Authoritative interpretation recommendation shows PCUSA ‘trying to consolidate power, retain authority’
By Patrick JeanStaff Writer, The Layman, May 19, 2008
Presbyterian Church (USA) authorities in Louisville, Ky., seem to be closing the door further on churches that want to leave the denomination with their property for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
The latest action – a recommendation for a new authoritative interpretation of the PCUSA Constitution – would infringe on the judgment of presbyteries in dismissing congregations.
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s (ACOC) recommendation that the 218th General Assembly approve a new authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order regarding church dismissals is “consistent with an institution that’s trying to consolidate power and retain authority over the property,” a PCUSA pastor and blogger says.
CALIFORNIA REQUEST AFFECTED
The Presbytery of Charlotte’s questions to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution have factored into a central California church’s request to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) with its property for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
Negotiations have been taking place between mediation teams for Sacramento Presbytery and Sierra Presbyterian Church of Nevada City, whose congregation voted Jan. 27 to request dismissal. A report from the presbytery team to presbytery officials was presented at the presbytery’s stated meeting May 6; in the report, the presbytery team stated:
“The threshold issues that were noted are:
- “Can a presbytery dismiss a congregation or minister of the Word and sacrament to a transitional presbytery in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church? ”
- “Is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church:
1. “Doctrinally consistent with the essentials of Reformed theology as understood by the presbytery; and
2. “Governed by a polity that is consistent in form and structure with that of the PCUSA?
“We noted that these issues were the subject of a Request for Interpretation from the Presbytery of Charlotte that is currently pending before the General Assembly for consideration at the June meeting, and that [Sacramento] Presbytery might choose to defer making a determination with respect to these issues until the General Assembly acted on that request.”The ACOC, acting on questions from the Presbytery of Charlotte, has asked the Assembly to authorize the following interpretation:
“Presbyteries may dismiss congregations to other ecclesiastical bodies of this denomination, and to denominations whose organization is conformed to the doctrines and order of the Presbyterian Church (USA). No congregation may be dismissed to independent status, or to the status of a nondenominational congregation. It is the responsibility of the dismissing presbytery to determine whether the receiving body meets these standards, and this responsibility cannot be delegated to any other entity within the presbytery (such as an administrative commission). Thus the General Assembly may not determine in advance whether a particular denomination or its constituent bodies qualify under these standards.
“The provisions of G-15.0203 a and b do, however, require that the General Assembly, as the highest governing body of this denomination, advise its presbyteries in this matter. The 218th General Assembly (2008) therefore advises the presbyteries that they must satisfy themselves concerning the conformity with this denomination of a transitional presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in matters of doctrines and order. Presbyteries may facilitate the exploration of conformity by means of an administrative commission, although such commissions may not be empowered to approve the dismissal of the congregation. In exploring this matter, presbyteries should consider such questions as whether the receiving EPC presbytery is:
- “Doctrinally consistent with the essentials of Reformed theology as understood by the presbytery. ”
- “Governed by a polity that is consistent in form and structure with that of the Presbyterian Church (USA). ”
- “Of sufficient permanence to offer reasonable assurance that the congregation is not being dismissed to de facto independence.
“Failure on the part of the presbytery thoroughly to explore and adequately to document its satisfaction in these matters may thus violate, however unintentionally, the spirit of the polity of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
“The reality is that it’s consistent with an institution that’s trying to consolidate power and retain authority over the property,” said the Rev. Bob Davis, pastor of Chula Vista Presbyterian Church in Chula Vista, Calif., and author of Presbyblog.com. “What it says is, ‘The higher governing bodies do not trust the presbyteries to do what the presbyteries have been constitutionally authorized to do. And so we are going to restrict it and take it from you.’ ”
That thinking, he said, is consistent with two recent synod actions:
- The Synod of the Sun’s appointment of an administrative commission “to examine concerns regarding church property and presbytery leadership” in the Presbytery of South Louisiana.
- The Synod of the Pacific’s request to become a respondent in church property ownership lawsuits by Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church of Fair Oaks, Calif., and First Presbyterian Church of Roseville, Calif., against Sacramento Presbytery.
“It does seem like there is more and more indication of a desire of synod than the General Assembly – certainly the institutional structure – to have a more significant say, and to restrict the presbyteries, in their decisions regarding property,” said Davis, a former executive director of the Presbyterian Forum. “In other words, all of the constitutional interpretation is now diminishing the expansive powers given in G-8.That’s what it seems to be, and so the significance of it is that if the GA approves it, it really approves an interpretation that would restrict the expansive powers given in G-8.”
Neither the PCUSA’s stated clerk, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, nor its director of Constitutional Services, the Rev. Mark A. Tammen, responded to requests from The Layman for comment on the ACOC recommendation.
Approval would ‘establish two things’
The two questions upon which Charlotte Presbytery sought constitutional interpretation from the ACOC are:
1. Can a presbytery dismiss a congregation to a transitional presbytery in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?
2. Can a presbytery dismiss a minister of the Word and sacrament to a transitional presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?
No information about the questions was available on the presbytery’s Web site. The Rev. Dr. Samuel E. Roberson, Charlotte general presbyter and stated clerk, did not respond to a request from The Layman for comment.
The ACOC interprets G-11.0103i and G-15.0203a and b in the Book of Order in its recommendation on the first question.
“If the General Assembly were to approve their recommendation,” Davis said, “it would establish two things: One, a three-part test for the review of any presbytery’s decision to release a congregation to the New Wineskins transitional presbytery. And the second thing would be the cue that there is going to be higher governing body review and evaluation of the thoroughness of those things without a real description of what constitutes ‘thoroughnes
s.’
“The language that is being proposed sends up a real signal that higher governing bodies are going to have more discretion to overturn presbytery decisions,” he said. “And that is not evident in what is being proposed.”
The presbytery’s authority to dismiss a congregation with its property from the PCUSA comes from interpretation of Chapter VIII of the Book of Order, Davis said. “What they’re doing is trying to cut everything, get as close to restricting that as they can do without violating the express terms of G-8,” he said. “They do that in the recommendation by cueing that there will be a review, and then in the rationale saying, ‘Here’s what the review will yield.’ … They basically set up the three questions and then answer them that the only answer is, ‘No.’ ”
Rationale cites PCUS rulings
In its rationale on the recommendation, the ACOC interprets Anderson v. Synod of Florida, a 1973 judicial ruling from the former Presbyterian Church in the United States, in saying that a presbytery must determine “whether the denomination to which the congregation proposes dismissal” meets the standard of conformity to “the doctrines and order of” the PCUSA.
Also, the ACOC cites Strong and Bagby v. Synod of the Mid-South, a 1976 judicial ruling from the former PCUS, in saying that presbyteries must consider “four areas of concern” in whether to dismiss a congregation to another denomination:
1. “The nature of the ecclesiastical body to which the congregation is dismissed.
2. “The disposition of the property of the dismissed congregation.
3. “The status of any pastors or associate pastors of the dismissed congregation.
4. “The transfer and status of members of the congregation, including both those who wish to be transferred and those who wish to retain membership in the PCUSA.”
BLOG WATCH
Reactions to and analysis of the ACOC recommendations are available on the Internet at:
- Around the Scuttlebutt: http://aoundthescuttlebutt.blogspot.com/2008/05/its-all-about-property.html
- Classical Presbyterian: http://classicalpresbyterian.blogspot.com/2008/05/and-yall-said-i-was-crazy-acc-of-pcusa.html
- Presbyblog: http://www.presbyblog.com/current/blogindex.html (see the May 10, May 9 and May 6 posts)
- Reformed Pastor: http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com (see “Curiouser and Curiouser,” posted May 8, and “Down the Rabbit Hole,” posted May 6)
Finally, the ACOC interprets G-15.0203a and b in expressing concern about the EPC’s non-geographic, transitional presbyteries to receive congregations seeking to join that denomination. “The presbyteries so created appear to be operating under an understanding of presbytery membership that does not visibly conform to that of the PCUSA,” the committee writes.
“Neither the EPC Book of Government or the enabling actions of the [EPC’s] 27th General Assembly contain any property trust provisions; indeed, both maintain absolute congregational ownership of church property,” the ACOC writes. “This appears to mean that congregations dismissed from membership in EPC transitional presbyteries at or before the [five-year] sunset date for transitional presbyteries may thereby attain independent status. It thus appears quite possible that a congregation seeking membership in an EPC transitional presbytery may be, in effect if not in actual intent, seeking dismissal to independent status.
“Such an eventuality would result in the loss of the investment of the time, money, energy and faithfulness of generations of Presbyterians to the witness of the Reformed faith,” the ACOC concludes. “It would certainly violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Anderson and Bagby decisions.”
What’s next?
The ACOC’s recommendations have been assigned to the Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee.
“Once the recommendation has been assigned to a committee, the committee can do what it does with anything,” Davis said. “They can recommend disapproval. They can recommend approval. They can recommend disapproval with comment, approval with comment, or they can amend it. In other words, the issue is now before the Assembly, and anything can happen.
The 218th General Assembly will meet June 21-28 in San Jose, Calif. Davis thinks they “could very easily pass” the ACOC’s recommendations, but, “You have to be tuned in to what’s going on in order to understand the significance of it. And a good chunk of the folks coming have not been dealing with the technical part of the New Wineskin issues. I mean, they may know New Wineskins but they don’t understand the mechanism by which those who are seeking to go with their property are going. Even though there’s a lot of information out there, I just don’t think there’s particular great engagement in it.
“And so something like this,” Davis said, “unless you understand what change would be proposed – the restriction on G-8, and it’s not obvious – then it would be like, ‘Yeah, this is fine. Whatever. They’re supposed to make a thorough review, so they make a thorough review, and that’s it.’ Except the problem is, it’s a little bit more than that.”
Davis thinks the ACOC’s recommendations could be amended or improved, but, “It will take commissioners understanding and making it a priority.” He expects debate on the matter.
“A commissioner can do basically their committee and one other thing,” Davis said. “So there really has to be a prioritization. Otherwise, you go crazy, running around like a chicken with your head cut off and you don’t have any effect. So you’ve got to pick your battle. I’m sure there will be those for whom this is their battle.”
Second recommendation, rationale
As for Charlotte Presbytery’s question about whether a presbytery can dismiss a minister of the Word and sacrament to an EPC transitional presbytery, the ACOC interprets G-11.0416 and G-15.02