Seattle First Presbyterian’s breakaway vote spurs $28.5M real-estate fight

The presbytery is doing the Louisville sluggers bidding, they look at this as a real estate transaction, First Pres.is actually trying to do God’s work.

In its current application and use by Presbyteries, depending on accident of location or geography, the “gracious separation” rubric can be capricious, random, unpredictable, duplicitous to choose a few terms. Given this reality, it just may be the better choice and option for churches in question to take their cases and process to the civil courts, where checks and balances, protections, do exit in the tort process. That may or may not exist in the hot house of Presbytery land and money grabs.

Whatever understanding of the ‘connectional” church or covenantal theology or unity thereof, it surely does not extend to right of use or “ownership” of said property by some artificial denominational construct ,whose vested interest is not in the care or love of the people, but simply a matter of power and money.

May God grant the good people 1st Seattle grace and patience, as they choose to navigate their way throw the murky waters of denominational byzantine intrigues, and civil processes.

“irregular proceedings, secrecy, intimidation of dissenters and its consideration of transferring funds to its spinoff corporation or its attorneys” This is capricious, random, unpredictable, duplicitous…

Then ends justify the means for you James H?

Yep, totally ethical:

According to the documents distributed, the commission will delve not only into the church’s unorthodox move to separate but allegations of irregular proceedings, secrecy, intimidation of dissenters and its consideration of transferring funds to its spinoff corporation or its attorneys.

According to a presbytery summary distributed Tuesday, the church has already acknowledged putting $420,000 into a trust account of the Seattle law firm Lane Powell.

Polity Wonk, are we to believe that you in possession of some special knowledge about the situation in Seattle that allows and authorizes you to pass judgment on the people of that church and on the particulars of that case? So much so that you are in a position, even now, to render an all-wise and all-knowing verdict on these miscreants – “capricious, random, unpredictable, duplicitous?” Or are you, in fact, what you seem to be – a closed-minded PCUSA partisan who simply accepts as true any and all accusations that are made against PCUSA opponents because they are, after all, PCUSA opponents? If neither of these is applicable to you, then it would behoove you not to be so quick to judge and condemn those people.

Donnie Bob, I’ll admit that not all accusations are true. Will you admit this is totally unethical if they are?

Scott, I don’t presume to sit in judgment on that situation in Seattle. I don’t know the people and I don’t know the facts. I believe that there will almost certainly be a knock-down, drag-out fight over the property, and it may well be a bloody affair. But I’m just an observer from afar, and as curious as I am about this case, at this point I’m not necessarily on either side of that conflict – and in fact, I actually tilt at least a little bit in the direction of the presbytery. I suspect, human nature being what it is, that neither the church’s leadership nor the presbytery’s leadership is what you might call pure as the driven snow in this business.

I can read Donnie,it’s right there i the story and I have experience in these matters, sounds right on target to me. Why are you so hot and bothered about defending only those who want to leave? There is probably enough blame to go around, but your sole focus and fervor about defending only the “faith of the dis-affiliaters” is telling of your bias.

Polity Wonk, yes, I do have a basic tilt or bias when it comes to conflicts between presbyteries and local churches. The reason for this is that I firmly believe Presbyterian polity to be connectional and not hierarchical, and that inherent in connectionalism (as it has been practiced at most times and in most places) is the affirmation that particular churches own their own property and have the right to determine their own denominational affiliation. The current PCUSA Book of Order errs because it denies the rights of particular churches in these matters. So, yes, whenever a presbytery presumes to tell a particular church that it does not own its property and that it cannot change its denominational affiliation without permission, then the presbytery (however much the current PCUSA Book of Order may justify the usurpation) is in the wrong, and a local church is within its rights to resist the presbytery by every means at its disposal.

That being said, I would add that I believe the situation in Seattle is different from the usual cases involving church ownership of property, and in this instance I tend to support the presbytery (at least in part) in having a major role to play in the disposal or distribution of the assets of that church. But that is a comment for another time.

You and me both, Pres.

Church leadership condemning homosexuality = fighting sin
Church leadership having its own behavior questioned = judgmental
It’s almost like you think Jesus never stopped railing against homosexuality long enough to say something about corrupt religious leadership.

Money well spent in my opinion. Law, the process of, courts, denominational or secular, are by definition and design, adversarial and confrontational, war by other means.

This is logical outcome the PCUSA property in trust clause. Its how the system is designed. In the vast majority of these cases, presbyteries and the PCUSA employ fear, intimation, threat, lawsuits to chill free speech and dissent. The only change here is the leadership of the church in question are operating to protect the vested interest of the overwhelming majority. Without the consent of their theological “betters”.

Some may call that deceitful, some chaotic, other disingenuous or poor witness and testimony at best, but the PCUSA only brought this upon themselves and now will harvest the fruits of their bitter labors.

If Jesus Himself is glorified, then yes. The ends most definitely justify the means. And not just “yes the ends justify the means”, but Yes…Amen.

Will the cause of Christ suffer with this lawsuit??

How does it look to unbelievers who aren’t thinking “The PCUSA and its stance on homosexuality is evil and must be stopped” because they don’t consider homosexuality a sin?

I imagine, Scott, that it looks to unbelievers like a squabble between a greedy church and a greedy presbytery over a very large amount of money and assets that neither of them wants to share with the other.
You mention homosexuality here, and you mentioned it down below in an earlier comment. Is there some reason that you keep coming back to this when this story is clearly about something else. Why the broken record?
I hope you realize that Presbyterians have a history of fighting with each about all kinds of things, and not all of those things have to do with human sexuality. Some PCUSA ideologues do tend to obsess over this question, that is true, but for the vast majority of people (left, right and center) this is not the beginning and end of every discussion.

I think that if you pole folks who express a desire to depart/leave the PCUSA and ask why? Yes, a goodly number would say its a constellation of issues surrounding the LGBT universe. But most would cite other factors. A bloated, tone deaf, inefficient denominational bureaucratic machinery. Breakdown in the historic checks and balances of the polity/constitution. Broken trust up and down the polity matrix. In essence a denomination unwilling and unable to reform itself.

I think though by and large folks are tired of the liberal plutocracy of tenured academics, careerist church bureaucrats, and special interest groups who practice the ideology and politics of grievance and tribalism, telling the church and them how to think and feel, and lecturing them that they are the bad people and oppressors. They just want their church back. And are willing to fight for it. End of story and discussion.

Scott, that’s actually a good and valid question. What does it say to non-believers on both sides of the fence? What about the other ideals embraced by the PCUSA? If certain people agree with the secular ideals embraced by the PCUSA, then they are further entrenched in their beliefs that those who disagree with the ideals are denying God. On the flip side, non-believers who disagree with the same ideals will be harder to reach due to the divisive topics the PCUSA has adopted as “mission driven”. What if the PCUSA embraced ideals that the world views as conservative? The effect would be the same, the conservatives and the liberals would still be at odds. And the argument takes precedence over the great commission of making believers of men. Read through these forums and it’s clearly evident that the focus is on the fight instead of prayers about the problem. The problem being that Christ’s bride, the church, is itself a battleground between the left and the right instead of a unified battle against evil, fighting for souls to further God’s Kingdom.

Do you think anybody can get any spiritual nourishment when we hear in church the same things we hear about on the news? And now, churches, conservative/liberal fights that result in property battles and payouts are on and in the news. Jesus doesn’t make the news. And with the infighting over worldly topics that plague the church, Jesus can’t easily make it into people’s hearts. Homosexuality is the hot-button topic for many reasons. How is anybody able to reach a homosexual and share the gospel with them when they’ve already been labeled as a homophobe or conservative zealot? And all because they want to serve God alone and share His message of salvation? I don’t care if you’re gay or straight, but I’m absolutely positive that endorsing (or embracing) one’s sexual preference is not a prerequisite for sharing the Word of God. Sharing the Gospel allows Jesus, and Jesus alone, to change one’s heart. I can’t do it and you can’t do it. Only Christ can do it. But when the world claims that I hate certain people because I refuse to champion the ideals of the PCUSA, then I can’t go forward and make believers of men. I’m denied the opportunity to show grace, share the message, and Jesus is ultimately denied entry into one’s life or heart. The devil wins. Wouldn’t you say that that is what the devil wants?

There are believers and there are non-believers. There is one single Message that is to be shared…one single Message, period. That Message is not left wing or right wing. It’s not gay or straight. It is about a Man who died on a cross for the sins of all men so that they can have access to the Father. But the world tells us that salvation is predicated on the embrace of homosexuality. We have to love what people do and love how they live. Loving them as brothers and sisters just isn’t good enough. The battles are getting tougher and the stances of the PCUSA aren’t helping. But in the end, Jesus wins the war.

Wishing a happy Thanksgiving to all of you who frequent this site, especially to those of you with whom I cross swords from time to time – Polity Wonk, Scott, Pres, and (yes, if you’re out there somewhere) you too Pres-Child. I hope all of you have a great day of rest, relaxation and celebration.
Peace.

Any money flowing to the Presbytery or denomination will cause harm to the proclamation of the Gospel. However, remaining in the PCUSA is the most harmful choice.

While it is sad to see a church fracturing in this manner, it may work out better in the end (both groups can go their separate ways). My church (Eastminster, Indialantic) survived the discernment process, and the majority voted to stay. Despite not receiving enough votes to leave, the entire church session left, along with about 48 percent of the members of the church. Things kept disappearing for months. Locks had to be changed. But, we survived and came out as a more unified church. In many ways, a split can be healthy. This is why there is a clear discernment process. If a congregation chooses to ignore that process and leave anyway, so be it…but there will be a cost. Personally, I question the ethics of leaders that would push for a congregation to leave. That is a job for the session, not for the pastor.

A message of “I love you, BUT you cannot be the person God made you to be ” is a tough sell. Also, the total hypocrisy of saying that “We are all sinners,” but some sins are just worse than others, viz., homosexuality (assuming one believes it is a sin)? At our church, we have a divorced teaching elder, unrepentant gluttons on Session, yet they all piously suggest that gays aren’t “pure” enough to serve the church in such capacities? That’s the hateful, hypocritical message non-believers see of the church—especially youth.

Counselor…case in point. You epitomized the very issue I am talking about. And nowhere did you talk about what we are charged with doing. You stuck to the homosexual issue and proceeded discuss what you find wrong with your church. You discuss hypocrisy and hate. I’m trying to point out that your stance, for one, is why people can’t see Jesus through the pews.

I question the true faith of any leader who stays in a denomination that does not stand for Christ.