An open letter on the Norcrest Church situation
Viewpoint by Rev. Dr. Douglas E. Nagel Pastor, 1st Presbyterian Church, Fremont, Ohio Immediate Past, February 5, 2002
I am writing in response to the John H. Adams article on Thursday, January 24, 2002, entitled, “Presbytery fires Ohio pastor, takes over church property.” Up until now, only one side of this story has been heard and there are several things in the article that are factually untrue or misleading.
A conservative, who considers myself to be an evangelical, I am a regular reader of The Layman. I am a lifelong Presbyterian, growing up in a United Presbyterian Church in western Pennsylvania, graduated from a Presbyterian college and hold degrees from two Presbyterian seminaries. I have been an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament for nearly 23 years. Actively encouraging the congregations I have served to pursue spiritual renewal, we worked closely with Presbyterians for Renewal and Presbyterian Renewal Ministries International. My session was one of the first in the presbytery to join the Confessing Church Movement. I am one of two conservative, evangelical pastors serving on the Norcrest Administrative Commission [hereafter referred to as the NAC].
The Layman article correctly reported that this has been a problem of long standing between the Norcrest session and the Maumee Valley Presbytery. Rev. Borsay has served as pastor at Norcrest Presbyterian Church since 1983. Since 1998, two administrative commissions have been elected to work with the session. The first was established by the presbytery to seek reconciliation and better understanding with the Norcrest congregation. Also they were to monitor the re-payment of a $950,000.00 mortgage loan, co-signed by the presbytery, for the Norcrest Presbyterian Church’s new addition.
The Norcrest session informed the Stated Clerk of the presbytery by letter, dated October 25th, 2001 that they were calling a congregational meeting on December 2nd, 2001 to consider the following question:
- Shall the Norcrest Presbyterian Church request dismissal, with its property, from the Maumee Valley Presbytery, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to the Presbytery of the Midwest, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, another reformed body.
During all of the congregation’s discussions (summer of 2001) about leaving the denomination leading up to the congregation’s vote, the Session invited no one from the NAC, the presbytery, the Committee On Ministry [hereafter referred to as COM] or the presbytery office to address concerns, answer questions or consult with them about leaving the denomination with or without property. No one from presbytery knew the congregation was even having discussions about leaving the denomination until the Stated Clerk received the letter signed by all ten members of the Session and the Clerk of Session.
Contrary to the article’s headline, Maumee Valley Presbytery did not fire the Norcrest pastor. The Book of Order does not give the presbytery the authority to “fire” any pastor. However, it does permit the presbytery to dissolve the pastoral relationship existing between any pastor and any congregation. This may be done at the pastor’s request, the congregation’s request or by the presbytery’s action, if there is just cause.
The Book of Order, states in G-11.0103, “The presbytery is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district.” Included in this responsibility is G-11.0301i, “to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members.” The Book of Order also grants the presbytery the responsibility and authority “to receive, dismiss, install, remove and discipline ministers…” (G-11.0103n) and “to establish the pastoral relationship and to dissolve it at the request of one or both parties, or when it finds that the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands it.” [emphasis mine] (G-11.0103o)
The Book of Order grants the COM of the presbytery the authority to “settle difficulties on behalf of the presbytery when possible and expedient” (G-11.0501). The COM is to “. . . serve as an instrument for promoting the peace and harmony of the churches [emphasis mine], especially in regard to matters arising out of the relations between ministers and churches. Its purpose shall be to mediate differences and reconcile persons, to the end that the difficulties may be corrected by the session of the church, if possible, that the welfare of the particular church may be strengthened, that the unity of the body of Christ may be made manifest.” (G-11.0502i)
The action taken on January 21st with regard to the Mr. Borsay was an action of the COM. It was not the action of the NAC and they did not request a meeting with Mr. Borsay. It did not have the authority to do so with reference to the action that was taken. The Committee on Ministry did.
Mr. Borsay had been contacted on Sunday, January 20th, by a representative of COM to schedule the meeting on January 21st. He was told that the meeting would be of a serious nature relating to the congregation’s vote to leave the denomination with property. Mr. Borsay agreed to the meeting. A total of six people met with Mr. Borsay on January 21st – three members of COM and three co-opted members of the NAC. I was one of those co-opted members. We met with Mr. Borsay at the Norcrest Church.
For close to an hour, those of us meeting with Mr. Borsay listened to his responses to concerns raised by the COM. The chief concern was that Mr. Borsay was leading his congregation in schism and was in violation of his ordination vows to further the “peace, unity and purity of the church.” Mr. Borsay denied all responsibility for any schism by saying that all action had been taken by the Session. However, numerous communications to the congregation over his signature indicate complicity, leadership and full agreement with the session.
The COM took what it felt was the most minimal action to address the conflict between the pastor, Session and presbytery when it became apparent that the conflict had already escalated beyond resolution or any attempts at compromise or negotiation. The representatives of the COM gave Mr. Borsay the opportunity to resign with a severance package payable over several months. This is not required by presbytery policy. Mr. Borsay refused. COM then acted to suspend his relationship with the congregation pending further action by the presbytery. Said action would be to dissolve the pastoral relationship existing between the Norcrest congregation and the Rev. Ben Borsay.
The NAC did give opportunity to all members of the Norcrest Session and congregation to be heard. They set up two listening sessions (January 6th and 13th) to give anyone an opportunity to express concerns, opinions, affirmation or opposition to the Session’s action and the congregation’s vote. A small number of people from the congregation attended these sessions. Supporters of the Session’s action and those who opposed it were represented in the group. Only one person currently on the Session came to the listening sessions but he did not speak to anyone on the NAC at that time. The listening sessions revealed the following:
One elderly man, who had served as chairperson of the Building Committee for Norcrest’s new addition, was denied the opportunity to vote. He was told when he arrived at the congregational meeting that he and his wife had been put on the Inactive Roll. He told the NAC that he had worshipped several times during the past year, had taken communion, still supported the church financially and had never been informed of the Session’s action to put him on the Inactive Roll. He said he would have voted against leaving. According to Gerald Rader, a former elder in the Norcrest church (Findlay Courier, January 25, 2002), “some others who showed up to vote were told they had been placed on the inactive list [sic] and were ineligible to vote…. Ironically, one such couple received their 2002 offertory envelopes two weeks later.”
One elderly lady, a former elder, voted in favor of leaving, but stated that she was concerned that she was hearing only one side of the story. Several others expressed similar concern. Some wondered why other churches in the presbytery were not also seeking to leave the denomination since things had reached such a state in the Presbyterian Church (USA). When they asked why other churches in the presbytery had not been contacted regarding the Norcrest Session’s concerns about the denomination, elders responded, “We didn’t contact other churches because it would only confuse them.” One person stated that she had been told that unless they left the denomination, the Norcrest church would “have to have a homosexual as pastor.” She opined that she didn’t want that to happen because she liked Pastor Ben.
Several people at the listening sessions spoke of a “controlled environment” [their words] within the church and at the congregational meeting on the day of the vote. Others indicated that this request for withdrawal from the denomination with the property was not a new situation. They expressed that there seemed to be a planned withdrawal over many years, but that now seemed to be the most opportune time. Some people questioned procedural issues and wondered whether action taken by the congregational leadership was appropriate and done in the way it should have been done with reference to the presbytery.
Members of the NAC asked several attending the listening sessions whether any mention had been made of the property and the amount of money still owed by the congregation on its mortgage loan. One member indicated that she was told by one of the elders that the presbytery would probably allow the congregation to find a new co-signer on the mortgage loan and let them buy the rest of the property. When asked if any figures were discussed, this woman said that she heard figures as low as $10,000.00 and as high as $100,000.00. The current tax valuation on the Norcrest property, based on an assessment done three years ago, is $2,200,000.00.
These conversations, taken together, seem to indicate a pattern of misinformation and partial information directed toward a desired outcome when the congregational vote was taken. The NAC met on January 18th to compare notes on the listening sessions. We came to a unanimous conclusion that this was a clearly developing emergency situation that called for immediate, quick and decisive action. The commission members then unanimously voted the following resolution under G-11.0502i:
- At the discretion of the Committee on Ministry of Maumee Valley Presbytery, the Norcrest Administrative Commission asks that the Committee on Ministry proceed to remove the Rev. Benjamin Borsay from the pulpit of the Norcrest Presbyterian Church and begin the steps necessary to dissolve the pastoral relationship between the Norcrest Presbyterian Church and the Rev. Ben Borsay.
The COM was already meeting that night and the next day in retreat. They considered the evidence presented by the NAC and also voted unanimously to take the recommended action. It was determined that the action should take place on Monday, January 21st, 2002. This was so that we might give appropriate constitutionally-required notice to the commissioners of the call for a special presbytery meeting on February 5th, 2002.
As with any administrative commission, church records, correspondence, bookkeeping practices, membership records, etc. are reviewed. The Norcrest office staff and Session were cordially compliant to all requests for records. Conversations with members, former members and those in the community familiar with the congregation are also considered in such a review.
This review revealed the following:
- Over 10,000 files on the church computer were erased after the session resigned.
- All church records and documents dating back to approximately 1986 have either been removed from the building or destroyed.
- There have been no infant baptisms reported by the Clerk of Session in the past five years.
- At least one documented case of Mr. Borsay re-baptizing a person baptized in another Presbyterian church as a young child. Neither action is reformed or in keeping with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
- A paid invoice for the shredding of twelve (12) boxes of Norcrest church documents by a professional paper shredding company. No list of documents was provided.
- The invoice from the shredding company is for services rendered on October 24th, 2001 (the day before the Session’s letter to the Stated Clerk of the Maumee Valley Presbytery, notifying him of the Session’s call for the congregational meeting).
- Annual reports to the Stated Clerk of the presbytery indicate that although the worshipping congregation and church school attendance have steadily grown, Norcrest’s actual recorded membership has decreased by approximately 33% over the past three years.
- In the first year after the presbytery co-signed the loan on Norcrest’s new building, the congregation operated with a balanced budget. In the past two years, the congregation has operated with a deficit budget, spending down its reserves.
There are major misconceptions regarding the vote on December 2, 2001. The article correctly reported that the congregational vote was 209 in favor of dismissal with property, 19 against dismissal with property and 2 abstentions. Elders speaking to the press reported that 90 percent of the congregation voted to leave. At first blush it may look that way but it is untrue. The total membership of the Norcrest congregation is listed as 417. There were 187 members of the Norcrest congregation who, for whatever reason, did not vote on December 2nd. Add the 19 in opposition to the request for dismissal and those voting really represent a little over 50% of the membership. These statistics are based on numbers supplied to the NAC by the Norcrest Session after the vote was taken. There is a discrepancy between membership figures reported to the General Assembly for the year 2000 and those reported to the NAC after the vote. Both sets of figures were supplied by the Clerk of Session of the Norcrest Presbyterian Church. It was and is the unanimous conclusion of the NAC and the COM that Mr. Borsay’s actions leading up to this vote have been divisive within the church and the presbytery.
The Norcrest congregation was started by the United Presbyterian Church in 1890. The congregation and its property have been a part of the United Presbyterian Church or its successor denominations since that time. The NAC and the COM of the Maumee Valley Presbytery recognized that there was at least a portion of the congregation that wished to remain within the Presbyterian Church (USA) Though significantly smaller, the Norcrest Presbyterian Church remains within the denomination continuing to worship and carry on a ministry in its rightful property. The Layman article title intimates that the property was taken away by the presbytery. On the contrary, the action taken has prevented Mr. Borsay and followers from taking the