Atlanta Presbytery wins round 1,
Timberridge church will appeal
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman, March 23, 2009
Greater Atlanta Presbytery has won the first round in its battle to confiscate the property of Timberridge Presbyterian Church and evict its occupants.
Superior Court Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. appeared persuaded by Greater Atlanta’s argument that the Presbyterian system of government is “hierarchical,” and that claims by the higher governing body trump claims by the local congregation.
The crux of Baldwin’s ruling was that because Timberridge was a member congregation of the PCUSA, because the PCUSA constitution contains a clause asserting a trust on local church property, and because Timberridge’s minister and two elders were present at meetings when the denomination voted to include a trust in its favor on local church property, Timberridge is bound by a legally enforceable trust.
Timberridge has announced that it will appeal Baldwin’s ruling on grounds that it disregarded the deeds, several provisions of Timberridge articles of incorporation, and Timberridge’s voting to use the PCUSA exception that lets it preserve its ability as a former PCUS church to determine the disposition of its property without permission being required by any church governing body other than the congregation itself. Timberridge says this trumps any trust claim by the denomination to determine the use and control of Timberridge property.
Timberridge also plans to appeal on the grounds that a trust is viable only upon the explicit consent of the owner whose property is being placed in the trust. The Timberridge congregation has never given such consent, nor did it vote to empower anyone to give such consent at presbytery meetings.
Timberridge points out that the minister could not have given the congregation’s consent at presbytery meetings and bind the congregation to the asserted trust since Presbyterian ministers are not members of the congregation, but of the presbytery. It also points out that elders who attend presbytery meetings are encouraged to vote their conscience and that congregations are specifically enjoined not to instruct them how to vote. Thus, argues Timber Ridge, the mere presence of its minister and members at a presbytery meeting cannot be construed to indicate the congregation’s consent to a trust asserted by the denomination without the congregational meeting authorizing consent. Timberridge also points out that the minutes of the presbytery meeting on which Baldwin’s ruling relied give no indication how the Timberridge elders actually voted.
Although Baldwin signed an eviction order, that order is stayed pending Timber Ridge’s planned appeal.