Working off of the title of Classical Presbyterian's title regarding the situation here in the Presbytery of South Louisiana I was studying up on events around the nation and came across the case regarding Bay Presbyterian Church. I want to give thanks to the website "Presbyterian Troubles" for this information. This is a case in point regarding the tactics of Louisville being deployed around the country - dithering - bogging churches down; making it expensive to leave; argueing about fine points; treating churches like tenants - not because it will stop those congregations from fleeing the denomination but to prevent any other congregation to be so foolish as to consider such a notion.
It is important to realize that at the local level few if any of the participants will know they are being manipulated for a national game plan. They are simply earnest, and faithful workers in a system who are so busy looking to the task at hand that they do not see the forrest for the trees.
But the question begs to be asked, "What form of Christianity makes it acceptable to hold congregations against their will?"
For those who are interested you can study this case in point the Presbytery of the Western Reserve makes available on their website of which this is a summary report.
The report is full of subjective understandings (as are mine own) and outright untruths. I want to look at a few of these:
Theology
Problem: Presbeytery of Western Reserve (PWR) states that the folks at Bay are citing confusing data on declaring the denomination's possition of theology and not taking the official possition as the clear possition of the denomination.
Answer: If my child says he will take out the trash but fails to do it he did not in fact take out the trash. Paper vs. Practice. Paper orthodoxy without practice is not real.
Problem: The voting numbers were 92% (nearly 1200) to 8% (just over 100) the PWR says this is only 63% of the congregation due to abscenses, therefore only 58% voting to leave? How is it that routinely GA votes are decided by 1% or less and are binding while having a 92% vote of those present was not?
Answer: People who don't show up don't generally care! The PWR is changing the rules to suit their needs. They just don't want to deal with the fact that by a 12-1 margin the folks at Bay are ready to leave.
Problem: PWR insists that the polity of the presbyterian church has always been that a trust clause exists.
Answer: Hawgwash -doesn't even bear a response I've dealt with it on this blog a dozen times the trust clause is 25 years old and most people didn't even realize what had happened. A party cannot be entered into a contract they are unaware of.
Problem: Show me the Money - I can't believe the request of a 7 digit settlement. on page three of the report they state that they want less than "30% of the value of Bay's assets" and that this will "allow them to stay healthy as they go forward". Really?
Answer: Get a grip. Bay offered $500,000 how much money does the presbytery need?
Problem: Deed Restriction after dismissal. Proportedly to keep them from leaving the EPC, but the key phrase is that they not "try to form an alliance with a denomination not in correspondence with the PCUSA".
Answer: Folks considering the desire of some to eliminate the correspondense with the EPC can you not see the incredible duplicity at work here? Whether human or spiritual who is to say?
Problem: Bay Presbyterian Church must change its name.
Answer: Apparently the PCUSA is the only true presbyterian church! Bay claims this is punitive I will say it is petty. I also believe all the other presbyterian denominations out there should be highly offended.
Problem: PWR has stated its willingness to go all the way on this matter. I'm trying to figure this out did the PWR give Bay a huge loan?
Answer: Where exactly does it claim that they have any real personal investment in the church? And even if they do (and they well might have some) where is their biblical text for going to the matt on this issue? As I see it since they are demanding 3 million dollars in settlement! Bay could spend about $1.5 million in defeating them and save $1 million.
Folks this is how your denomination is playing this game. Hope you are not proud.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 Lagniappe (comments):
Bill,
My prayers for you and this situation.
Totally stinks.
A good summary of what is going on.
The nonsense about the so-called "property trust" is untrue, and they know it. In 1929, the GA of the PCUSA sent to the presbyteries a proposed amendment to the Form of Government that would (1) require churches to incorporate, (2) declare a trust in favor of the denomination, and (3) then require churches to amend their articles of incorporation and deeds to put their property in the trust. (Churches "shall".) The proposed amendment failed in the presbyteries, as reported at the GA of 1930.
After the US Supreme Court decision in Jones v. Wolfe (1979), the UPCUSA's Committee on Preservation of Property issued a report stating that in any State that adopted the "neutral principles of law" approach approved in Jones v. Wolfe, individual churches would own the property. It asked the GA to amend the Book of Order to declare a trust in favor of the UPCUSA. The GA sent such an amendment to the presbyteries where it was adopted and went into effect on May 23, 1981. That language became G-8.0201 of the PC(USA) Book of Order.
Unfortunately for the PC(USA), the amendment did not create an enforceable trust. It merely stated an aspiration by which the UPCUSA and then the PC(USA) hope that churches will put their property in trust. It did not require congregations to amend their articles of incorporation nor did it require churches to change their deeds to that effect. Although no one knows why the Committee left out that part, I suspect that they were afraid of a repeat of 1929-30.
So, contrary to PWR's statement, the idea of a trust has not been part of PCUSA/UPCUSA/PC(USA) polity since the 19th Century. The concept was rejected by the PCUSA in 1930 and was only adopted (as an aspiration) in 1981.
Adding to what Mac has said, the PCUS never had the trust clause and one of the key terms of union in 1983 was G-8.0700 which provides an explicit exemption of the trust clause for any congregation which was not subject to one before union and which took certain steps to confirm that. You will notice that G-8.0700 is also the only section of the Book of Order which cannot be amended.
Post a Comment