Synod court affirms presbytery’s right
to dismiss congregation from PCUSA
The Layman, March 27, 2012
A synod permanent judicial commission has upheld the right of a presbytery to dismiss a congregation from the Presbyterian Church (USA) into another Reformed denomination with its property.
Related articles
San Francisco Presbytery: Trust clause will not be used as a weapon
Large San Francisco congregation announces desire to leave PCUSA
San Francisco Presbytery grants Danville dismissal request
Presbytery is rethinking ‘gracious dismissal’ policy
In the case of the Rev. Wilbert Tom, the Rev. David Hawbecker and Thomas Conrad, complainants, vs the Presbytery of San Francisco, respondent, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific upheld the presbytery’s action to dismiss Community Presbyterian Church (CPCD) of Danville, Calif., pursuant to its terms of dismissal.
The SPJC ruled that:
- “Under G-11.0103i, presbytery has the authority to dismiss a church in consultation with its members to another Reformed body.”
- “Concurrent with dismissal, pursuant to G-8.0301, the property of CPC Danville was required to be held, used, applied, transferred or sold as provided by presbytery. In the exercise of that discretion, presbytery, consistent with its policy, determined to transfer by quit claim deed its interest in the CPC Danville property upon dismissal of the church to the EPC.”
- “In good faith, presbytery determined that acceptance of the PET [Presbytery Engagement Team] recommendations for dismissal would best serve the overall witness and ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ, thus benefitting the PCUSA.”
The background
The session of the 2,000-member Danville church voted Feb. 2, 2010 to leave the PCUSA and affiliate with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). The reasons included the PCUSA’s theological, moral and political drift. The congregation affirmed the session’s vote on Sept. 12, 2010.
On Nov. 9, 2010 the San Francisco Presbytery voted 167-41 to accept the recommendation of its PET, which had negotiated with CPC an approximate $321,000 dismissal price. The dismissal agreement includes:
- The dismissal of pastors from the PCUSA to the EPC;
- A one-time lump-sum payment of $108,640;
- An annual commitment of $42,500 for targeted PCUSA missionaries, ministries and ministers, paid quarterly for the five years following the congregation’s dismissal; and
- The presbytery relinquishing, through a quit-claim deed, any and all claims on the congregation’s property.
The effective date of the dismissal was to be Nov. 10, 2010, if no requests for remedial actions, stays and appeals were submitted.
Preceding its action on CPC, the presbytery approved a six-month suspension of its gracious dismissal policy. Approved in September 2009, the policy included statements that the denomination’s trust clause would not be used as a weapon or as a way to shackle churches to the PCUSA. It also gave details about, if no other option, an exit strategy by which descending per-capita payments would be made over a 5-year period.
The original complaint was filed Feb. 2, 2011. The SPJC heard the case March 22, 2012 and made its decision public on March 26.
Included along with the SPJC decision was a comment from the commission: “Remarks were made during the trial regarding the potential precedent of this case. The commission notes from the record that the GDP [gracious dismissal policy] which provided the basis for this case has been suspended. Efforts are underway to revise the policy and this commission encourages the completion of that work. This commission further notes that any succeeding case will be decided on its own facts and the decisions of the SPJC are not binding precedent.”
Specifications of error
Of the 13 specifications of error cited by the complainants, two were withdrawn; five were not sustained, five others were not sustained because they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and one did not meet the burden of proof.
The specifications of error that were not sustained included:
- The presbytery’s vote to dismiss CPCD was based on an error in constitutional interpretation, “in that the presbytery does not own the property but holds the property in trust for the use and benefit of the PCUSA.”
- The presbytery did not meet its constitutional responsibility as trustee in accordance to the Book of Order, chapter 8. “As trustee, the presbytery is obligated to act on behalf of the greater church, to ensure that all property held or used by its particular churches and their respective congregations is held, used and applied in a manner that faithfully advances and serves the ministry and witness of the PCUSA.”
- The presbytery voted to dismiss CPCD under terms that “would execute quit claim deeds and simply give the property to another denomination without any compensation. Complainants are informed and believe the fair market value of the Property is in the millions of dollars. The agreed payment of $108,640 from the CPCD was ‘in lieu of future declining per capita,’ and the $42,500 quarterly payment for five years was committed by the CPCD for the support of ‘targeted PCUSA missionaries, ministers,’ and were in no way associated with the EPC’s purported acquisition of the property.”
- The presbytery acted against the PCUSA’s constitution by failing to hold, use, apply, transfer or sell the property for the benefit of the PCUSA.
- The presbytery disregarded its duty as trustee and its responsibility by failing to ascertain CPCD’s financial ability to pay and in failing to consider alternatives to an immediate, outright gift of PCUSA property.
The other specifications of error included:
- That the presbytery acted contrary to its responsibilities by transferring property of the PCUSA without considering the costs involved in starting new PCUSA ministries in that geographic area.
- That the presbytery erred in basing its action on its Gracious Dismissal Policy, so that it failed to seek appropriate legal counsel or to give appropriate weight to the PCUSA constitution.
- That the presbytery erred in failing to consider the unequivocal legal rights of the PCUSA to the subject property under applicable state law.
- That the presbytery erred in dismissing the CPCD to the EPC because in the EPC, church property is owned by individual churches. “Such a dismissal is therefore tantamount to or part of a process of a constitutionally impermissible dismissal of a church with ‘its’ property to independent status.”
- That the presbytery did not act in a manner consistent with its own policy commitment to openness and transparency in a dismissal process, since no minutes of the meetings between the PET and CPCD representatives were kept or made available for inspection by the presbytery. In this specification of error, the SPJC stated “both the docume
ntary evidence and testimony at trial showed a consistent and deliberate effort by the PET and presbytery leadership to communicate in an open and transparent manner. The PET regularly made reports of its meetings to presbytery.” - That the presbytery did not determine whether the EPC is conformed to the doctrines and order of the PCUSA, “including satisfying itself about whether this is true of a transitional presbytery of the EPC.” In response to this, the SPJC said that “No evidence was presented at trial indicating that presbytery failed to satisfy itself as to the eligibility of the EPC to receive CPC Danville.
No indication has been given as to whether the case will be appealed to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.