Despite testifying before a state district judge that it had no intention of taking control of First Presbyterian Church-San Antonio, Texas from its session and pastors, on Oct. 23 Mission Presbytery formed an Administrative Commission (AC) to “intervene on its behalf” with the church.
The presbytery formed the AC in reaction to a congregational meeting scheduled Nov. 1 by First-San Antonio’s session to vote on disaffiliating from the Presbyterian Church (USA). The session of the 2,100 member First Presbyterian Church in San Antonio, Texas voted 21-2 on Oct. 12 to recommend to the congregation that it disaffiliate with the PCUSA and join ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians.
According to an email message from the presbytery’s General Council, “the stated purposes of this congregational meeting are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
The legal dispute
The church is in the midst of a legal dispute with the presbytery in the civil courts over ownership of church property. First-San Antonio filed a petition on May 12, 2015 asking the court to declare whether the trust clause in the PCUSA’s constitution was valid under Texas law and if it had any legal effect on the church’s property.
Following an Aug. 26-27 hearing, State District Judge John Gabriel denied two requests on Oct. 13, one rejecting the presbytery’s request for an order to prevent the church from claiming all of its property if it does leave the PCUSA. He also denied the church’s request to extend a temporary injunction to prevent the presbytery from asserting any control of the property while the church decides its future.
A report posted on the church web site said that the court denied the church’s request because it “found no imminent danger that Mission Presbytery would take the actions against which the order afforded protection. The Court also said, however, that if there are changes in that status, he will reconsider his ruling. In fact, Mission Presbytery representatives repeatedly testified that they do not have any intention to take control of FPC from its pastors or session. Apparently, Judge Gabriel took this as true and expects them to hold to their comments made under oath.”
The presbytery authorized the AC to
- “To take all necessary steps, if it becomes evident that the church is in “schism,” to discern the “true church” within the Presbyterian Church (USA) in this matter [G-4.0207];
- “To have access to all church records [G-3.0107], including but not limited to: membership rolls, minutes of Session and all boards and committees, minutes of congregational meetings, financial records, the church website, membership directories, newsletters, and materials distributed for sessional or congregational information– See Note 1;
- “To have access to relevant records having to do with corporate officers, corporate articles, bylaws, and/or charters, including changes to any of these during the last 10 years [G-3.0108];
- “To determine, on behalf of presbytery, whether proceedings have been faithful to the mission of the whole church, and that lawful injunctions of higher councils have been obeyed [G-3.0108a]; and, if necessary, to direct that corrective action be taken if matters are determined to be out of compliance with the Constitution [G-3.0108c];
- “If it becomes necessary, to assume original jurisdiction over the Session [G-3.0303e], with full authority and power to (a) provide for worship, sacraments, and continuing pastoral care of all members of the congregation, in the spirit of the gospel of Christ; (b) to receive and act on requests from members to be transferred or deleted from the rolls; (c) to have authority to call necessary congregational meetings, and to obtain current and accurate membership lists from the church for this purpose;
- “To have authority to dissolve pastoral relationships, both temporary and installed, fully observing the due process requirements of the Constitution [G-2.0901ff.];
- “To have authority to negotiate terms for the dismissal of the congregation if it becomes evident that a sufficient majority of the active membership desires to be dismissed to another Reformed denomination with which the Presbyterian Church (USA) is in communion”
The presbytery did stipulate that the “Administrative Commission’s authority is restricted in the following specific way: The Administrative Commission shall not take any action to change the current right, title, or legal interest in any real or personal property that is presently held and/or used by the congregation. The Administrative Commission shall maintain the status quo with respect to such property.”
40 Comments. Leave new
What a skewed article! The current Session of FPCSA, when they didn’t get their TRO, turned around the next day and called for a vote to disaffiliate on a mere two weeks notice. In their FAQS they explain that they did not follow the Gracious Dismissal process afforded by Mission Presbytery because it could be “divisive” and improperly permit a minority to determine the future of the church. Under the Session’s rules, however, there is needed only a 10% quorum and a simple majority vote. In other words, in a congregation of 2100, only 106 members (5%) could determine the future of FPCSA. Can you say “hypocrites?”
Let me see if I get this right. The Session of FPC San Antonia took actions that were consistent with commitments it had made to the judge while Mission Presbytery took actions that were blatantly contrary to commitments it had made to the judge, and this somehow means that the Session is being hypocritical? As Meg Ryan once said: “Donnez-moi un break.” Counselor, can you say “chutzpah?”
In what way was calling a vote to leave the denomination with the property that is in dispute in the litigation the day AFTER the judge’s ruling in any way consistent with the Session’s “commitments made to the judge?”
Here’s a link to a more informative, less one-sided article:
http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Denomination-grapples-wit
I would love to read the article to which you referred us, Counselor, but the link was bad. When I found the San Antonio Express-News website and the link to the article, I discovered that I had to be a digital subscriber to read it, and the least expensive way to do this would set me back $2.50 per week. I am curious to know how the newspaper played this story, but I’m not curious enough to buy a subscription in order to find out. Sorry.
If the Session had promised the judge that it would not move ahead with having the FPC congregation vote on the question of whether or not to depart from Mission Presbytery and the PCUSA, your point is well taken. I am not aware, however, that the Session made any such promise to the judge. And if not, then its actions are in no way a breach of commitment on its part.
Judge Gabriel was trying to be both neutral and even handed when he denied both parties requests for restraining orders. I expect he believed it was premature for him to intervene on either party’s behalf because he didn’t see a compelling need–a threat–requiring intervention. Mission Presbytery just did exactly what First Pres said they feared ! I don’t know who advises MP, but they need a much wiser consigliere! Their action plays right into FPC SA’s hands. And likely meets the four tests the judge needs to issue an injunction in favor of the congregation. Regardless, they vote Sunday. Assuming a super majority votes to leave, they simply announce next Monday they’re gone and decline to cooperate in any way with Mission Presbytery. The fact they own their property is already established fact btw, since they followed the PC(USA) process to do that in 1990, following the north-south reconciliation.
FPC SA is following First Pres Houston’s lead which has already resulted in the District Court there ruling in favor of the congregation.
See if this link works:http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Denomination-grapples-with-First-Presbyterian-6593339.php
If not, just google “First Presbyterian Church San Antonio news” and you see the entire article. I am not a subscriber either!
As you know, the FPC Houston case is currently on appeal and expected by most to be reversed.
I wish that you were correct and that a supermajority was required by the drummed up rules announced by FPCSA’s Session, but they are purporting to hold a vote with a mere 10% quorum and on a simple majority vote. With a congregation of 2100, only 106 members or 5% could determine congregational affiliation (if their action were permitted by the Book of Order which it is not.)
“As you know, the FPC Houston case is currently on appeal and expected by most to be reversed.”
Ha, what a crock!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the standard for reversing a Summary Judgenent is really low. The appellate court need only find ONE issue of material fact that should go to s jury, the trier of fact. There are multiple material issues of fact in the FPC Houston case.
Many believed the lower court judge should have recused himself given his close connection with a number of the FPC witnesses.
Either way, there is no provision in the PC(USA) form of government for a congregation to “vote” to be dismissed from the denomination. If the session wants to disaffiliate, they ought to get real and go ahead and just vote themselves do it, instead of setting up a vote of the congregation. This type of vote is going to be hurtful and divisive to members and it’s not really even recognized – and they are Presbyterian, not Baptists, so why have a congregational vote?
The issue is not about the property process that took place – the issue is who is the “congregation” in this schism. If there is a group that would like to remain affiliated, they could be awarded the property.
G-4.0207 Property of Congregation in Schism
The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a congregation can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery (G-3.0303b). If there is a schism within the membership of a congregation and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate congregations within the Presbyterian Church(U.S.A.), the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the congregation at the time of the schism.
Irrelevant. The question before the judge has absolutely nothing to do with what the PCUSA constitution says or does not say, allows or disallows. If the courts rule (as they have ruled in similar cases) that a legally incorporated church is under the protection of Texas law, then FPC is under no *legal* obligation to follow PCUSA procedures or the dictates of the presbytery. At this point, appeals to the Book of Oreder or to the presbytery’s own rules and regulations are, as Perry Mason would say, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
As mentioned in another post, citing PCUSA rules and regulations is an utterly pointless exercise. Unless and until the Texas courts rule that FPC San Antonio is not under the protection of Texas law, and then undertakes as a secular agency to enforce the PCUSA’s ecclesiastical rules and regulations, FPC San Antonio can pretty much do damn well what it pleases. Its fate is in the hands of the secular courts which will ultimately decide either to grant the church its freedom, or to throw it to the wolves.
I fully expect it to be affirmed at appellate level. The TX Supreme Court decision in the Ft Worth Episcopal diocese case (Masterson) establishes Texas as a “neutral principles” state, meaning it does not defer to hierarchical authorities. The legal system merely determines who owns the property. In Texas property law, there is no such thing as an implied trust, especially when those implying it stand to benefit. The Houston district court followed that standard. Any TX PC(USA) congregation can make sure its deed shows it owns the property, line up its incorporation documents to match, and ask for a declaratory judgement to confirm same. Then simply take a majority vote to leave. Grace Presbytery effectively acknowledged that fact when it let another large Houston church leave with its property. Mission Pres is about to learn the hard way after spending $80,000 in legal fees it doesn’t have. When FPC Houston and then SA depart, the barn door is open for any others to leave. That’s the new reality. It will be clear to all within 2 years.
pretty well sums it up Donnie – they just want to do pretty well whatever damn well pleases them.
Yeah, except that the Express News author didn’t do adequate background research, simply quoted Ruben when she wrote “Armendariz said the ground rules set for Sunday’s election violate denominational rules that require 35 percent of a church’s membership be present for such a vote and that 80 percent of those who show up must vote yes to leave the denomination.” Actually, that’s not a denominational rule. It’s a Mission Presbytery rule, which they apparently might not even follow in setting up their own Administrative Commission–reportedly, the attendance at the Presbytery meeting where the AC was set up was abysmal. Quorum? Super Majority? Details not available, but unlikely that they had the large representation they require for churches wanting out. I think Tome Walters is absolutely right. FPC isn’t bound by denominational rules. Texas law allows them to leave, and they will.
I don’t believe that Mission Presbytery members who voted to form the AC were informed that the presbytery had the TRO lifted because they promised not to start ecclesiastical proceedings against FPC. Seems like a direct violation of the spirit of their promise to Judge Gabriel’s Court. And the comment that has been reported in the San Antonio Express News (and was heard at the Presbytery meeting about not “changing the locks” was just cruel. If Mission Presbytery members will remember, changing the locks was a heavy handed move by the leadership against the beleaguered Valley churches a few years ago, and such a snide comment was out of order.
I applaud your openness in posting with your real name rather than hiding behind a pseudonym
Facebook page started by Mission Presbytery–“We Love FPC.” Interesting that it was first identified as a Mission Presbytery page, then taken down for about 24 hours, then put back up without identifying Mission Presbytery as the posting organization. They were going to have some kind of protest or something outside of FPC on November 1, but then decided not to, calling the idea a “hastily crafted plan.” If they love FPC, they will let them go.
Of course, each case is different, but I’ve read all the briefs in the FPC Houston case and there are MULTIPLE issues of material fact that should have gone to a jury. The appellate court only has to find ONE to reverse.
Whenever you deal with the various organs or sub-entities connected to the PCUSA one should usually expect the duplicity, administrative chaos, organisational incompetence as the norm, the given.
The common thread in this and many similar cases is that the so called “Property is trust”, clause in really nothing more than a price discovery process for the Presbytery involved. The only real process for the church involved is just how much money one chooses to throw at them , and at what level of pain and discomfort are the parties involved willing to endure in the process.
As in any tort, legal or adversarial process between self-interested parties, you find your opponents points of vulnerability or weakness, centers of gravity, and apply pressure. That’s when folks come to the table. And stuff really gets done.
It is not a matter of doing what we “damn well please “. It is a matter of following our heart. It is a matter of standing true to our faith. It is standing strong on the laws of GOD and not wishing to water them down to be more popular with the secular world. It is not wanting to compromise our principles to be more ecumenical. Don’t get me wrong. We are open hearted to any who wish to join us in service and worship of the ONE TRUE LORD we just won’t sell our soul for them.
Don’t forget this (with all the churches nationwide wishing to leave the PCUSA) all started when PCUSA decided to change its core values and corrupt the WORD OF GOD. If they had not voted as they did there would not need be a vote by the FPCSA congregation now.
With all due respect Counselor, I think you’re engaged in wishful thinking…….
FPCSA Member – this is about your interpretation of the “laws of God” – there are many who interpret differently from you on some of the issues (core issues: gays?). Do you believe that you are the only ones who are right and that just being affiliated with others who, while they profess Christ as Lord and Savior, disagree with your interpretation on some other issues means you must disaffiliate and break ties?
Rauru – you said:
“FPCSA Member – this is about your interpretation of the “laws of God” – there are many who interpret differently from you on some of the issues (core issues: gays?). Do you believe that you are the only ones who are right and that just being affiliated with others who, while they profess Christ as Lord and Savior, disagree with your interpretation on some other issues means you must disaffiliate and break ties?”
.
Yes, lets change the interpretation of 2,000 years of the New Testament, and 4,000 (or more) years of the old testament, and decide what we believe based on our own.
.
There’s just not one issue, although you mention the issue du jour for most liberals, but on many matters of theology.
.
When you have a majority of Teaching Elders who say that there is more than ONE way to God; when you have Presbyteries who allow T.E.s remain in a pulpit when they deny the basis of our faith (The Trinity, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, basically the entire Apostles & Nicene Creeds; when a denominational headquarters allocates more money for political posturing and lobbying, than for evangelism and spreading the Word; that is more than a ‘disagreement in interpretation’.
.
.
Rauru, you said “Do you believe that you are the only ones who are right?” Obviously one position is right and one is wrong. If I am right, the other position can’t be right. There is only one Truth and it is the Word. But, if we can bend logic and reality and make two opposing things right at the same time, then why must a group of believers at FPC go along with the side they don’t agree with? If both can be right, why does the established side get to make the rules and force others to follow?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2WbCkxsI8j9eHRQZ3JtQWdFMlU/view?pli=1
While technically correct, the vote at FPCSA will have far greater than a 10% participation rate. In fact, there may well be nearly 50% of the active members present. Your argument is typical of the Left, who take an argument with a single grain of truth in it and exploit it to the absurd.
Regardless of the outcome of Sunday’s vote, it would appear that a split in this congregation is inevitable. According to the church’s website, a survey conducted last year indicated that 59% of the membership favored disaffiliating from the PC(USA), 22% favored remaining affiliated with the PC(USA), and 19% were undecided.
If the church votes to remain with the PC(USA), it will be by a bare majority vote, based on these numbers. In such a situation, I suspect that the vast majority of those wanting to disaffiliate will leave and establish a new church splant in the ECO.
If, on the other hand, the church votes to disaffiliate (which seems more likely), then most of those who vote to remain with the PC(USA) will split from the congregation, and then with the backing of Mission Presbytery, they will take FPC to court for the congregation’s property.
Regardless of the outcome, the church loses.
Loren, let me share with you a somewhat different perspective. I agree with you that a congregational split is inevitable after Sunday’s vote, and that lawsuits against FPC will almost certainly follow.
My take is as follows …
If the PCUSA faction wins the vote, however much of a long shot that may be, the FPC members who are faithful to the Gospel will leave to form another church.
If the PCUSA faction loses by only a little (i.e. they get 40-49% of the vote), they will sue FPC and a Texas judge will divvy up the church’s assets between the two groups, with the sanctuary going to the larger group.
If the PCUSA faction loses by a wider margin (i.e. they get only 30-40% of the vote, they will sue FPC and a Texas judge will rule in favor of FPC with perhaps a token amount of the assets being given to the PCUSA group as their consolation prize.
If the PCUSA faction loses by a large margin (i.e. they get less than 30% of the vote), they will sue FPC and a Texas judge will tell them to go away and leave him alone.
And you know what?
In all of these scenarios, at the end of the day there will be a solid, biblical, evangelical and reformed Presbyterian Church in downtown San Antonio, and that church will not be under the thumb of Mission Presbytery or the PCUSA. And that, my friend, is a major win for the Church of Jesus Christ any way you look at it.
May God bless his people in FPC San Antonio.
Why are the “FPCSA-PCUSA Friends” so ashamed of their actions and tactics that they refuse to disclose their names? I suspect many of them are not even members of First Presbyterian San Antonio. Could the group simply be a front for Mission Presbytery? One wonders……
…thereby standing in the great tradition of the Auburn Affirmation–believe whatever you want.
The vote today was “overwhelming” in favor of leaving–87.3%.
As expected, the church went back to the judge early last week and asked him to reinstate the injunction against Mission Presbytery after it announced it was setting up the Administrative Commission to take over FPC SA. Which he did, late last week. I would expect FPC SA to now decline to cooperate with any Administrative Commission and politely announce they’ve departed for the ECO.
The intent of the PC(USA) Gracious Separation policy is to make it very hard for a church to depart–to act as a set of Golden Handcuffs by exacting a steep departure tax on the property. Texas, as a “neutral principles” state, does not salute ecclesiastical authorities’ implied trust claims. It applies Texas property law, looks at all the facts and determines who actually owns the property. It’s time for PC(USA) advocates to recognize that and understand they need to pivot from their combative, controlling approach to actually being Gracious.
Let me correct myself. The FPC SA letter to MP says it is still willing to talk with the Administrative Commission about its dismissal. With an injunction in place and an 87% vote in favor of leaving, that makes sense. They now own the high ground. Mission Presbytery would be well advised to take the meeting and quickly agree to a very gracious departure. I doubt they will. When this all ends, I hope more reasonable voices in MP prevail and they move from a command and control approach to a truly servant approach in their relations with their congregations.
One speaker, who was in favor of departure, made an excellent point. The PCUSA has become a smaller and smaller tent. Their level of tolerance for anyone who disagrees with them is ZERO: You support investments in companies which do business in Israel? You’re OUT. You support OBEDIENCE to God’s Word? You’re OUT. You support traditional definitions of marriage? You’re OUT. Isn’t it ironic that a leadership that continually calls for ME to worship THEIR god of TOLERANCE is so intollerant of other’s viewpoints? GOOD RIDDANCE PCUSA. Now First Presbyterian can begin focusing all energy on making Jesus visible.
Yes, David–my exit from the denomination began when my PCUSA pastor at the time told me that I could “not utter” a prayer for the unborn “in this sanctuary.” Talk about small tent! Not allowed to pray your conscience.
Those who are supporting the Congregation and Session of FPCSA have it right. The “gracious dismissal” policy of Mission Pby is anything but gracious. It is intended to wear out and wear down sessions and congregations that want to leave, inducing them, if they are short on financial resources, to remain and suffer in silence, or to leave and give the property over to Mission Pby. to liquidate for cash. Something for which Mission Pby is becoming increasingly strapped–for good an obvious reason, too. The meeting of Mission Pby at which the AC was approved was in Kingsville, far from the geographical center of the presbytery and in the heart of predicted heavy rains for the duration of the meeting. I’m no pansy, but driving 3-4 hours each way in torrential rain was not something I was up for. Further, the information given to presbytery in this whole matter has not been timely nor very accurate. Further still, the original funding for legal counsel for Mission Pby was taken from “accumulated interest on designated funds” according to the Interim Stated Clerk’s statement at the June meeting. I think that got by many presbyters, but it seems like a misuse of funds to me. Shouldn’t accumulated interest on designated funds be used for the fund’s designated purpose(s)? Levels of trust for the CoM, General Council, Interim Clerk and Interim Exec Presbyter, and Bd. of Trustees are lower than I have ever seen. That distrust is well earned.
All the now binding legal precedents are against any claim by Mission Pby/PCUSA for any congregation’s property. The above mentioned entities and individuals seem to have put loyalty to the PCUSA ahead of their loyalty to Jesus Christ. They also appear to be slow in recognizing the changed circumstances with regard to actual ownership of church property in Texas.