.
Joe, I was not trying to Impugn Ms. Edwards. I just thought her logic was a little faulty. The fact that the Church has a gracious dismissal policy which allows for the breaking of the Body seems to be something she would be against. The degree of difficulty in breaking the Body shouldn’t be a factor in whether the breaking of the Body is a good thing or a bad thing.
Soil that has a red tint:
One of the many sins of the PCUSA, amongst many is the corruption and defilement of the term, “Presbyterian”. In its head long rush to secularism it took the term, smashed its historic or covenantal content and rendered it a useless, void less, empty term, devoid of any real meaning. Hence, “Presbyterian” in the PCUSA is whatever one chooses to make of it, an empty vacuum that can be filled with whatever you want. Presbyterian means to be pro-LGBT, anti-Israel, Jesus is whatever you want him to be. Why not. That is the Presbyterian “brand” in the PCUSA. So we now emphasis the “Community Church” aspect of our identity name. We decided to take back control of our brand and identity, from the cultural captivity of the PCUSA. That works for us, what works for others in their local context is up to them. It’s still a free country. Praise God.
Point taken.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a presbyterian’s respect for “unity” tends to follow whether they are on top or not!
In the future, the PCUSA can contrive theology as needed to protect the brand, still claim, “Presbyterianism is one of America’s oldest, most established churches with a long and storied history etc. etc.” By then, no one will know the difference.
As you may recall, I have been reading Gary North, in spite of mild admonitions by forum contributors. I just finished the part about Darwinism, the Scopes Trial, and of course, the Presbyterians. North’s thesis, as you know, is a takeover by “Progressives” who, while coveting the prestige and income of the church, had also a greater global agenda, as illustrated by the life of former Princeton President and President of the USA, Woodrow Wilson.
That war for what Small calls “the two party church, captive of democracy,” did not end, although the Progressives won that battle.
The advice to avoid the PCUSA is good, but the practical realities do not mesh. Do they say, “PCUSA — the gay friendly church,” and adopt an appropriate logo? That is not what happened when the Scopes ruling was made.
I’ve not finished Crossed Fingers but just bet North connects the dots. He’s currently writing home schooling curriculum for the Ron Paul brand.
Agreed
Not too take the e mail string too far on the topic.
In this presbytery 3 churches fly the rainbow LGBT flag out in front of its building, which I would take as indicative of their agenda. I think those on the far right and left tend to discriminate and pick and choose their identifiers, far beyond the mast-head “Presbyterian”. In a sense I admire those who do fly the flag, its truth in advertising and those who enter know full well what they are about to get. The American flag works well for us.
Can I show you my NRA membership card?
So?
James, you don’t think the congregation should be told who is funding their lawsuit, and how much is being spent? Not you, not me, but the congregation. What is FPC hiding?
James, do you think “church democracy” consists of 51% of the congregation withholding information from the other 49%?
you mean hiding as in the PMAB?
I mean hiding as deliberately withholding the information. “Someone who is not a member of the church is funding our suit. We won’t tell you who it is or how much $$ we are taking from this person or organization.”
Dear Scott, Joe and David,
I confess I have puzzled over commenting on being drawn into Joe’s discussion of churches leaving the PCUSA and how presbyteries handle this. Tiring of others saying what I think–however respectfully–rather than saying it myself brings me to sharing a few thoughts.
As far as I know myself, my primary mission is for the church to be one. That leads me to work for the full inclusion of LGBT people (for our treatment of them has driven them, their families and their friends away from Christ) AND to the work of seeking out engagement and relationship with those, like you three, who disagree with me. Being in relationship, Joe, is more important to me than getting you to agree with me; conversation with you, understanding where you are coming from, is more important to me than your agreement with me. I expect you don’t believe me when I say that. AS far as I know myself, it’s true.
I am sorry that it is so terribly difficult for us to have a real conversation, a real relationship, as “relationship” is what I think Jesus means when he prays that we be one in John 17:21. It’s not about structures of “denominations” though they are relevant. I was born into one of the first families of American Reformed Christian faith. Denominations are more like family than anything else. Leaving the PCUSA is inconceivable to me; kinship with all the Irish Catholics who voted Yes on the Ireland marriage referendum suggests I am one with Catholics, Scott. Being one is about relationship.
Relationships are broken whether the separation is gracious or not. I don’t want separation. Despite what I understand to be your view that I have responsibility for others leaving, I do not see myself as being involved in any way with separation in the PCUSA, including the policy in my presbytery.
I want an honest, respectful conversation with you. That is not accomplished by non sequiturs or assumptions. It means sharing, listening, and asking and answering questions. We can’t do that when we are separated.
I hope that makes some sense to you. Peace be with you all, Janet
Honestly, in any divorce, you sell the house and split the money. Unless, of course, one spouse saw it coming and retained a trust attorney.
Rev. Edwards, in many ways our extended discussion last year was my inspiration for creating the blog, http://blogs.christianpost.com/small-p-presbyterianism/ and addressing it to these questions. I have you to thank for it, whether you want it or not. 🙂
I hope I have treated our exchange respectfully, and will probably draw more from it in the future. I believe there is much there to talk about. And, I hope that I have not mischaracterized your viewpoint, though I get your point that the relationship aspect to this matter is as important to you as the “evangelism” for it that you have been so successful doing.
Scott,
Just wondering. Do you have a dog in that fight?? You seem fixated on FPC-Houston as you always bring it up in these threads.
Dear Joe,
You are welcome, Joe–I don’t mind at all that our exchange inspired you to further thought. It makes me very happy. And I deeply appreciate the respect your tone holds. Thank you for acknowledging my understanding of myself. I hope you have noticed how careful I am to preface any comment about another’s perspective with phrases like “My impression is,” or “It seems to me he thinks this,” and on the whole I avoid such statements for the most part. I speak of what I see, feel and think and invite the other by questions to share what he or she sees, thinks or feels. This helps diminish unhelpful assumptions and furthers dialogue. Our correspondence benefitted from this, I think.
Peace be with you, Joe, Janet
Reformed Catholic,
I’m one of the people FPC lied to (about a different issue there is no need to go into). My complaints to their then exec pastor was met with an attitude of “God gave us the authority to decide what you’re told. What are you going to do about it, peasant?” Asking others what really happened was met by FPC leadership with “Do you even believe Matthew 18?”, since I’m supposed to ask FPC leadership and only FPC leadership questions about what FPC leadership is doing. Mat 18 is one of the best beat-down verses leadership has available when people start questioning their behavior. It keeps the cattle nice and isolated and prevents them from comparing notes.
I’ve been digging into their behavior ever since, and the more I dig, the more questionable ethics I find. Now, I spend time researching their lies and drawing attention to them whenever and wherever I can. You should see the court documents I keep as PDFs on my phone at all times in case someone from FPC decides to lie in front of me hoping I can’t prove anything right then and there.
Let that be a lesson to you, church leadership, any one of the cattle in the pews can fight back when you cross the line.
More FPC Houston news about the lawsuit against New Covenant:
…the Session has recently solicited funds from the congregation because projections were inadequate to cover the cost of appeals. We now know from the May Session packet on the FPC website that “Pledges received are approximately $535k[thousand] less than costs to date.”…
…Is the Layman or any other outside organization or persons paying or promising to pay any part of FPC’s attorneys’ fees or other legal expenses either through FPC’s special litigation fund or otherwise directly to FPC’s attorneys or advisors?…
PCUSA abuses money given to it by dead Presbyterians who believed in their heart their money was going to glorify the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, who is returning to His earth soon on Judgment Day. Does PCUSA receive donations? Personally, I donate to The Layman on a regular basis to glorify Jesus’ Kingdom; and hope others donate to The Layman as well.
You donate for this?
“This is what happens when Sessions are stacked with members who do not represent the true desire of the congregation. This used to be a great church, now it is a shadow of its former self led by bigots and homophobes who have bullied the rest of the congregation. It has long been rumored that The Presbyterian Layman has been behind many of the congregations who have left PCUSA, providing the game plan on how to pull it off and providing financial support to do so. I hope & pray that those of you left at First Pres can expose those behind this funding. I know you’re exhausted, but keep fighting for YOUR church. I pray that First can be restored to its former ministry of serving God and loving one another.”
Do you have proof that the leaders of First Presbyterian Houston are “bigots and homophobes”, that the FPC Session is “stacked with members who do not represent the true desire of the congregation”, or that the Presbyterian Lay Committee is “providing financial support” to congregations seeking to separate from the Presbyterian Church (USA)? Or are you just spreading malicious gossip?
“Bigots and homophobes” is an opinion.
The PCUSA lost iys church identity and mission objectives loooooong ago. It has become a business corporation just like any other entrepeneur in the stock market . I just can’t understand how people who claim loving God and living up to his standards still attached to that commercial entity. PCUSA’s conscience is subject to $$$$$$$$ not FAITH. Apostasy and Heresy are PCUSA’s MOTTO.
You made your “opinion” as a statement of fact. Words like “bigot” and “homophobe” carry emotionally-charged baggage, and they are best omitted from civil discourse.
Moreover, are you in a position to judge the intentions and thoughts of their hearts? Can you say for certain that their belief that homosexuality is a sin stems from hatred or fear of homosexuals and not from a conviction that the Bible, as God’s Word, has stated unequivocally that God regards homosexual practice? If you cannot, I suggest that you refrain from making such harsh judgments.