The trustees at Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church (MDPC) in Houston have filed a lawsuit asking the civil court to reaffirm that the church, itself, owns its property as “supported by established law in Texas.”
The trustees also filed – and was granted – a temporary restraining order to protect the church from any interference by the Presbytery of New Covenant or the Presbyterian Church (USA) while the case is being heard.
The trustees of the church took the route of filing a lawsuit only after talks with the presbytery about participating in its discernment process had failed.
Church leadership decided “early on to separate church property from the discernment process,” according to a source with knowledge of the situation. A 2013 Texas Supreme Court decision – Masterson vs. Diocese of Northwest Texas – held that a denomination could not unilaterally impose a trust on its member churches in the state of Texas.
Based on that Texas Supreme Court decision, state courts have awarded summary judgments to First Presbyterian Church and Winwood Presbyterian Church, both located in Houston.
In view of those court decisions, MDPC was adamant that the church’s property would not be part of any discernment process with the presbytery. With the church’s property valued at $35-$40 million — as a fiduciary issue — the trustees could not put the property at risk.
The source said that the church could not get assurances from the presbytery that:
- If the church went through the presbytery’s discernment process, it would not be challenged by others in the presbytery.
- If the church went through the process, the church’s property would not be at risk.
While the court case is being heard, the church will continue with a discernment process. According to a March 8 letter, signed by Senior Pastor Alf Halvorson and Clerk of Session Jere Overdyke, “The Declaratory Judgment filed with the court will not prevent us from having a gracious, fair, and inclusive-of-different-viewpoints Discernment Process, which will occur in April and May of this year. In fact, it preserves that goal.”
The Presbytery of New Covenant issued a response to the church’s lawsuit in its weekly newsletter, The Tuesday Connect:
Our General Presbyter and Stated Clerk have received notice that the Trustees of Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church (MDPC, Houston) have filed suit for a Declaratory Judgment and Temporary Restraining Order in State court on Monday, March 7, 2016. Details of this lawsuit and the response of General Council will be forthcoming. The leadership of the presbytery is extraordinarily saddened and disappointed that the Trustees of MDPC have not trusted the assurances of our General Council that the procedure the congregation voted to enter would allow MDPC to be dismissed to another Reformed Body with property, if the procedure were followed and the congregation voted by 2/3 vote to do so. The General Council made two attempts to address the fears of the Trustees and to encourage the leadership to faithfully utilize the Gracious Reconciliation and Discernment Procedure the congregation voted to enter on February 22, 2015 by offering written assurances that General Council will abide by the terms of the GRDP and has no intent to challenge the outcome. We ask the presbytery to pray for the unity of the congregation in light of this legal action, which has been so divisive in other congregations.
The 3,461-member Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church began discerning its future in the PCUSA in early 2015, when the congregation voted 839-277 to enter the presbytery’s discernment process. However, the church was searching for a new pastor at the time, and put the process on hold until a new pastor was called. In August of 2015, the Rev. Dr. Alf Halvorson became the senior pastor and during the first two months of 2016, the church leadership began meeting with representatives from the presbytery and exchanged four proposals.
“After conscientious effort, we could not reach agreement on any process that would adequately protect MDPC’s church property,” according to the FAQ document posted on the church web site.
Related articles:
Read the church’s FAQ document.
Original Petition and TRO, filed March 7, 2016, by MDPC
Temporary Restraining Order, filed March 7, 2016, by MDPC
37 Comments. Leave new
“The leadership of the presbytery is extraordinarily saddened and disappointed that the Trustees of MDPC have not trusted the assurances of our General Council that the procedure the congregation voted to enter would allow MDPC to be dismissed to another Reformed Body with property”
The reason why MDPC does not trust the presbytery is because they are their orders from the louisville sluggers, and nobody, and I mean nobody in their right minds should trust them.
This verse is irrelevant, as it does not condemn homosexuals:
1 Corinthians 6:1-20 ESV
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, …
I would say it speaks volumes about the PC(USA) court system that Memorial Drive and other Evangelical PC(USA) congregations believe they will receive a fairer hearing before secular courts than within the PC(USA)’s courts.
And you will also note that neither did Paul or any of the other Apostles seek to take grievances before the Sanhedrin to settle ecclesiastical disputes. How differently Acts 15 might have turned out if they did!
The structural, inherent problem with the PCUSA “gracious separation” process is that by design and construct it is a financial and resource extraction process for the benefit of one party. The PCUSA, Presbytery. By definition it is confrontational, adversarial, with clear winners and losers inherent in the process.
Further when any individual church chooses to engage their Presbytery in the process, they by definition concede a key point to the denomination, and violate the basic tenets of tort law, that your opponent has a valid case. That the property in trust clause is a legally valid point of civil law. Hence the need to pay an exit “fee” to said denomination to settle a supposed deed in trust. Makes no sense legally or ethically. The PCUSA brought this them upon themselves. They need to feel the pain of their hubris and arrogance.
The trustees of the church have been very wise to separate property considerations from affiliation decisions. Texas courts have consistently held that churches own their properties. This Houston church is no different – the property is theirs, unencumbered by any alleged trust interest. Now, the congregation can reasonably discuss church affiliation, where they fit best. With property wisely taken off the table. It’s now a level playing field.
Unfortunately this isn’t a wisdom issue.
Seems to be a trust issue. Sad…
And Jesus who prayed, “That they may all be one,” weeps!
To the contrary, Steve N, I suspect that Jesus rejoices whenever he sees his followers standing firm against those who would pretend to be “brothers and sisters in Christ,” while at the same time actively opposing the Gospel that Jesus himself came to proclaim.
In the New Testament one cannot help but notice that Jesus went out of his way to aggressively confront the religious leaders of the apostate Jewish religion of his day, and nowhere did he urge his followers “to be one” with the scribes and the pharisees who opposed him.
PCUSA leaders are the scribes and the pharisees of a 21st century apostate religion. As Loren Golden has pointed out, they are very much comparable to the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day. As human beings they deserve from us the same love and concern that we owe to all people. But, like the Apostle Paul laying claim to his Roman citizenship in order to avoid the tender mercies of apostate Jewish “justice,” wise Christians who should always prefer the secular courts of the country to the church courts of the PCUSA.
…..so the people filing the suit “just in case” are the only blameless ones for it winding up in court?
The Presbytery, which has not contributed monetarily to the purchase or maintenance of the church’s property, could plead No Contest, as it has no moral or legal right to Memorial Drive’s property, the PC(USA)’s immoral property trust clause notwithstanding. But we both know that’s not going to happen.
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Mt. 10.16)
Steve N – Truth is the ultimate value and unity is the penultimate value. Unity that is not built on biblical truth is not worth having.
I think that Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church acted wisely in seeking the protection of a court, when one considers the experience of the First Presbyterian Church of Houston and the Presbytery of New Covenant.
http://www.pbyofnewcovenant.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=156:presbytery-s-opposition-to-fpch-request-for-temporary-injunction&catid=62:lawsuit-first-presbyterian-church-houston-vs-the-presbytery-of-new-covenant&Itemid=208
And the members of MDPC who object to how the PCUSA is developing can walk away and leave the property. Why is everything always 100% the fault of non-evangelicals when evangelicals react to not getting their way? Every time I talk to an evangelical it is always “this is why none of this, including our own actions, are our fault because we’re right with God and therefore should always get our way”.
Why should evangelicals walk away? Maybe the church stayed the same as it always was and it is the denomination changed. Why doesn’t presbytery just walk away?
Also, again in this case I think you will find that a supermajority wants to leave. Why doesn’t the less than 10 percent who wants to stay walk away? That would make things so much easier for everyone. Why is it that the left can never walk away?
Of what fault, precisely, are you accusing Evangelicals?
Loren, et al, my point is that MDPC (and FPC Houston) are preemptively suing New Covenant based on just what they fear might happen, yet they, and the evangelicals defending them, refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the situation winding up in a courtroom. The attitude is that they have a literally God given right to get what they want, so anything they do to get it is the fault of those who don’t go along. In other words, its New Covenant’s fault that the churches filed these suits, because New Covenant won’t do what evangelicals tell them to do. If New Covenant doesn’t want a lawsuit, they can just do as they’re told by the godly.
I’ve met evangelicals who talk a good game of sin being the normal human condition in a vague, general sense, but they never, never accept any personal responsibility for what they do to non-evangelicals when they aren’t getting their way.
The liberal minority of these churches can just walk away and leave the property behind. The conservative minority of the PCUSA can just walk away and leave the property behind. It is the conservative minority that is doing the suing. They cannot refuse to accept any responsibility for those lawsuits.
James, do you love the “louisville sluggers”?
1 Corinthians 13:4-8
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
Matthew 5
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Because, Scott….it makes no matter whether they (the congregation) are “evangelicals” or not (not sure what your real problem is with those you label as such)…that is not the issue…the issue is that it is the congregation’s church…they are the members who support and maintain it….not the presbytery…THAT is why they simply do not “simply walk away and leave the property” as you suggest. But since you bring that point up….why on earth did the people who felt the denomination was so wrong for so long in its views about homosexuals not simply “walk away and leave”, finding a denomination that agreed with THEM, instead of detroying this denmination to ‘win’ their point?!..they must be very proud now.
If individual churches received no benefits from being members of a denomination, no church would be members of one. The desire to join ECO instead of going independent shows conservative churches believe they benefit from membership. Its not like the trust clause is some new thing that was pulled out of thin air a year ago.
However, if you want to take the stance of refusing to stand up for ‘righteousness’ unless it costs you nothing, go ahead. Given the omnipotent God you worship, I would have assumed he didn’t need the money quite that badly.
Actually, the Presbytery can write the court and accept the claim of the congregation as being the sole owner of the property. It is actually rather simple, and it would allow the ‘gracious’ dismissal process to proceed in a timely manner. If they choose to fight, it proves their evil and dishonest intentions. Oh what a twisted web we weave.
Really childish rationalizing, deducing, and twisting of reality, Scott…are you really proud of a post like that? ..and actually many presbyteries require that the church be leaving to another denomination before they are ‘dismissed’….might be the reason some don’t just go ‘independent’. Also, there are indeed benefits to being yoked with other Chrisitians who hold similar beliefs……until perhaps another vocal minority hijacks and pushes an agenda on that group also, I suppose, destroying it in the process too.
I don’t understand your point, George. FPC “leadership” initiated litigation against the Presbytery after losing the vote that culminated after a year long discernment process. The congregation was told that the vote would reflect the will of the Holy Spirit discerned through prayer. Apparently, against the will of the Holy Spirit, these so-called leaders were sore losers and sued the Presbytery.
At this point, at least $1.4 Million has been spent by FPC which is now tapping general funds to pay for the litigation. How is this in any way Godly? The losers could have simply gone to Grace Presbyterian or an EPC church for that matter. Instead, they elevate the property over the will of God.
” ..and actually many presbyteries require that the church be leaving to another denomination before they are ‘dismissed’”
Weird how that rule is OK, but the trust clause isn’t. Everyone who contributed to the churches in question knew the trust clause was there; it wasn’t hidden. They knew the risk. Any other legal issues you wish to have invalidated, that others are counting on, the minute God says so? Anyone signing a financial deal with a conservative church may need to know before trusting them.
One thing that should be thought about when judging MDPC and their motives is that MDPC has been a huge financial supporter of the Presbytery. Over the past decade, they have probably been contributing annually a quarter of the Presbyteries operating budget. Therefore, it is not hyperbole when I say that MDPC has literally contributed Millions of dollars to the Presbytery. The point is not that they are owed anything for doing that, but that they are very conscious of being good stewards with what God has provided to them. I am sure if they thought the Presbytery could do more to spread the kingdom of God with MDPC’s property, then they would be more than willing to walk away from it. I don’t see the Presbytery being able to do much with the MDPC property other than sell it for millions of dollars and perpetuate their existence for another 20 or 30 years.
Either side can unilaterally give up. It isn’t 100% on the presbytery.
Seriously, Scott?…..I (or nobody else) was saying that rule was okay or not okay….I simply said that may be one reason some choose affiliation..it may not be….many churches (and presbyteries) are trying to be very “Christian” and respectful about all this and don’t want to fight–you do know that some presbyteries dismiss churches without even considering that the church “owes” anything, don’t you?…but anyway…You really do twist reality to fit your very bitter bias. You know…there are 130 year old churches out here that were formed long before there ever was a PCUSA… that aligned with a presbytery in the 1800’s…that never voted to, or signed “a financial deal” that granted their property to the denomination. And I know in our personal case, not one person who ever contributed to our little chuirch in the last 135 years thought they were contributing to PCUSA instead of our local church. But yet, you feel the moral and ethical and legal claim to their property in reality lies with the denomination….simply because sometime in the last decades that denomination decided it would have a ‘trust clause’? And of course, this is all besides the somewhat legitimate argument that a church body that changes so much that it even departs from Biblical teachings probably relinquishes any moral standing to impose its will or rules on others. To follow your logic….isn’t it “weird” how the rule of the trust clause is okay, but the rules of the Bible are not?
I agree with Scott. Those who wish to belong to an ECO church can go to Grace Presbyterian. If they are even more conservative, they can go to an EPC church, e.g., Christ Evangelical Presbyterian. Instead, they are actually the ones coveting the property that has been supported by generations of steadfast PC(USA) members.
“… generations of steadfast PC(USA) members.” Please.
The PC(USA) didn’t exist until 1983 which makes it all of about 33 years old. How many generations are you trying to squeeze into the last three decades? This is ridiculous hyperbole.
The fact of the matter is that MDPC was organized as a congregation of the PCUS back in the 1950s, and has deep roots in the fertile soil of the Southern Presbyterian Church tradition in Texas.
The PC(USA) was a Frankensteinian experiment combining what was dead in the PCUS with what was dead in the UPCUSA. Is it any wonder that the whole thing has gone totally awry? If MDPC is looking to bail out of the monster that was created back in 1983, who can blame them for that? Texans can sometimes be difficult people with whom to deal, but some of them (like the good folks at MDPC) are actually quite intelligent, and can recognize a disastrous failure when they see one.
Starting over here, its hard to read above:
“To follow your logic….isn’t it “weird” how the rule of the trust clause is okay, but the rules of the Bible are not?”
So you honor agreements like the long standing trust clause as long as the other party is sufficiently following the Bible? The trust clause has been there the entire time people have been donating to churches labeled PCUSA. This was publicly available knowledge. Conservatives CHOSE to file suit, then assigned 100% of the responsibility for this winding up in court on their opposition.
If we can’t trust you in this, how can the insufficiently godly trust you when you try to witness your lord?
“If MDPC is looking to bail out of the monster that was created back in 1983”
A ‘monster’ they willingly joined. Go start another church.
You are either ignorant of the facts, Scott, or you are choosing to be untruthful in reporting them. MDPC never “willingly joined” the PCUSA, as you maintain, nor did any other PCUS or UPCUSA congregation. Back in the early 1980s congregations were not allowed to vote on whether or not to join the new PCUSA. Congregations were automatically joined to the new denomination by their higher courts, and a great many of them were not at all happy about it.
To be sure, in the years since 1983 an increasingly large number of congregations have chosen to leave the PCUSA, especially in recent years. But the decision to join the PCUSA in the first place was a decision that none of them had ever actually been allowed to make. For that reason, your statement that MDPC “willingly joined” the PCUSA is basically, factually, historically, totally and completely false.
I constantly stand amazed at how so many PCUSAers just cannot seem to manage to tell the truth, even about small things. It truly boggles the mind.
Why should 90 percent abandon THEIR property that THEY paid for? It would never occur to me to be in a 10 percent minority and impose on the other 90 percent to leave. If anyone at all should leave, why not the 10 percent that have caused a fuss all out of proportion to their numbers?
Completely wrong. It has been proven time and time again that if you don’t get clear title and an injunction against presbytery they will show up in the middle of the night and change the locks, seize everything, and fire everyone. This is time and time again. We are not starting with an empty slate.
A somewhat small consideration for you. The Legislature of the State of Texas creates Trust Law. The General Assembly of the PCUSA does not.
Perhaps those that want to shred the bible could go to First Unitarian Universalist of Houston? Perhaps the MDPC members are better “Presbyterians” than the PCUSA. Perhaps MDCP members stayed loyal to the ideals of the Scottish Reformation and PCUSA drifted into post modernism? Maybe it is those that never gave a dime towards the property of MDPC that are the coveters.