They did the same thing with the constitution that they had done 10 or 12 years ago with Scripture’
By Patrick Jean, July 20, 2007
Before the Presbytery of Ohio Valley and the Synod of Lincoln Trails filed a lawsuit against Olivet Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Evansville, Ind., and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the church’s pastor talked to The Layman Online about what led to his congregation seeking dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the complications that ensued with the presbytery.
For the Rev. David Mills, the seeds of discontent with the PCUSA were sown in the mid-1990s when Ohio Valley Presbytery entered into a study about the authority of Scripture. Olivet Church hosted a meeting about the study, and Mills was disappointed by what he said was a lack of commitment to the authority of Scripture, leaving it up to individual interpretation.
“At that point, our awareness was raised that if we continued down that path, that very likely could lead to a season where the church was dishonoring God and misrepresenting Scripture before the world,” he said.
Mills said his congregation took comfort in the PCUSA constitution still holding to the authority of Scripture, and they turned back to that for hope during other times of dissatisfaction with the denomination.
“I think what changed in this past year in Birmingham was that, from our session’s perspective, they did the same thing with the constitution that they had done 10 or 12 years ago with Scripture,” he said, referring to the 217th General Assembly’s approval in June 2006 of the report by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity that keeps the current ordination standards in the constitution, but allows those who choose not to obey them to declare them to be non-essential.
Mills felt the PUP report’s approval allowed for individual interpretation of the constitution without recourse from a governmental standpoint. “That was probably the thing that said to us, ‘Without constitutional support, without a clear commitment to the authority of Scripture, we don’t feel like we have any basis for a Biblically functioning community,'” he said.
Immediately following the 217th General Assembly, Olivet Church began extensive session and congregational meetings about the PUP report’s impact. The meetings, Mills said, looked at six possibilities for his church’s future and narrowed them down to four, including independence or alliance with any of several Reformed denominations.
Mills said his church felt drawn to the EPC by agreement on essential beliefs.
“We came to the conclusion that we very much enjoyed being Presbyterian. Our problem wasn’t being Presbyterian; our problem was we weren’t Presbyterian enough,” he said.
The session made its recommendation to the 185-member congregation July 9, 2006. On July 30, Mills said, about 116 out of 118 members in attendance voted to request Ohio Valley Presbytery to let Olivet Church go to the EPC with its property and finances.
The church’s request was placed on the docket of the presbytery’s stated meeting the following month. The request was received but not acted upon, Mills said. Mills said he was told the church would not be dismissed unless the EPC received them. In September 2006, the EPC’s Midwest Presbytery agreed to receive Olivet Church, pending dismissal from the PCUSA.
Two task forces – one from Ohio Valley Presbytery and one from Olivet Church – held a total of 13 town hall-style meetings, Mills said. The presbytery task force’s recommendations were placed on the docket of the presbytery’s stated meeting in December 2006.
‘Mission had gotten clouded’
Mills said the presbytery task force seemed gracious in August 2006, but his church felt abandoned after that. He believes changes of membership on the task force led to a change of heart on its recommendations.
“We felt like their mission had gotten clouded,” he said. “Now, all of a sudden, they were really representing the presbytery to us and not representing us to the presbytery.”
Mills said the presbytery task force painted Olivet Church as being intransigent. The minutes of the presbytery’s December stated meeting show the task force made the following arguments against dismissing the church with its property:
- “Olivet’s request has placed the task force (and the POV) under time constraints that do not allow for the full exercise of due deliberation and the process of discernment as it relates to church property.”
- “Olivet is to be commended [for] their long journey of theological discernment. However, after careful review of the minutes of congregational meetings, the process of discernment regarding the potential ramifications of their request to be dismissed with property appears much less complete.”
- “While there are other PCUSA churches in the region, any release of property should include a strategy for how an effective and viable congregation will be established in Olivet’s absence.”
Three conditions
Those arguments followed three conditions that the task force recommended be placed on Olivet Church’s dismissal to the EPC:
- 1. “That the issue of the disposition of the church and its real property be continued until the August 2007 assembly of POV during which time, the trustees of the POV will lease the building to Olivet for $1 and other considerations, subject to the church maintaining all customary and required insurances and providing for the proper maintenance of the building and property.
- 2. “If a negotiated settlement is not agreed upon and accepted by the above referenced POV assembly, the property may be leased by the congregation at the current market value for such space in Evansville, Ind., as determined by the average of two independent assessments conducted by licensed leasing professionals, for a period not to exceed one additional year.
- 3. “The congregation of Olivet will be responsible for all costs incurred by POV for the process of negotiating and documenting this transaction.”
The church disagreed with the task force’s findings and unsuccessfully made a substitute motion.
Presbytery commissioners approved amending the task force’s first condition to read: “That the issue of the disposition of the church and its real property be continued until the August 2007 assembly of POV during which time, the trustees of the POV will lease the building to Olivet for $1 and other considerations, subject to the church maintaining all customary and required insurances and providing for the proper maintenance of the building and property, and timely payment of all debts and obligations.”
Commissioners voted 44-31 to dismiss Olivet Church to the EPC, but Mills disagreed with the presbytery over when the $1 lease plan was supposed to go into effect. He said he felt the wording suggested continuing disposition of the church and its property until August 2007, but the presbytery wanted the church to sign the lease plan right away.
“We wanted to take our time and really think through that, and that’s actually what we were doing,” Mills said.
The church has been looking at its vision since December – specifically, whether property would be a hindrance to its mission, he said.
“We felt there was a little deception going on because they were communicating to us, ‘This protects you by signing the lease,’ ” he said. “We clearly understand that if we sign that lease, then all discussion is over because we have admitted in that process that the presbytery owns the property.”
Mills said something else was driving the presbytery – such as perhaps sending a message to PCUSA headquarters in Louisville, Ky., that his church wasn’t to be let go for free. Before the lawsuit was filed, he thought the presbytery was looking for a compromise, such as letting the church go with its property in exchange for 10 percent of its estimated $2 million property value.
The Olivet Church session recommended that the church “respectfully decline” to sign the lease plan, believing God has entrusted stewardship of the property to the church rather than the PCUSA, Mills said.
Patrick Jean is a staff writer for The Layman and The Layman Online. He can be reached at pjean@www.layman.org.