When a judge is on the bench, Presbyterians are ‘hierarchical’
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, September 20, 2006
Hierarchical is not a term that normally describes Presbyterians. It implies top-down subjection of subordinates. Merriam Webster Online lists five definitions for the root word “hierarchy.”
- 1: a division of angels
- 2 a: a ruling body of clergy organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it; especially: the bishops of a province or nation b: church government by a hierarchy
- 3: a body of persons in authority
- 4: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing; also: the group so classified
- 5: a graded or ranked series (a hierarchy of values)
Even the Louisville headquarters of the Presbyterian Church (USA) – while misusing the word “hierarchical,” which refers a person and not a denomination – acknowledges in its legal resource manual, “The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its Property,” that “the church doesn’t describe itself as hierarchal.”
The denomination blames the court for using the term “hierarchical” to describe Presbyterian government.
“[T]he civil courts use hierarchal [sic] to distinguish our structure from the congregational form,” the manual says. “As they view our structure in church property disputes, the civil courts correctly focus on the core principles of Presbyterian government, including G-4.0301f: ‘A higher governing body shall have the right of review and control over a lower one and shall have power to determine matters of controversy upon reference, complaint, or appeal.'”
But the courts get a lot of help from the denomination’s lawyers, who repeatedly urge presbyteries and their lawyers to tell judges and juries in church property disputes to emphasize that the PCUSA is a hierarchical denomination with a top-down pecking order.
They even go so far as to counsel presbytery lawyers to tell judges that the presbyteries are in effect “bishops,” and the controlling authorities over the lowest rung on the PCUSA’s ecclesiastical ladder, the local congregation.
Furthermore, the presbyteries’ “bishops,” the lawyers advise, have the authority to defrock local church pastors, oust members of the session, split the congregation into the “true church” and the “schismatics,” seize the property and sell it for whatever brings the best price. In one case, the best offer was made by a congregation that caters to homosexuals, and the PCUSA accepted the bid.
Acknowledging that the church “does not describe itself as hierarchical” – although lawyers representing the “bishops” are instructed to do so – is a backhanded way of saying, in reality, if not in court, the Presbyterian Church is quite different from those denominations that are truly hierarchical – the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church (USA), the United Methodist Church and the Orthodox denominations – as well as those that are congregational – Baptists, the United Church of Christ, etc.
Those true hierarchical churches have real bishops with real clout. The Presbyterian Church (USA) does not have such weighty top-down authority.
The word “Presbyterian” describes how Presbyterians are governed. It is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which means elder as defined by godly wisdom and character. Presbyterians are governed by congregationally elected lay elders and congregationally called clergy elders. The presbytery has no authority over whom the congregation elects to serve as elder or whom it chooses to call as minister, with the exception that in both cases candidates must measure up to denominational standards and both must take the same oath of office.
On local sessions, each lay elder has one vote and each clergy elder has one vote. Regionally, the PCUSA’s work is carried forth by presbyteries; nationally, by the General Assembly. At the presbyteries, the Book of Order requires that the number of elders and ministers voting at meetings be as close to equal as possible. Full parity is required at the General Assembly.
Thus, Presbyterian governance at all levels is representative – not Episcopal or congregational.
But the “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its Property” manual and the recently revealed “privileged and confidential” documents on property disputes reflect a bias toward describing the denomination as having a hierarchical, not representative, government.
The fact is that, whenever a judge is within earshot, the denomination has been trumpeting a PCUSA hierarchy for years – long before the eruption of today’s property disputes. There’s a long trail of attempts to influence judges to recognize the PCUSA’s hierarchial claims through statements made by denominational staff in friends of the court briefs supporting “other” hierarchical denominations.
Brief in Orthodox dispute
In 1994, the late James Andrews, then stated clerk of the General Assembly, signed a friend of the court brief in The Primate and Bishops’ Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia v. the Russian Orthodox Church of the Holy Resurrection, et al. The brief was also signed by representatives of the National Council of Churches and the Episcopal Church (USA).
The brief complained that the civil courts were failing to enforce the PCUSA’s right to retain local church property. “The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and other churches have been losing parishes to breakaway congregations because of the refusal by lower courts to enforce the denomination’s right to retain local church property. This has come about because of this Court’s decision fifteen years ago [1979] that courts could use ‘neutral principles of law’ to decide ecclesiastical disputes over ownership of church property, but those principles have proved in many instances to be ‘neutral’ in favor of congregationalizing hierarchical polities, contrary to the church’s own self-definition.”
“Repeatedly,” the brief continued, “lower courts have construed clear and express provisions in church law prohibiting the alienation of church property without the consent of hierarchical authorities as being mere moral and spiritual guidance without legal force or effect on temporal control of property.”
“Because of that commitment, each of the amici is deeply disturbed by the judgment of the Massachusetts state courts in this case, under which a historically hierarchical church has been transformed into a congregationally controlled organization with respect to church property, in violation of both the traditions and governing documents of the larger church and of the particular parish.”
The brief declared that the Presbyterian Church and other church bodies “structured in a hierarchical manner similar to that of the petitioner … have been ravaged by courts below due to the lack of clear direction from the Court in this area.”
Maryland case
In 2000, current General Assembly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick signed a friend of the court brief in From the Heart Church Ministries v. African Methodist Episcopal Church Mid-Atlantic II Episcopal District, a Maryland case in which the plaintiff prevailed over the denomination’s claim to its property, which included a Lear jet as well as church facilities.
He claimed that “this court should recognize that hierarchical churches can-and must-be permitted to protect their interests in local church property through any formulation in their governing documents.”
Who pays for property doesn’t count
In 1999, Kirkpatrick joined a friend of the court brief filed with the Mississippi Supreme Court in a case titled Charles A. Shirley, et al, v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.
One of the key points in the brief was “the fact that a congregation funds all or the lion’s share of the cost of acquiring the property in question does not relieve the parishioners of their pledge – a pledge they freely made by joining a hierarchical, rather than a congregational, denomination – to commit their talents and resources to the good of their Church as a whole.”
Wisconsin case brief
In 2000, Kirkpatrick and representatives of five presbyteries in the Synod of the Lakes joined a brief before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a case titled The Wisconsin Conference Board of Trustees of the United Methodist Church v. Ronald Culver, et al.
The brief was filed on behalf of the General Assembly and the synod – organizations “that are related to each other by a constitution and history of religious practice in a hierarchical connection similar to that of the United Methodist Church.”
It argued that, “If courts are not willing to enforce the UMC’s ecclesiastical constitutional provisions regarding retention of local church property, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the House of Prayer, and other hierarchical churches risk losing to breakaway congregations real and personal property contributed by generations of members to promote the faith and mission of the whole church.”
It noted that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1871 (Watson v. Jones) “recognized the Presbyterian Church as ‘hierarchical’ because of its structure of sessions, presbyteries, synods, and a General Assembly as governing bodies, each level with authority over the body below. The governing bodies the Presbyterian amici represent are the successors to and beneficiaries of both the plaintiffs and the defendants in Watson v. Jones.”
In its conclusion, the brief said, “There are 32,359 Presbyterians, in 157 congregations, governed by five presbyteries and one synod in Wisconsin. Those faithful Presbyterians join their beloved Church with the understanding that the Book of Order will determine the outcomes in cases like this one. They give generously, indeed sacrificially, of their resources to support the mission of the Presbyterian Church. They watch this case with great interest, for its outcome may well dramatically affect their religious practice for years to come. For these reasons we urge that the decision of the Court of Appeals be affirmed.”
Kirkpatrick would not be able to make the same statement today. Membership since 1980 has declined by 8.4 percent in the denomination and mission giving has fallen from a $144-million budget in 2001 to a $98-million budget in 2007.