Counterclaim against Kirk claims its leaders ‘schemed’
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, December 27, 2006
Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church (USA) have filed a counterclaim against the leaders of Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church in Tulsa claiming that they “schemed” by “secretly and intentionally attempting to deprive the PCUSA and the EOP of their valuable property rights.”
The counterclaim was in the presbytery’s response to the Kirk’s lawsuit, which was filed as part of its declaration that it was leaving the PCUSA to affiliate with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The Kirk suit contends that the property and assets of the congregation are owned by an independent corporation for the benefit of the Kirk’s members and not subject to control by the denomination.
The denomination and the presbytery asked the court to recognize that the PCUSA is a “hierarchical” church and declare that its constitutional property trust requirements do not permit a congregation to leave with its property. Only the presbytery can dismiss a congregation, they say.
“In 2006, certain officers of the PCUSA particular church Kirk of the Hills and certain officers of that particular church’s corporation … implemented a scheme … to breach the trust in the PCUSA Constitution … and to avoid judicial action to restrain that violation.”
In August, the Kirk held a congregational meeting that had been announced previously to the public. The vote for leaving the denomination was 967-36.
Since then, the presbytery attempted to forge a “true church” out of the 5 percent who voted against leaving the PCUSA by culling through the Kirk’s membership list and holding sparsely attended services for members who disagreed with that determination.
The lawsuit was part of the Kirk’s response to the presbytery’s civil action in March 2006, when it filed affidavits in civil court asserting that the property of its congregations was held in trust for the benefit of the denomination. Those affidavits sought to prevent lending agencies and insurers from doing business directly with the congregations without permission from the presbytery.
Unlike the public announcement that preceded the Kirk’s meeting, the affidavits clouding the titles of local church property were recorded in county court offices before the congregations knew about them.
The counterclaim also declares that the Kirk and its officers “owed a fiduciary duty to the PCUSA and the EOP, to follow the PCUSA Constitution, to deal with the PCUSA and EOP in good faith, … to uphold the trust to which the interests are subjection in the PCUSA, to take no action to limit, impair or destroy the rights of the PCUSA and the EOP in the interests and to avoid self-dealing and unjust enrichment at the expense of the PCUSA and EOP.”
The 17-page response to the Kirk’s lawsuit closely follows the tactics prescribed by the denomination’s lawyers in “privileged and confidential” legal and administrative documents that were privately disseminated to presbyteries before The Layman Online made them public.
In August, Tom Gray, the congregation’s preaching minister, said the session decided that, “especially in response to the recently-revealed legal plans of the PCUSA, it was time to take decisive action.”