nFOG Part III: CONSCIENCE BE DAMNED! MANDATORY PER CAPITA IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become prey to the active The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which conditionif he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

-John Philpot Curran, Speech before the Privy Council, July 10, 1790

For many years, withholding per capita has been the only means for churches to register their disapproval of actions of the GA or other courts of the church.

In several cases, those higher courts (now referred to as "councils") have sought to coerce payment of per capita through the institution of disciplinary measures or by limiting the right of congregations to participate in presbytery. For nearly the same amount of time, presbyteries and synods have attempted to make payment of per capita mandatory. Several amendments to the Book of Order added ambiguous language that could be read either way. Nonetheless, in every such instance in which such an attempt has been made, the PJC has reversed such decisions. See, e.g., Johnston v. Heartland Presbytery, Rem. Case 217-2 (GAPJC 2004) (“The Heartland policy improperly turns payment of per capita apportionments or the fulfillment of a mission pledge into a mandate”); Minihan and Richards v. Scioto Valley Presbytery, Remedial Case 216-1 (GAPJC 2003) (1992 amendment to G-9.0404d did not grant a presbytery power to compel a session to transmit the per capita apportionment assigned to it.); Session, Central Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Long Island (Minutes, 1992, page 179) (governing body may adopt a per capita system for financing its operations, but a church may neither be compelled to pay nor punished for failure to pay any amounts pursuant to such plan); cf., Westminster United Presbyterian Church of Port Huron, Michigan v. The Presbytery of Detroit (UPC, 1976, p. 228)

The basis for the GA PJC decisions has been the clear language of Book of Order §G-10.0102 , (Responsibilities of the Session), which states in pertinent part,

The session is responsible for the mission and government of the particular church. It therefore has the responsibility and power . . . to establish the annual budget, determine the distribution of the church’s benevolences, and order offerings for Christian purposes, providing full information to the congregation of its decisions in such matters . . . §G-10.0102i.

Because the session alone possesses control of the congregation’s purse, the bureaucrats may not unilaterally overrule the conscience of the congregation.

And they have tried! In 2001, Scioto Valley Presbytery overtured the 213th General Assembly to approve an amendment which proposed to add the following sentences to G-9.0404d:

Unless excused by the presbytery, a session shall be responsible for raising and timely transmission of per capita funds to its presbytery. A presbytery may exercise care and oversight over congregations in its bounds that fail to raise or transmit such funds to the presbytery.

The 213th General Assembly (2001) disapproved the Overture.

These decisions are, of course, repugnant to the bureaucracy. When a session of a church that does not agree with the actions of the GA elects to successfully withhold per capita, the lifeblood of the bureaucracy, it encourages other churches to do the same. However, as demonstrated by the example in 2001, an effort to make per capita mandatory would, even today, have a doubtful chance of making it out of the GA.

If, that is, it was presented as a stand-alone amendment. Enter nFOG.2. Hidden in nFOG section 3.02 (THE SESSION) is a new section that provides as follows:

3.0202 Relations with Other Councils

Sessions have a particular responsibility to participate in the life of the whole church through participation in other councils. It is of particular importance that sessions:. . .

f. send to presbytery and General Assembly requested financial contributions, statistics, and other information according to the requirements of those bodies (emphasis added).

Section G-3.0202f makes payment of per capita a “particular responsibility” of the session.

Elsewhere in nFOG, the presbytery is authorized to

assume original jurisdiction in any situation in which it determines that a session cannot exercise its authority. After a thorough investigation, and after full opportunity to be heard has been accorded to the session,the presbytery may conclude that the session of a congregation is unable or unwilling to manage wisely its affairs, and may appoint an administrative commission with the full power of session. This commission shall assume original jurisdiction of the existing session, if any, which shall cease to act until such time as the presbytery shall otherwise direct.” Section G-3.0303e [The Presbytery’s] Relations with Sessions

The standard for such action remains the same as in the current Book of Order, but by changing payment of per capita into a “particular responsibility” of the session, it will be easy for a presbytery to declare that when a session does not perform that “particular responsibility”, it has demonstrated that it “is unable or unwilling to manage wisely its affairs”. An AC can then come in, take over the checkbook, and send the congregation’s money to Louisville.

So, sessions and congregations beware. If §G-3.0202f is adopted, hang onto your wallets. The GA’s bagmen will be coming.

nFOG Part II: CLOSING THE DOOR

“The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients and by parts.” Edmund Burke, April 3, 1777

Edmund Burke was a contemporary of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. The republican form of government adoprted in the Summer of 1787 in Philadelphia by both the PCUSA and the United States in their respective constitutions was no accident. And the fear of strong central governments held by the men of that day can still be found in the words of those constitutions.

The desire and demand of free men for liberty is anathema to despots, and they endeavor by all means to usurp the power that ought belong to the individual. That is especially evident in the restructuring of the Form of Government with respect to the congregations. Rights that have always been conceded by the leadership to reside in the congregations are quietly removed in the hope that the commissioners to the presbyteries will not notice their absence.

Compare, for instance §G-7.0304 of the current Book of Order with the proposed §1.0503 of nFOG.2. Section G-7.0304 declares that

G-7.0304
Business
a. Business to be transacted at meetings of the congregation shall include the following:

(1) matters related to the electing (sic) of elders, deacons, and trustees;
(2) matters related to the calling of a pastor or pastors;
(3) matters related to the pastoral relationship, such as changing the call, or requesting or consenting or decliningto consent to dissolution;
(4) matters related to buying, mortgaging, or selling real property (G-8.0500);
(5) matters related to the permissive powers of a congregation, such as the desire to lodge all administrative responsibility in the session, or the request to presbytery for exemption from one or more requirements because of limited size.
Limitations b. Business at congregational meetings shall be limited to the foregoing matters (1) through (5). . . . (emphasis added).

New §1.0503 (“Business Proper to Congregational Meetings”) strips away all of the powers heretofore residing in the congregation and then sets forth a new, very limited authority:

1.0503 Business Proper to Congregational Meetings
Business to be transacted at meetings of the congregation shall be limited to matters related to the following:
a. electing ruling elders, deacons, and trustees;
b. calling a pastor, co-pastor, or associate pastor;
c. changing existing pastoral relationships, by such means as reviewing the adequacy of and approving
changes to the terms of call of the pastor or pastors, or requesting, consenting to, or declining to consent to dissolution;
d. buying, mortgaging, or selling real property;
e. requesting the presbytery to grant an exemption as permitted in this Constitution (G-2.0404).

Note the differences. The introductory phrase of §G-7.0304 (“Business to be transacted at meetings of the congregation shall include the following:. . . “) is changed to “Business to be transacted at meetings of the congregation shall be limited to matters related to the following: . .” (emphasis added). From being a constitutional form in which all powers not delegated to the GA belong to the congregations, it has flipped into an oligarchical form in which the oligarchs dole out those few meaningless powers,e.g., to appoint local leadership, that they do not want---yet.

In other words, powers that had previously belonged to the congregation alone have been stripped away. The phrases “shall include” and “such as” in §G-7.0304 clearly connoted that the list that followed was not exclusive and that other powers also resided in the congregation and could be the basis for a congregational meeting.

Because the current Book of Order is ambiguous, and because it was drafted by the GA, in the event of a dispute between a congregation and its presbytery or the GA over the right to disaffiliate, under the legal doctrine contra proferentum, the ambiguity would be construed against the presbytery or GA. Hence the change.

By nibbling away at the rights of the congregation, if nFOG.2 is ratified as written, congregations that previously had the power to disaffiliate will be trapped in the PC(USA) at the mercy of the GA. The right of a congregation to unilaterally disaffiliate from the PC(USA) will be gone.

And, once trapped, there is more. . . . .

THE nFOG COMES IN ON LITTLE CAT FEET

The fog comes
on little cat feet.

It sits looking
over harbor and city
on silent haunches
and then moves on.

-Carl Sandburg-

SWMBO and the kids are back in school. The cats have settled down for a much needed 18-hour nap after the hard work of eating breakfast, staring out the window at the trash truck, chasing air, and looking beautiful. And I can get back to the blogosphere.

Over at A Classical Presbyterian, Toby Brown has written a very nice cautionary piece about stewardship of emotion and effort, noting that we can often use up our strength on outrage when our energies could be better directed elsewhere. That piece struck home. There was a time when I scoured the web for news from the PC(USA) out of a need to protect our congregation from the depredations of the gang in Louisville. The disclosure of the Louisville Papers over a year after they had been distributed to presbyteries and synods revealed that secrecy and ambush were to be their chosen methods. But I also needed a place to vent against the hijackers of a once great denomination.

Two years ago, our little church on the hill—with other similarly situated congregations—fought our way out. Since that time, we have marveled at the peace, trust, and fellowship that can come from finding a home in a denomination that knows what it stands for and is unafraid to say just that. In the EPC, we found brothers and sisters who are not afraid to declare the sovereignty of God, the divinity of Christ, and the inerrancy of God’s word revealed in Scripture. In the EPC, we don’t need to tear pages or whole chapters out of our Bibles.

I write this by way of preface. My review of the antics and actions taken by the PC(USA) are no longer driven by self defense. I now have the freedom to watch what PC(USA) leadership and its minions are doing simply as an intellectual exercise. And they are making it easy.

The 2006 GA of the PC(USA) commissioned a re-write of its cumbersome Book of Order, but forbade any changes to the ordination standards set forth in §G-6.0106b or the odious unilateral declaration of a so-called property “trust.” The resulting product was released late and met with an uncharacteristic distrust across the denomination. Despite efforts by out-going Stated Clerk Kirkpatrick and his team to get the new form of government through the 2008 GA, it failed. Instead, the GA added some new members to the committee and directed them to take another crack at a re-write.

To their credit, the new committee worked hard to get their proposal out in sufficient time for people to study it. (A major criticism of nFOG.1 was that it was not released for review until just before the 2008 GA. Commissioners were leery of voting on something they had not read and digested—oh that the folks in Congress were so conscientious! But, I digress.) So, now it is out, loaded with booby traps for the unwary, a ticking time-bomb. If the 2010 GA does not reject this effort, and if the presbyteries adopt it, they cannot say that they did not have an opportunity to know what they were doing. And reject this piece of work they should.

As was the case with nFOG.1, nFOG.2 is a plan for reforming the PC(USA) into the Roman Catholic model of church governance. It strips congregations of long-held rights which protected them from unilateral action by the bureaucracy, remodels the “presbyterian” form of government into a hierarchical directorate, adds language that can be used to make payment of per capita mandatory, and adds a “fuehrer oath” for members of congregations.

As a child of the prairies of Illinois, I learned my Sandburg. His description of the fog as a silent predator, creeping into place unnoticed until it is too late for the prey, is an apt comparison to the nFOG that has now been unleashed on the PC(USA). I hope that sessions of the PC(USA) congregations will take responsibility to study nFOG.2 and act accordingly when they send commissioners to presbytery and the GA. If they do not, they have no one to blame but themselves.

-30- (Extra credit to the first one of you boys and girls who can explain this.)

THE PC(USA)’S NUMBERS GAME: A CASE STUDY IN DECEIT

This is a long post because I could not find a logical break point. I won't do it again in the near future.

“I believe in . . . the holy catholic Church . . ..” Apostles Creed.

And I do. Thus, I had planned to stay away from the latest PC(USA) attempt to gloss over its continued loss of members, especially after reading some great blog comments by Quotidian Grace and Reverend Kim, just to mention two. I think it matters not who can claim the most members, because we are all brothers and sisters in the one catholic or universal Church, the bride of Christ. So, if people are called by God to move from one construct, i.e., a man-made denomination, to another, it is unimportant by what name they call themselves.

But when a denomination strays from orthodoxy, losses huge numbers of members, and then attempts to suggest that those losses are not in response to the denomination’s departure from the norms of the historic Reformed faith, and to paint those who leave as people who have turned their backs on Jesus Christ, an answer is required. The intentional misinterpretation (through omission and misstatement) of the numbers by the spin-meisters in Louisville must be answered. Consider the following:

1. The report acknowledges that 25 congregations have been dismissed to “other denominations.” Now, 23 of that 25 have come to the EPC, but as interested as the PC(USA) is in asserting EPC recruiting, they refuse to acknowledge that PC(USA) presbyteries have dismissed churches to the EPC, usually after extorting obscene ransoms to do so.

2. The report includes only those churches that asked permission for their departure. It ignores churches that disaffiliated, as they are permitted to do under Chapter 7 of the PC(USA)’s Book of Order. Instead, the leaders of the PC(USA) suggest that most of the rest of their losses are people who turned their backs on the Christ in favor of the world and, for the PC(USA), that is at best unproven and at worst simply untrue.

3. Many congregations have simply walked away from the PC(USA), abandoning their property to small “loyal remnants” and forming new vibrant congregations. For instance, New Covenant Presbyterian Church in Fort Myers, Fla. Was formed when 1,300 members formed a new EPC church. Another is Lighthouse Presbyterian Church in Paola, Kansas where over 300 members left the First Presbyterian Church in the hands of a small remnant. In that case, Heartland Presbytery refused an offer from the departing congregation of a cash payment and assumption by the church of a nearly $1,000,000 mortgage that had been guaranteed by the presbytery. At the very least, the statistical reports for those two churches reflect some departures. Others still claim their previous totals.

A case in point is Londonderry Presbyterian Church in New Hampshire. In order to justify actions that led to the loss of the second largest congregation in the presbytery, the expenditure of over $650,000 by the presbytery to coerce the congregation to remain in the PC(USA), including paying the costs to enable the so-called “loyal remnant” to sue the members of their former session personally, and a result that can only be described as a phyrric for both the remnant congregation and the presbytery, the PNNE helps support the gross misstatements now emanating from Louisville.

Londonderry Presbyterian Church: A Study in Deception

CORRECTION: Thanks to GA Junkie via Reformed Catholic in the PCUSA, I got to read a recent newspaper article appearing in the Eagle-Tribune of North Andover, Massachusetts about both Londonderry Presbyterian Church (the PC(USA) remnant) and Orchard Christian Fellowship. The news for both churches is good. LPC now has some 225 members (although their presbytery continues to state a membership of 534), up from the original remnant of 39. Why their recent congregational photos are so small, I cannot say.

OCF now has 475 members, up from the 212 who voted to leave the PC(USA) and to move to the EPC. Increases like this are good news for the holy catholic Church, and I'm glad to hear of the good work being done by both churches.

I was intrigued to read in the newspaper that a recent three-year grant to LPC from their Synod for evangelism is being used to pay staff salaries, but you have to have evangelists to evangelize.

In 2007, in response to departures from orthodox Reformed theology by the PC(USA), capped by the General Assembly’s 2006 reception of the “Trinity Paper” and the adoption of the “Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity in the Church,” the leadership and congregation of Londonderry Presbyterian Church in Londonderry, New Hampshire voted overwhelmingly to disaffiliate from the PC(USA) and to join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. At that time, the pulpit at LPC had been vacant for nearly three years. As the PNNE states on its current website (as of July 1, 2009).

In late summer of 2007, it was clear [to the Presbytery] that there was a schism within the congregation. A mail vote (sic) of the congregation was conducted by the session concerning the issue of leaving the denomination. A majority of the votes (sic) were to stay in the denomination. Only 29% voted (sic) to leave.

Notwithstanding this vote (sic), the session of the LPC voted to recommend leaving the denomination, and began a campaign to reverse the mail vote (sic). It was then apparent that a formal process of dealing with the schism was necessary. The COM decided that the search for a pastor could not proceed until the issue of leaving the denomination had been settled.

In fact, as early as four weeks prior to the departure of the vast majority of the membership from the PC(USA), the session had decided that it must wait until it could call a pastor to guide them in decisions regarding their continued membership in the PC(USA). It was only when the Committee on Ministry made it clear to LPC that no action would be taken to approve its Church Information Form [a document that had to be approved by the presbytery before the pastor search process could continue, a document upon which the COM had been sitting for months], and that unless LPC would guarantee in writing that it would never leave the PC(USA), the COM would not let them search for a pastor.

And because of the need to justify the results of its action, PNNE has made many different and contradictory statements about the “history” of the crisis. For instance, in a report the presbytery at its September 13, 2008 meeting, PNNE admitted

The work with Londonderry Presbyterian Church (LPC) began several years ago with the connectional work normally done by a General Presbyter. The LPC Session expressed concern over several actions of the General Assembly. The pastoral conversations became more intense during the past three years. Elder Ingrid Cyros and Rev. Jim Stuart were assigned as liaisons to LPC by the Committee on Ministry. They worked with the LPC Session and PNC for a couple years.

During the Spring and Summer of 2007, Presbytery officers and other leaders met with LPC session members for a series of informal lunch meetings to build relationships and to talk about matters of concern of LPC with PNNE and GA. [ In] June 2007, the LPC Session brought a resolution to PNNE in response to PUP report. This failed to pass.

The Presbytery leadership had discussions about whether an administrative commission (AC) was needed to help settle the LPC issues. The general thinking was that an AC would be a tripping point to incite further action by the LPC Session. (Emphasis added.)

In other words, the PNNE decided to “incite” the session to protect itself by preparing to form an administrative commission. This occurred about a week after the session had decided to stay in the PC(USA) until it had a pastor to lead its deliberations. However, upon learning that PNNE intended to form an Administrative Commission to remove the elected session of the church and to replace it with pastors and elders from other churches whose sole loyalty would be to the presbytery and the PC(USA), the session called a congregational meeting to consider leaving the PC(USA).

PNNE’s action fully comported with the plan of action that had been secretly prepared by the legal department of the PC(USA) some two years before and which had only come to light when it was leaked to the press. The plan was in the form of two documents which came to be known as the “Louisville Papers.” Among other things, the plan counseled presbyteries and their attorneys to tell judges that the PC(USA) was a “hierarchical” church, just like the Roman Catholic, Episcopal, and other such denominations. Sadly, that advice contained the qualifying admission that the argument should be made even though the PC(USA) was not hierarchical.

Presbyteries were counseled to seize and freeze bank accounts, change locks on churches, cloud the title to property, fire pastors and take over the governance of the congregations.

It must be remembered that LPC was a 270 year old congregation whose establishment pre-dated the Revolutionary War and the subsequent establishment of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, a predecessor to the PC(USA). It had owned most of its property since the 1700s and none of the deeds mentioned any ownership interest in the denomination or the presbytery. It was only the 1981 unilateral addition by the PC(USA) to its constitution of a claim that churches held their property in trust for the national denomination that put the title to PLC’s property in question. LPC had never affirmatively taken any action to create such a trust.

In 1979, the United States Supreme Court had adopted a standard for deciding church property cases known as the “neutral principles” doctrine. In other words, cases not related to church doctrine or theology, church corporations could be treated just like any other corporation. Property decisions could be based solely on deeds, articles of incorporation and corporate by-laws.

The Louisville papers counseled churches to ignore this legal doctrine and to argue that the decision as to whom owned the property ought to be made by the very presbytery that the Book of Order claimed was the owner!

In that light, when PNNE tried to form an Administrative Commission, the session (board of elders) of LPC retained counsel to file what is known as a suit to quiet title. In such an action, the court examines the conflicting ownership claims under the neutral principles and then decides the sole issue of title. The same rules of law would apply whether the claimants were Londonderry Presbyterian Church and Presbytery of Northern New England or Londonderry Petroleum Company and Petroleum Nitraters of New England.

Additionally, because the Louisville Papers counseled the presbytery to attempt to change the status quo with respect to property, the session sought and obtained a temporary restraining order preventing the presbytery from taking over the congregation’s property and assets. Once again, such action by a court to maintain the status quo is the norm.

So, in September of 2007, a simple issue of disputed ownership of property was before the court. Such narrow issues are usually decided without the necessity of trial and at fairly low cost to the parties by way of cross motions for summary judgment.

But that was not what the PNNE told its members that it spent $650,000 on. Instead, on its website, it claims that

The primary issue in the law suit brought by this session of the Presbytery which later became an Evangelical Presbyterian Church congregation, against the Presbytery of Northern New England is whether the trial judge can replace the PCUSA Constitution with civil court procedures and substitute the judge’s decision for that of the Presbytery.

In fact, that question has already been answered by the United States Supreme Court and a large majority of the states, including New Hampshire. Under New Hampshire law, neutral principles would still allow a member church of PNNE today to initiate the same action against PNNE for resolution of the property issues under state law. As late as last week, the Ohio Supreme Court, in ruling for Hudson Presbyterian Church, affirmed that the so-called property trust provision of the PC(USA) Book of Order is not enforceable.

In other words, the PNNE’s stated reason for spending $650,000 means that they spent all that money for nothing. Had they been truthful, they would have admitted that at the behest of Louisville, they spent that money to intimidate any other congregations that might put faithfulness to the call of God above the polity of the PC(USA). And if there is any doubt that that is the case, consider the following from the website of the loyal remnant’s July 2008 newsletter. In describing what it means to be a member of a PC(USA) congregation, it says:

We even reaffirm through our vows, at that juncture, to uphold everything that we stand for as a connectional church, and to uphold The Book of Order; a document that is, in addition to Holy Scripture and The Book of Confessions, at the very core of our structure and existence as a denomination.

For the PC(USA), the Book of Order is, at the very least, a 67th book of the cannon, and that was what PNNE was fighting for! But, you might ask, if the PNNE was fighting for the PC(USA), how could it incur such costs?

We requested financial assistance from the Office of General Assembly and from the Synod,and eventually from the 218th General Assembly, with the costs of this law suit because the issues at stake are much more than property. The connectional nature of the Presbyterian Church (USA) was on trial. Website, July 1, 2009 (emphasis added).

Sadly, this statement is, apparently, a correct statement of the PC(USA)’s view of connectionalism. When the Presbytery of South Louisiana entered into a stipulated judgment, conceding that it had no legal or moral right to the property of First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge, its synod convened a commission to examine the presbytery’s action. The presbytery established that it would have lost the property case based on neutral principles. It made the decision to be good stewards of its limited resources and ended a suit it would have ultimately lost.

The commission could not reverse the action, but, in its report, it castigated the presbytery for failing to protect the property trust clause of the Book of Order. It asserted that by so acting, the presbytery had destroyed Presbyterian connectionalism. In other words, in its view, the only thing that connects the PC(USA) is the ability of Louisville and the presbyteries to terrorize churches into maintaining PC(USA) membership under pain of losing their property.

PNNE justifies its actions thusly:

Because the Presbytery has successfully defended this attack, the PCUSA now has a successful strategy for defending any such suits in the future, making such suits much less likely.

What were those actions? To explain that requires another correction of PNNE’s warped view of history. You will recall that, even today, its website says

In late summer of 2007, it was clear [to the Presbytery] that there was a schism within the congregation. A mail vote (sic) of the congregation was conducted by the session concerning the issue of leaving the denomination. A majority of the votes (sic) were to stay in the denomination. Only 29% voted (sic) to leave.

Notwithstanding this vote (sic), the session of the LPC voted to recommend leaving the denomination, and began a campaign to reverse the mail vote (sic).

What actually took place is this. As part of the process of discerning the views of the congregation, in the summer of 2007, the session conducted a written confidential straw poll, asking the congregation “Shall we stay or go?” The raw answers were about as the PNNE states: 29% checked “Go,” and 71% checked “Stay.” Those numbers were leaked to PNNE.

What did not get to PNNE was the results of the “Comments” also solicited in the straw poll.

And it must be clear that this was merely a poll. No one suggests that the PC(USA) Book of Order permits absentee voting or any voting outside of a congregational meeting. So the attempt by the PNNE to describe this poll as a vote which decided the issue is yet another attempt to justify its later action.

The comments to the straw poll indicated that if there was a good chance that the congregation could both leave and keep its property, the numbers reversed. So, at the congregational meeting called to vote on disaffiliation, the vote was 71% for disaffiliation and 29% for staying in the PC(USA). And the presbytery was stunned into momentary silence.

Nonetheless, PNNE then spent $650,000 to try to punish nearly three-quarters of a congregation that no longer understood God to call them to membership in the PC(USA). And what was the result for the PNNE and the loyal remnant? The PNNE website states

The PNNE’s lawyers’ fees totaled approximately $650,000 by trial’s end. PNNE has paid approximately $200,000 and still owes approximately $300,000.

The General Assembly has contributed $27, 351 to our 2007 expenses, and arranged pro bono assistance from a national law firm to advise our legal team, all of which we greatly appreciate. The Synod of the Northeast through the New England Partnership Group has contributed $2,000. The 218th General Assembly provided no relief (although it did establish an Extra Commitment Opportunity Constitutional Legal Defense Fund that is unfunded). The Synod of the Northeast has established an Ecclesiastical Integrity Fund for such situations, which is yet unfunded. (Emphasis added.)

Our lawyers have contributed approximately $250,000 through pro bono service and reduced fees. One lawyer reduced fees by 50%. The other reduced fees by 20%.

The Synod has approved a loan of $200,000 to be repaid over 15 years at $18,000 per year or $1500 per month. The lawyers have agreed to let the Presbytery pay the remaining $100,000 over the next two years at no interest.

The consequence of the burden of these legal costs has been devastating to the Presbytery’s mission and ministry. The printing and mailing of the newsletter has been eliminated. Instead of mailing it to about 2,000 households in Northern New England, it is being emailed to about 200 individuals. Support for training and work-shops for our pastors and church members has been slashed by $12,000, essentially eliminating this ministry support.

Comparing the 2009 Budget to the 2007 Budget, Partnership aid with congregations for ministries in their communities has been reduced by 40% and support for denominational mission has been cut by over 50%. The Evangelism support for congregational programming has been eliminated. Staff consists of one General Presbyter and one secretary and their cost of living salary increases have been eliminated. The stipend for the Stated Clerk was also held steady. Travel expenses throughout the four-state region has been cut by 25%.

The Presbytery is saving rent by moving into one of its church’s buildings.[Office rent will go to $0 after October when the Presbytery office is moved to the Londonderry Presbyterian Church at no charge. PNNE Minutes 9/13/2008 at 615] Ministry expenses of COM and CPM have been cut by 72%.

Drastic cuts have been made. These are temporary, but it will take a couple of years before our normal financial processes will be able to begin to renew mission and ministry support for the Presbytery. The process has been financially hard. But the Presbytery made the right decisions for its congregation in Londonderry, but more importantly, for our denomination. The Presbytery made the commitment alone, but always with the conviction that it acted on the behalf of the denomination. As a part of the connectional church, it could not abandon its responsibilities.

When the process was begun, it was never anticipated that it would cost the Presbytery so dearly. The case law was clear. Everyone anticipated that the legal process would be concluded quickly and relatively inexpensively ($50,000). The Office of the General Assembly committed to partner in the legal costs.

Our faith tells us that the Lord does not put us to a test that we cannot meet.

Had the Presbytery in September of 2007 been presented with the question of spending $500,000 and 18 months to defend the Book of Order, it might responsibly have answered that there is no way the Presbytery can pay such a sum. It just doesn’t have that kind of money. Presbytery might responsibly have said that this is a national issue, and relied on the Office of General Assembly’s wisdom and lawyers as to whether and how to make a defense. But that was not the question presented. At each step, challenges were presented and ways forward were discerned. Presbytery has successfully defended our Book of Order and our connectional system and now looks to the future with significant financial handicaps for continuing mission and ministry throughout a four-state area. (Emphasis added.)

After championing the good cause for Presbyterianism, the many small churches throughout Northern New England are themselves now struggling to keep their own doors open, the heat on, and their pastors paid. At a time when mission needs are increasing, the Presbytery’s ability to participate in meeting those needs has been compromised. Now is the time Presbytery of Northern New England needs special mission gifts from all who are able so that our witness to Christ through mission and ministry in our area and through our many small and rural congregations may continue. PNNE Website 7/1/2009

Ultimarely, PNNE spent $650,000 to keep a couple of heavily mortgaged buildings (see PNNE minutes for December 6, 2008 at 660), and to terrorize its other members into staying in the PC(USA). One wonders: If another congregation in PNNE voted to disaffiliate today, would PNNE try to stop them?

The settlement agreement between the majority congregation and the remnant congregation probably effectively prevents the presbytery from selling the property because the majority congregation, which received 15 undeveloped acres of property as part of the settlement, also received the right of first refusal on any sale of the buildings and land of the remnant congregation. I doubt that the PNNE could explain to its members the expenditure of $650,000 to “keep” land that it then sold to the majority.

How does this all apply to the PC(USA)’s intentional misrepresentation of its membership numbers?

Prior to the split, LPC claimed about 530 members and had regular worship attendance of about 300. After the split, the majority now has nearly 250 charter members of Orchard Christian Fellowship and worship attendance in the 275 range.

The remnant LPC claims the pre-split membership of 534 [PNNE Website 7/1/2009], and says in different editions of its newsletter that it is seeing worship attendance in the range of 125 to “nearly 200”, but keeps showing the same 60 people in photographs of the congregation in its newsletter. See, e.g., June 2009 newsletter. And Louisville claims those same numbers. One could argue that Louisville allowed PNNE to spend all that time, money and spiritual effort simply to keep nearly 500 names associated with a 60 member congregation so that membership losses would not be even greater than reported.

At the same time, as may be seen in the PNNE report, the presbytery is suffering. PC(USA) leaders in Louisville promised PNNE (and other presbyteries) monetary support that the General Assembly refused to give. The PNNE General Presbyter who was Louisville’s great supporter has moved on to another presbytery and will not be replaced anytime soon. The fact that the presbytery had to freeze his salary may or may not have influenced his decision. He is being replaced by a part-time administrator, and the presbytery is being effectively divided into three groups with volunteer leadership because of the poor financial condition of the presbytery.

Because “I believe in . . . the holy catholic Church . . ,.” I pray that the congregation at LPC prospers so long as it remains faithful to Scripture. When they do, the entire Body of Christ prospers. Likewise, as Orchard grows, the entire Church should celebrate.

Perhaps in the fullness of time, LPC (the “victorious” remnant church) will once again actually have the membership it now claims. But wouldn’t it have been better for the “catholic Church” if the remnant had, in true Presbyterian fashion, merely accepted the call God placed on the majority?

Louisville’s desperate need to keep numbers so as to disguise the effect of its departure from Reformed orthodoxy in favor of post-modern practice has had a tangible destructive effect that did not need to occur.

THE HYPOCRISY OF THE PC(USA)

I will write a more detailed entry about a wonderful, Spirit-filled Assembly tomorrow. I left Brighton at 11:30 am today and got home at 8:45 (587 miles). But one action taken this morning kept me thinking all the way home.

As one of the final actions taken today, the GA approved a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Fraternal Relations directing the Stated Clerk/Executive Pastor to seek a face-to-face meeting with his PC(USA) counterpart. The genesis of the action is the action taken at last year’s GA by Clif Kirkpatrick and his henchmen to create an “investigating” committee to look into "allegations" that the EPC has been recruiting PC(USA) congregations.

Of course, this has not happened, and it is contrary to EPC practice and procedure. The folks who want to add a 67th book to the Canon (the PC(USA) Book of Order) just refuse to acknowledge that faithful congregations have originated the move, probably because to do so would require them to acknowledge the bases for such moves.

I have been aware for a couple of months that this committee has been seeking to speak to a number of pastors/congregations in my presbytery (New Wineskins). That in and of itself is really interesting because the PC(USA) has generally refused to acknowledge that we are a presbytery. In most of the cases in our presbytery of which I am aware, the requests have been declined, which is not surprising given the persecution those congregations have faced for simply following God’s call on them to leave the PC(USA) and for doing so as a matter of the permissive powers of the congregation guaranteed (at least for now) by the Book of Order of the PC(USA). Because we are looking forward and not back, we have little interest in having anything more to do with a PC(USA), particularly a politically-driven witch hunt.

But at the GA, I met several folks whose congregations went directly from the PC(USA) to a geographic EPC presbytery. Their congregations did meet with representatives of the “investigating” committee, although the committee members were surprised that ruling elders and members attended. (They had "invited" only the pastors.)

Their experience was telling. After the pastors, elders and members related how their congregations initiated the move, and initiated the contact with the EPC, the committee representatives interjected with declarative “questions” such as “Well, you knew that what you were doing was wrong, correct?” or “You never proved that the PC(USA) was apostate, so leaving was a violation of ordination vows, right?”

When the EPC members asked their inquisitors “Wait, we thought you wanted to know that we were not recruited. It sounds as if you have already made up your mind that we were recruited, although we were not, and are just looking for sound bites to support your position. Is that correct?”

Stunningly, the PC(USA)’s response was “That is correct.”

Last year, when it was learned that Clif, as one of his last acts as Stated Clerk, had engineered this inquisition which was to then be sent to him in his new position as the boss of the WARC, many of us suspected that the fix was in. To be vindicated in that suspicion is sad.

WHERE IS CORDELL HULL WHEN WE REALLY NEED HIM?

On December 7, 1941, approximately one hour after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor had begun, Japanese envoys handed to Secretary of State Cordell Hull a note breaking diplomatic relations between the United States and Japan and announcing that war could commence at any time in the future.

Earlier this month the Presbyterian Lay Committee wrote to the session of every PC(USA) congregation, reporting on the outcome of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Specifically, it reported that

• the GA established a $2 million fund to help middle-governing bodies (presbyteries and synods) sue local churches and confiscate their properties.

• in defiance of the PC(USA)'s constitution, GAPJC has ruled that presbyteries can establish permanent commissions armed with the power to defrock your minister, remove your session, seize your property and even deny your congregation the right to hold a meeting.

• in several cases, individual lawsuits have been filed against session members and local church trustees.

The Lay Committee suggested that sessions consider

a. cutting off all unrestricted mission giving and per capita payments to the denomination’s higher governing bodies (presbytery, synod, and General Assembly) "until they call a halt to their cruel assaults on your brother and sister congregations."

b. re-directing unrestricted mission gifts to ministries that the session knows it can trust.

c. designating GA, synod and/or presbytery per capita contributions to a Legal Assistance Fund established by the Lay Committee to assist congregations and their leadership sued by the denomination and its agents.

Now, The Layman reports that on November 18, the Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) wrote to all Sessions in the PC(USA) claiming that the Lay Committee's letter "contained many factual errors and may cause great misunderstanding."

On that grim "date that will live in infamy, Secretary Hull, having already been told of the attack, excoriated the Japanese diplomats, telling them, "In all my 50 years of public service, I have never seen a document so full of outright lies and scurrillous distortions."

Reading the Stated Clerk's letter, one asks, "Where is Cordell Hull when we need him?"

The Stated Clerk says "The General Assembly did not create a two-million-dollar defense fund, as requested by the Presbytery of Northern New England. The assembly chose, instead, to create an Extra Commitment Opportunity (ECO) fund that would receive voluntary contributions. The name of the ECO is Constitution Legal Defense Fund and it is numbered E052058. To date, we have received no contributions to this fund, and no money from the per capita budget has been allocated for it."

Well, I'm glad the Stated Clerk set that straight! A "Legal Defense Fund" for presbyteries has not been established. It is a "Constitution Legal Defense Fund." Moreover, the CDLF has no set amount, unlike the $2,000,000 fund desired by the Presbytery of Northern New England. And how nice that he goes to great length to tell Sessions how they can contribute to the CDLF. He had to--so far, the CDLF has not received a nickel. And he forgot to mention that the reason that PNNE's overture was defeated is because the GA did not want to commit "its" funds to such a purpose.

Yep. Those guys and gals at the Lay Committee sure tried to slip a whopper past the Sessions--not.

Next, he reports that

The letter suggests that presbyteries have taken aggressive actions to deprive congregations of their pastors and property via ecclesiastical processes and the secular courts. The letter misrepresents the actions of presbyteries and misinterprets recent General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission cases.

Virtually all actions by presbyteries are reactions to aggressive schismatic behavior by individual congregations and sessions. Of the thirty-nine cases in civil courts, thirty-six have been filed for local sessions. The three filed by presbyteries have sought only that sessions and congregations be required to follow the processes provided by the Book of Order.

Oh, my. Where to begin?

No aggressive action by the PC(USA) or the Presbyteries? Read the Louisville Papers for yourself--especially the part that suggests that as soon as a presbytery thinks a congregation may be re-considering its denominational affiliation, it form an AC to remove the pastor and session, chenge the locks on the doors, freeze the bank accounts, and get to court to tell the judge that the presbytery is a "bishop"! Or telling the judge that the PC(USA) is a hierarchical denomination even though the authors admit that the PC(USA) has never called itself that.

Consider that before the Louisville Papers were leaked, the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma put them into effect by clouding the title to the property of each of its member congregations.

"Of the thirty-nine cases in civil courts, thirty-six have been filed for local sessions."

As counsel to four of those thirty-six churches, I can explain their action. In the case of three of them, they knew that the Presbytery of Donegal had instituted suit against two disaffiliating churches 25 years ago. The presbytery lost at the trial court level and on appeal. Desiring to be the plaintiff rather than the defendant, they filed a declaratory judgement action, asking the court to rule on which corporations owned the property. They then allowed the presbytery to refrain from answering the complaints and entered into negotiations. We never set foot in a court-room!

In the fourth case, the Session had advance word that the presbytery (PNNE) was planning to appoint an AC to assume original jurisdiction, oust the Session, change the locks, and "prevent" the huge majority of the congregation from leaving the PC(USA). That case has also been settled. The majority gave up the physical plant, part of which is nearly 200 years old, to the 50 or so which make up the so-called "loyal PC(USA) remnant). The 200 plus majority has now swelled in number.

Most of the other 32 congregations that filed suit have also done so under the duress of the Louisville papers.

And lest anyone forget, it is presbyteries, following the game plan of the Louisville Papers, that have sued individual elders and pastors. See, e.g., Presbytery of Northern New England and its surrogate, the "loyal remnant" who sued elders at Londonderry Pres, and Presbytery of Washington who sued pastor and elders at Peter's Creek Pres.

"The three filed by presbyteries have sought only that sessions and congregations be required to follow the processes provided by the Book of Order. When sessions/congregations have followed those processes, they have usually
been dismissed to the reformed denomination of their choice.
"

First of all, there are no such processes set forth in the Book of Order. Second, the Stated Clerk is apparently not well-informed by his staff. Where presbyteries have created such procedures sua sponte, the procedures put the presbytery in control of scheduling and require innumerable delays to "ensure" that the congregation really understands what it is doing. Where congregations have tried to follow such procedures, they have usually resulted in a determination by the presbytery that a "loyal remnant", often of ten percent or less, constitutes the "true church" which ought to get all the property.

It is true that presbyteries served with civil lawsuits have had to expend significant resources in defending our Book of Order processes. In the Sundquist v. Heartland Presbytery case, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC)recently affirmed the validity of those processes, which include permitting presbyteries to create structures that can respond to civil lawsuits when they arise, but such processes do not provide for aggressive actions by presbyteries.

Huh? As I discussed in a blog a couple of weeks ago, Sundquist is highly suspect. It appears to have been written with the sole intent of allowing the Stated Clerk to write this letter, because the questions of disaffiliation and dismissal were not at issue in the case. The sole issue taken up on appeal was whether a presbytery could give an AC blanket authority to go after a pastor and/or session and/or congregation on mere suspicion that they might be talking about whether they should leave the PC(USA). The GAPJC nonetheless threw in a long piece of obiter dicta about dismissal procedures, essentially assuming the role of GA and presbyteries to amend the Boook of Order.

And what nonsense it is to claim that the suits are about "defending our Book of Order processes." Not a single presbytery or congregation has filed or responded to suit. In every instance, corporations created under state law (and in tune with the Book of Order suggestion that congregations ought to incorporate) have been in suit over ownership of property, an issue which even the PC(USA) concedes is a matter of State law.

The Stated Clerk gets really exercised when it comes to the suggestion that sessions withhold per capita. He says "The congregation’s responsibility is not to itself, but to itself in light of its call to ‘fulfill its responsibilities as the local unit of mission for the service of all people, for the upbuilding of the whole church, and for the Glory of God’ (Book of Order, G-4.0104).” (Citing to Johnston, et al. v. Heartland Presbytery)

Well, yeah, but how is it wrong to withhold per capita from the PC(USA)and use it through some other agency "for the service of all people, for the upbuilding of the whole church, and for the Glory of God"? Just because the agency used is not the PC(USA)? Or is it that he believes, as did the authors of the Louisville Papers, that the PC(USA) alone is the "true church"?

And try as he might to limit Central Presbyterian v. Presbytery of Long Island (a presbytery cannot require payments from a session, nor can it punish a session for its refusal to comply with requests for payment from a presbytery),Kirk Johnson et al v. Heartland Presbytery, and Minihan and Richards v. Scioto Valley Presbytery to his aspirational language, he must admit that those cases established and reaffirmed long-standing GAPJC decisions that payment of per capita is voluntary, not mandatory.

Finally, we hear once again a plea "to heed the words of 1 Cor. 6:7 and avoid lawsuits." Well let's look at 1 Corinthians 6.

1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul counsels against using frivilous lawsuits against brothers, that is, suits for improper purposes. He does not forbid all suits. For instance, in Romans 13 he reminds us

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

In other words, God created and instituted the civil magistrate to carry out those proper functions within its domain. One of those functions, recognized since at least the Roman Empire, is to resolve property disputes. When Paul asks, "Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?", I wonder if he meant that one brother claiming the property could decide the issue between himself and the other brother? Probably not. And a whole lot of judges today are believers--witness the admonition of the Louisville Papers to seek a Roman Catholic or Episcopalian judge!

And I'll bet that many in the PC(USA) wish the Clerk had stayed away from 1 Corinthians 6. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Ooooops.

Oh, Cordell, what would you think?

A TRINITY OF EVIL: THE PC(USA)'S PERMANENT JUDICIAL COMMISSION SPEAKS

Note: This post is a statement of opinion of the author. It does not reflect, nor should it be construed to reflect, the opinions or positions of Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church, The New Wineskins Transitional Non-geographic Presbytery, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, or the New Wineskins Association of Churches.

That loud noise you just heard was the PC(USA)'s Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) slamming the door on congregations that might want to faithfully follow a call from God to move to another part of His vineyard.

There is now a trinity of evil emanating from the denominational home office: the two Louisville Papers are complemented and completed by Sundquist, et al v. Heartland Presbytery. In so doing, the GAPJC abandoned its role as an independent judicial body and became nothing more than a mouthpiece for the bureaucrats in Louisville. In fact, the Sundquist decision appears to have been written by the very same pen that wrote the other two.

Defying the long-standing principle that a court of review ought answer only the questions before it, the GAPJC used a case about a very narrow question of jurisdiction of an administrative commission to amend the Book of Order so as to support the bureaucracy. That they did so by abandoning an "essential tenet" of American constitutional law ought be no surprise in a denomination that cannot say what it believes other than that property and money are the denominational sine qua non. In fact, the very 2008 action of the General Assembly upon which the PJC relies constituted a unilateral amendment of the Book of Order, but that was of no import to Louisville's puppets sitting in Baltimore.

Had the GAPJC limited its decision to Parts I and III of its opinion, it would be subject to hearty disagreement from the proponents of the losing side, but there is some colorable merit to the conclusions reached therein. But the PJC completely abandoned its jurisdiction by adding PART II.

In Part II, the PJC rewrote sections §§ G-7.0304 and G-11.0103i without approval by either the General Assembly or the presbyteries. Its action in so doing appears to be an attempt to give Louisville some ammunition when faced with assertions by congregations that those sections as currently written permit congregations to unilaterally disaffiliate and move to a more faithful denomination.

As I discussed in a series of posts between April 30 and May 14, 2008, the current Book of Order is so ambiguous that it must be read to allow a congregation to leave the denomination on its own initiative. Now, if that issue had been raised in the Synod PJC below, briefed by the parties, and argued before the PJC, the GAPJC could have addressed itself to that question. That was not the case. Instead, the PJC took up the issue sua sponte. And there was joy in Louisville.

Specifically, the PJC held in pertinent part:

". . . G-7.0302 and G-7.0304 limit the business of congregational meetings and do not include the topic of seeking dismissal."

Sundquist at 9. That assertion is patently false. Section G-7.0302 merely defines Annual and Special meetings of the congregation, and provides a standard for notice and parliamentary procedure. Specifically, section G-7.0302b provides that a special meeting can consider any "...business as may be proper for congregational consideration..." citing § G-7.0304.

Section G-7.0304a, provides:

a. Business to be transacted at meetings of the congregation shall include the following:
( 1 ) matters related to the electing of elders, deacons, and trustees ;
( 2 ) matters related to the calling of a pastor or pastors;
( 3 ) matters related to the pastoral relationship, such as changing the call, or requesting or consenting or declining to consent to dissolution;
( 4 ) matters related to buying, mortgaging, or selling real property (G-8.0500) ;
( 5 ) matters related to the permissive powers of a congregation, such as the desire to lodge all administrative responsibility in the session, or the request to presbytery for exemption from one or more requirements because of limited size. (Emphasis added.)

In other words, the congregation reserves the power of self-government, including the right to organize itself, so that, at the local level, its witness and ministry is most effective. Boiled down to its basics, at its annual meeting, the congregation asks and answers the following questions:

• Who shall be our leaders?
• What shall we agree and promise to pay our pastor?
• What shall we do with our land, buildings and other property which we, as a congregation have purchased for the purpose of our worship?

All of these questions go directly to the root of the congregation’s unique identity. Surely, the final component of that identity—denominational affiliation—must also be reserved to the congregation. Thus, we add to the foregoing list this question:

• How (by what denominational name) shall we identify ourselves to the community?

Observe that in every instance, these questions go to the core issue of the identity of the congregation.

Nonetheless, the GAPJC ignores § G-7.0304a(5), as if the FOG proposal had been approved by the 2008 General Assembly and ratified by a majority of the presbyteries. This is important because the FOG proposal removes §G-7.0304a(5), specifically limiting the business that may be conducted at congregational meetings to §§ G-7.0304a(1)-(4). In matters of statutory construction, such an amendment should be construed to mean that the permissive powers of the congregation are other than those listed in §§ G-7.0304a(1)-(4).

But dancing to Louisville's desperate tune,the PJC wrties "permissive powers" out of the constitution. And to accomplish their master's bidding, they resorted to judicial smoke, mirrors and deception of the first order, to wit: ex post facto application to this 2007 case of an "action" of the 2008 General Assembly. They wrote:

In 2008, the 218th General Assembly adopted Item 04-20 (Minutes, 2008, p. 48), which refers to G-7.0304 and states, “Withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not a matter that can be considered at a congregational meeting.”

But § G-7.0304a says no such thing. The acceptance by the GAPJC of the General Assembly's attempt to amend § G-7.0304 by legislative fiat is improper, and the further application of any such amendment to the Sundquist facts ex post facto is doubly so.

And that is not enough. Next, the PJC must also amend § G-11.0103i.

This does not mean that a congregation is prohibited from requesting dismissal. However, it is the presbytery (or its duly appointed administrative commission or its Committee on Ministry) that has the responsibility to consult with the members of a church about dismissal (G-11.0103i). . . . These consultations (which may be in the form of listening sessions, hearings or other consultations) are for the benefit of informing the presbytery as it considers a request for dismissal, but are not meetings at which any business of the congregation may be conducted (id.; see also Gaba v. Presbytery of Eastern Virginia, Minutes, 2003, p. 269, (The purpose of this provision is not merely matter of fairness or information gathering, but also exercise of pastoral oversight of churches by the presbytery to facilitate reconciliation.)).

* * * * * * *

Congregational meetings called or conducted by sessions for the purpose of voting on dismissal without the involvement of the presbytery are improper and have no binding effect.

* * * * * * *

G-11.0103i requires the presbytery to consult with members of local congregations seeking dismissal. The presbytery should consult with pastors and congregations seeking dismissal at the earliest practicable opportunity and in the manner described by the Resolution for a Gracious, Pastoral Response (Item 04-28).

Sundquist at 9-10 (emphasis added).

First and foremost, the PJC assigns to the presbytery certain exclusive rights not granted by the Book of Order. Section G-11.0103i does not require presbytery action before a congregation can request dismissal! Section G-11.0103i is simple and clear. "[The Presbytery] has the responsibility and power...to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members." The suggestion that the only possible interpretation of § G-11.0103i is that consultation must occur before the congregation votes to seek dismissal is absurd. At best for the PJC, § G-11.0103i is ambiguous. It can be as fairly read to say that after a congregation asks to be dismissed, the presbytery must consult with the members. Because the General Assembly and a majority of the presbyteries wrote the Book of Order, the doctine contra proferentum should be applied in favor of the other party, i.e., the congregation.

Obviously, the PJC means to adopt a construction of § G-11.0103i that requires a congregation to give advance notice so that the presbytery can form an administrative commission to crush any such attempt.

Any privilege to seek dismissal is conditioned on the cooperation of the congregation, the session and the pastor(s) with the presbytery in a process that operates in the manner set forth in Item 04-28. There shall not be any secret or secretive acts by sessions, pastors or congregations; bylaw changes or transfers of assets effectively negating the Book of Order or diminishing a church‟s connection to the PC(USA); or curtailment of communications with the presbytery as a prelude to dismissal. Congregational meetings called or conducted by sessions for the purpose of voting on dismissal without the involvement of the presbytery are improper and have no binding effect.

Sundquist at 10. Although the PJC suggests that Item 04-28 (218th GA, 2008) is directive, a clear reading of the item reveals that it merely states a hope on the part of the General Assemblty that presbyteries will act in a consistent and pastoral manner.

Next, in violation of §§ G-1.0308 and G-9.0102a, the PJC seeks to unconstitutionally control the actions of the congregation and to usurp the powers of the civil magistrate by directing trustees of corporations.

There shall not be any secret or secretive acts by sessions, pastors, or gongregations; bylaw changes or transfers of assets effectively negating the Book of Order or diminishing a church‟s connection to the PC(USA); or curtailment of communications with the presbytery as a prelude to dismissal.

Where to start?

Because the congregation is not a "governing body," see,§§ G-G-9.0101 and G-9.0103, its powers are different than and independent of those of any governing body. Thus, its power to conduct a congregational meeting under § G-7.0304a(5) cannot be controlled by a presbytery.

Moreover, the trustees of a civil corporation, even those which hold the property of the congregation, are not subject to the direction of a presbytery, synod, or the General Assembly. The fiduciary duty of the trustees flows solely to the members of the corporation, and, subject to the constraints of State law, the trustees must act in the best interests of the corporation. The suggestion that the presbytery can order the trustees to abandon that duty in favor of a third party, i.e., renders the trustees that comply subject to an action for breach of fiduciary.

Ultimately, it appears that the Sundquist decision was written to benefit the improper assertions first made in the infamous Louisville Papers. It is simply another giant step towards accomplishing the goal of the bureaucracy to convert a presbyterian denomination into an apostolic hierarchy. The giants of the Reformation must be spinning in their graves.

$2,000,000

Two commissioners from the Presbytery of Northern New England (PNNE) to the PC(USA) General Assembly have filed a "commissioner's overture" asking the General Assembly to create a two million dollar fund so that PNNE can continue its law suit against Londonderry (New Hampshire) Presbyterian Church. PNNE claims that to date, it has spent nearly $226,000 in legal costs to prosecute their case, and they anticipate spending another $150,000 in 2008.

The cash would come from the Office of the General Assembly (OGA). The purpose of the fund is to cover legal fees "defending our Constitution against the New Wineskins Non-Geographic Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church."

"But wait," you say. "Didn't 'LPC, a New Hampshire voluntary religious corporation' sue Presbytery of Northern New England, a New Hampshire voluntary religious corporation' first?"

And the answer is, "Yes." LPC, Inc. filed a declaratory judgement action in the New Hampshire courts, seeking a judicial determination as to the legal interests of LPC, Inc. and PNNE,Inc., respectively, in LPC's property. This is a straight forward civil legal issue that even the PC(USA)'s legal department recognizes to be a matter of state law. Cf., Romans 13: 1-5.

But contrary to the Book of Order, PNNE wanted a judicial resolution of theological issues. And to do that, they have combined with the PC(USA), their synod, and a group of about 80 former members of LPC who voted against disaffiliation. This group was organized by PNNE into a church plant with a pastor supplied by PNNE.

"But why do you say PNNE sued?" you ask. That's where the commissioner's overture gets interesting.

You see, for nearly a year, PNNE and its apologists have been whining about the dec action. They were offended that before their AC could come in and take over the church, change the locks, dismiss the session, and freeze the bank accounts, the congregation of LPC exercised their "permissive powers" (G-7.0304a) and voted by a 3 to 1 margin to disaffiliate. At the same time, the corporation sought to clear its title to its property.

New Hampshire is a neutral principles jurisdiction, so PNNE, Inc. has a tough row to hoe in overcoming LPC's ownership of the property. They needed to muddy the waters and to impose tremendous costs on LPC. To do that, they needed to file a suit against LPC's individual trustees, in hopes that they would cave. But because PNNE has been so harsh with respect to the suit between LPC, Inc. and PNNE, Inc., they could not bring themselves to sue.

Enter their new church plant. PNNE used them to sue the trustees.

Now comes the commissioner's resolution that admits that PNNE, the synod and PC(USA) have been completely financing the second suit. The 80 haven't had to spend a dime. Once again, the pernicious hand of Louisville and its minions is revealed.

For its rationale, the commissioner's resolution argues that "the PCUSA (sic) holds that the Church is an organic unity of which its synods, presbyteries and local congregations are integral parts. We must be careful that we do not lose the civil lawsuit and set legal precedent endangering our Constitution, simply because we cannot afford to put up the best defense."

Well, nonsense. The only precedent that will be set is in New Hampshire, and LPC was the only PC(USA) church in that presbytery that took the orthodox, biblically faithful position on matters of Scripture and theology. No need to worry about the PC(USA) constitution. This is Louisville's gambit all the way.

The Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) opposed the request. It argued "that an additional 39 presbyteries face, or have faced, similar challenges. . . Our present annual budget for this assistance is only $50,000 intended to cover all ongoing cases. . .." It then admitted that that the stated clerk (probably the SC's office, unless Clif Kirkpatrick ponied up the cash himself)has already provided $20,000 to the Presbytery of Northern New England for the Londonderry suit.

Nonetheless, the General Assembly Procedures Committee overwhelmingly approved the overture and sent it to the GA. The reception it will get there will be interesting. How will commissioners return to their churches and presbyteries to report that "we could find only enough money to support 250 missionaries, but we took $2,000,000 to pay presbyteries to carry out the Louisville Papers Plan."

One wonders: If PNNE had taken that $226,000 (and any settlement offered by LPC, Inc.) and given it to the 80 to plant a new church in Londonderry, where would they be today?

Finally, we now have the red herring du jour from PNNE. They claim to be suing the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery of the EPC "to protect our constitution." Wrong!!

They and their dummy are suing real people at LPC. They just don't want anybody to know that.

BACK FROM THE EPC GENERAL ASSEMBLY (Part 1)

I spent almost all of last week in Bethesda, Maryland, attending the 28th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I am still coming down from the high! What a breath of fresh air when compared to the semi-annual antics (being repeated this week)of the PC(USA).

We started with the second stated meeting of the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery/Support Network ("NWEPC") on Tuesday. The high point of the meeting was centered on pastoral care and leadership. We started with the reception of Reverend Ken Glasier as the Pastor of Londonderry Presbyterian Church (New Hampshire). Ken was called from an EPC church in suburban Denver,becoming the first EPC pastor to transfer from an EPC presbytery to the NWEPC. The Presbytery of New England,(PC(USA), had held Londonderry' request to call a pastor hostage for two and a half years. Because their CIF was complete, the PNC and the Ministry Committee of NWEPC were able to interview three candidates by last February and LPC called Ken in late April.

We then examined four candidates for ordination, approving all pending call. (They all have calls.) In another first, one of the candidates was a woman, despite the scare tactics engaged in by the PC(USA) last year (predicting that the creation of NWEPC was an attempt to end ordination of women).

The candidates were rigorously examined on Scripture, theology, the Essential Tenets of the Reformed faith, NWEPC polity, and the Sacraments. An EPC pastor present commented that it was more intense and detailed than the last exam he had seen in his EPC presbytery. (No more PC(USA) exams in which the hardwest questions are "What is your name?" and "If called, what color will you paint your study?" The required answer to the latter being "Green.")

We also have two mission churches that are well on the way towards becoming functioning congregations in the NWEPC.

God is good, all the time!

More to follow.

PANIC IN LOUISVILLE

As many have recently reported in the blogosphere, the PC(USA) continues its slide into an episcopal dictatorship. The latest institutional departure from historic presbyterianism arises out of the vote in Woodland Presbyterian Church in New Orleans to disaffiliate from the Presbyterian Church (USA). The vote by secret written ballot was 150-6 in favor of disaffiliation, with six abstentions.

What made Woodland's vote unique was the attempt by the Presbytery of South Louisiana to obtain from the civil courts a temporary restraining order prevent Woodland from holding a congregational meeting to vote on disaffiliation.

In this case, the civil court got it absolutely right: recognizing that the congregation has a constitutionally protected freedom of assembly--free from the interference of the civil government-- the request fro the TRO was denied.

Woodland voted three days later to disaffiliate, thus severing its voluntary association with the PC(USA). Sadly, the presbyteryis still seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Woodland from conducting the meeting that has already occurred. (That last sentence was as hard to write as it is to read, but that is what PSL is doing.) In effect, PSL asks the court to enforce PSL's incorrect interpretation of the Book of Order and to bar Woodland from ever meeting to vote on disaffiliation.

The bureaucratic attempt to remedy a defect in the PC(USA) constitution by means of civil suit and administrative fiat results from a nearly thirty year old defect in the Books of Order of the UPCUSA and the PC(USA). Since at least 1984, the PC(USA) has been aware that the absence of an express provision in its constitution forbidding disaffiliation, churches are free to do so. Coupled with the ambiguous grant to congregations of certain undefined "permissive powers," another ambiguity, the absence of such a ban fully supports the right of unilateral disaffiliation.

As more and more congregations learn just how far the bureaucracy in Louisville has strayed from the grassroots in matters of theology, Christology, and Scripture, the bureaucrats have panicked and attempted a putsch to stamp down on the restiver membership. The tools employed have been the unilateral amendment of the Book of Order by presbyteries in the form of "procedures" that change constitutional provisions on quora and required voting majorities. Louisville started the the assault on the Book of Order with the promulgation of the infamous "Louisville Papers."

The court's ruling in Woodland would appear to render PSL's request moot, but PSL has announced that it intends to pursue a preliminary or permanent injunction against Woodland. This can only be read as a warning signal to other congregations, meant to delay any more disaffiliation votes until the upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly. At that GA, the PC(USA) will attempt to ram through a new "Form of Government" which may clear up some of the ambiguities in the present Book of Order, and to transfer most power to the halls of Louisville.


Considering the recent actions by the Synods of the Sun and of the Pacific to usurp the powers of presbyteries, it becomes clear that Louisville hopes to shove through amendments to the Book of Order that will convert the PC(USA) from a presbyterian body to an episcopacy. As the clock runs down, it will be interesting to see just how many congregations make a break for freedom.

BECAUSE GOD SAID SO

As I watch the PC(USA) increase the speed of its precipitous slide away from Biblical faith and toward the humanist, "it's all about me," "I'll do it my way" orientation of our society, I recognize that such departures are not new.

When I was teaching military law to newly commissioned Lieutenants of Marines, one of the hardest concepts for them to accept was authority. The idea that they could give a Marine an order and he had to obey it was an alien concept in the society from which they came. The second half of the 20th Century was defined, in pertinant part, by a growing sense that "no one can tell me what to do!" Those of us who grew up in the 50s will recall that any Mom or Dad on the block could correct you and your best hope was that would end it. If word got back to your own parents, you got it again. We had no vandalism, no killings, no shootings, because we were taught that there was a "chain of command."

A small group of which I am a member is studying the broad topic of "What is Worship?" We have been reading 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chron 15:1-16:6. In Samuel, David undertakes to bring the Ark to Jerusalem. He does it his way. Rather than having it carried as God had required, he put it in a cart. En route, the oxen pulling the cart stumbled and the cart driver reached out to steady the Ark. He was killed.

David became angry, but also recognized that he had failed to handle the Ark in accordance with God's commands. He then repents and begins to transport the Ark properly. The 1 Chronicles passage reports in detail this part of the journey and all of the minute details of the ceremony.

The lesson about authority is clear. We are called to submit to God's authority because He is God. No other reason. Any thought that we may have that we know a better way is doomed to failure. We obey because in so doing, we are worshipping the power and majesty and grace and magnanimty of God. It is all about Him.

When a denomination decides that its "worship" ought to be of modern trends, or what it thinks is "right," when it ignores God's Word as out-dated or irrelevant to this day and age, favoring its own discernment, it ought not be surprised that it is no longer prospering.

FEELIN' ALL THAT PC(USA) LOVE

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot;

"Tommy" by Rudyard Kipling. [Historical note: “Tommy” is Great Britain’s equivalent of America’s “G.I. Joe,” (as used in WWII, not the doll).]


Yesterday was Memorial Day. As I observed in my blog dated May 19, there is a lot of confusion amongst our citizenry regarding the meaning and intent of Memorial Day.

As usual, I attended the annual Memorial Day Parade and service at the Downingtown Veterans’ Memorial. It was a glorious day, sunny, warm, perfect. The huge flag hung limp at half-mast until the service began. A small breeze kicked up and the flag (19’ x 39’) billowed magnificently during the rest of the 90 minute service, falling still, as if in mourning, during the three volleys of musketry and Taps.

The MC made the same point that I have made so often—-Memorial Day is about our honored dead, those who fell on the field of honor. The WWI memorial at my university said it best: “They sacrificed all of their tomorrows for our today.”

So imagine all the Christian love I felt from the PC(USA) when they did the following on this hallowed weekend:

1. On the eve of the weekend, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, released a recommendation to the upcoming GA that it undertake the task of getting our country to “Repent, Restore, Rebuild, and Reconcile” for the current war in Iraq.

2. The PC(USA) high point of the weekend was Presbyterian Peace Fellowship’s weekend-long retreat at a PC(USA) camp. Entitled “Resisting Militarism,” the purpose of the conference “. . . is to train students (ages 14 to 20) to . . . counter[] the military recruitment efforts on their high school and college campuses."

The ACSWP paper is a one-sided, “hate America first” document. It calls upon the United States alone to

1. To repent of engaging in an unnecessary war, to express remorse for the suffering, and to change the disposition to exercise power without understanding the lasting effects of coercion on both occupying and occupied peoples.
2. To restore responsibility for sovereignty and security to Iraqi civil authorities bolstered as necessary by international troops under UN auspices, with U.S.-built bases contributed to the multilateral effort and control.
3. To rebuild a battered Iraq through serious, well-managed, and accountable foreign aid, including massive healthcare assistance for the wounded and maimed.
4. To reconcile political, ethnic, and religious groups through diplomatic and peace-building measures based in truth-seeking, mutual respect, and peace with neighbors, including the supervised return of as many as three million refugees from Syria, Jordan, and other area countries and two million who have been internally displaced.

It is full of praise for the U.S. Constitution in its admiration of the First Amendment (the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion), ignoring the Preamble that recounts that a principle purpose of government is to “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . ..”

Careful reading of the report reveals its true purpose: to bolster the liberal desire that the United Nations be transformed into a world government and the end of our national sovereignty. In so doing, it ignores the reality of the threat to this country by a rabid fundamentalist association of Muslims whose intent is to destroy all believers in the risen Lord and all of western civilization that makes “social witness,” free from the control of intolerant religious courts, possible.

And in releasing its report when it did, it treads disrespectfully on the memory of the men and women who died to preserve the very liberties that make it possible for ACSWP to engage in the activities it espouses. (I’ll ignore the demand that all veterans of the Gulf War, and, by implication, all combat veterans, be given psychiatric care.)

In the late 60’s, former President Truman was asked whether he was ready to apologize to the Japanese for the use of atomic weapons to end WWII. He characteristically replied, “I’m still waiting for them to apologize for Pearl Harbor.” Likewise, I’m still waiting for an apology for the attacks on USS Cole, New York City and the Pentagon before I get into a repentance and reconciliation frame of mind.

The Presbyterian Peace Fellowship program is another product of muddle-headed thinking. There are those who are insulated from the real world by the freedom and security that come with American citizenship. They refuse to see that our country has enemies and therefore needs to defend itself. There is no way to counter such naïveté. A dangerous world will take care of that if they achieve their aims.

What really bothered me was that former Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase could expect us to believe that the scheduling of the training session on Memorial Day weekend was a mere coincidence. He said the scheduling " . . .is in no way intended to dishonor the valuable service and the great service that has been offered by so many people, Presbyterians and others, who have served in the armed forces, but to create alternatives for students who may not know that there are other, non-military options for living out a life of service to the Church... . . Actually, the significance of the timing was just that it was a long weekend when I thought I could get more participation," Rick Ufford-Chase told The Layman.

As my 11 year-old daughter would say, “Oh, puh-lease!”

First—Ufford-Chase (intentionally, I believe) perpetuates the myth that the weekend is meant to commemorate “the valuable service and the great service that has been offered by so many people, Presbyterians and others, who have served in the armed forces.” In his view, the weekend merely about all those poor misguided folks who never had the benefit of his guidance and actually wore their country's uniform.

If he conceded that Memorial Day recalls, in President Lincoln’s immortal words , those “who gave the last full measure of devotion,” then he would also have to admit the disrespect which his little program displays for those who made it possible for him to live in a society that protects his villainy.

But that's not all!!! He next turns the United States into that which he and those of his ilk claim to decry: a theocracy. He and his cohorts seek to “create alternatives for students who may not know that there are other, non-military options for living out a life of service to the Church.” Service to the nation and service to the Church are one and the same!

So, I am just not feeling all that PC(USA) love today. As Mr. Kipling reminded us “makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep, Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap.” I would simply remind Mr. Ufford Chase and the ACSWP that when they engage in this kind of conduct, the troops recognize it for what it is. “An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!”

PERMISSIVE POWERS (PART IX)

Note: The posts in this series are the opinion of the author. They do not reflect, nor should they be construed to reflect, the opinions or positions of Cozen O’Connor, Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church, the New Wineskins Association of Churches, or the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

To wrap up:

A mandatory State-church is anathema to Americans. We cannot send out press gangs to force people to become members of the PC(USA), the EPC, or any other congregation or denomination. People may come and go as the Spirit moves them. If a majority of the individual members of a faith community collectively and collegially determine that they are called to move together, they have the right to do so with the property that they have purchased and maintained for that community and its ministry and mission. Cf., Genesis 12: 5. The suggestion that such a conscientious decision may be made only by individuals, rather than through a corporate decision, can only be the result of a truly bureaucratic mind.

Attempts to coerce continued membership through the use of unnecessarily bureaucratic and dilatory processes and the in terrorem effect of confiscatory “property trusts” are doomed to failure. Although parishioners are naturally emotionally tied to “their” church [building], faith and God’s call will ultimately lead faithful believers to abandon their baggage if faithfulness so requires.

The claim that power to sever relations with an entire congregation is reserved solely to the presbytery does not appear in the Book of Order. In order for such power to reside in the presbytery alone, Book of Order § G-11.0301 would have to read:

T h e presbytery is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district. It therefore has the sole responsibility and power
* * *
i . to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches; . . ..

This wording is obviously unworkable when one applies it to the other 26 subparagraphs of § G-11.0301. Instead, a separate provision would be needed, for example:

G-11:0301.1
a. The presbytery has the sole responsibility and power to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches within its geographical district.
b. Dismissal is the only constitutionally permissible means for a congregation to sever its relationship with the PC(USA) and its presbytery.

Obviously, the PC(USA) has taken no such action to limit the decision to depart to the presbytery. In fact, the absence of such a clear and specific proscription led the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to recognize disaffiliation as a permissive option for a congregation. See, Presbytery of Beaver-Butler v. Middlesex, 489 A.2d 1317, 1324 (Pa. 1985) (“[t]he Constitution [of the UPCUSA] does not prohibit a congregation from disaffiliating . . .”; “when the local body voluntarily affiliated with the UPCUSA’s predecessor. . .”) (emphasis added).

In the ensuing 24 years, the PC(USA) has ignored that decision and its inherent warning and has taken no action whatsoever to remedy the absence of such a bar to disaffiliation. Until it does, the Book of Order is ambiguous and that ambiguity ought to be construed in favor of a reading of § G-7.0304a(5) to reserve to congregations a permissive power to disaffiliate.

Here endeth the lesson.

PERMISSIVE POWERS 101 (PART VIII)

Note: The posts in this series are the opinion of the author. They do not reflect, nor should they be construed to reflect, the opinions or positions of Cozen O’Connor, Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church, the New Wineskins Association of Churches, or the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

Some might suggest that this [the power to request dismissal] is a power held by the session. This argument must fail on at least two grounds.

First, the Book of Order is silent as to any power of the session to request dismissal on its own authority.

Second, when considering the other momentous topics that are specifically assigned to action by the congregation, such as pastoral relations and encumbrance of property, the idea that a session could unilaterally commit a congregation to a similar action—dismissal—fails the “smell test.”

Although any resort to common sense in discussions of government or polity is fraught with danger, in this case, it is probably safe to conclude that a presbytery may not unilaterally dismiss a congregation to some other denomination. Cf., Book of Order, anot. 21.194 (“When dealing with a request by a church for dismissal with its property. . .”) (emphasis added).

It then follows that a congregation would have to initiate such a request. However, the proponents of a strict reading of § G-7.0304 would have us believe that the congregation apparently has no constitutional authority to take such action. That erroneous and narrow reading of § G-7.0304 must fail, in favor of some broader permissive right of termination reserved to the congregation. If a request to be dismissed is one of the permissive powers of a congregation, then other similar powers to modify or terminate the voluntary affiliation between congregation and denomination should also be included in that broad, undefined category.

The congregation rather than a “governing body” is granted express power with respect to buying, mortgaging, or selling real property. It would follow that the congregation is also empowered to take at least one other action which impacts on its ownership of its property: maintaining that unfettered ownership even as it decides that it is called to embrace a new denominational affiliation.

By the PC(USA)’s own definition, the congregational meeting discusses property issues, melds individuals into a unified (corporate) congregation, and, repeatedly, gathers information and takes action to forward its mission. Because the church’s property is the home base for its mission to the community, state, nation and the world (cf., Acts 1:8), the congregation (as opposed to any other entity) must have control over its property.

Obviously, after prayer and deliberation, a congregation may actually decide to create a trust and then place its property in that trust for the use and benefit of some other entity, e.g., its presbytery or the PC(USA). However, the decision is that of the congregation, not a unilaterally imposed edict of the denomination.

Boiled down to its basics, at its annual meeting, the congregation asks and answers the following questions:

• Who shall be our leaders?
• What shall we agree and promise to pay our pastor?
• What shall we do with our land, buildings and other property which we, as a congregation have purchased for the purpose of our worship?

All of these questions go directly to the root of the congregation’s unique identity. Surely, the final component of that identity—denominational affiliation—must also be reserved to the congregation. Thus, we add to the foregoing list the question

• How (by what denominational name) shall we identify ourselves to the community?

Observe that in every instance, these questions go to the core issue of the identity of the congregation.

Accordingly, while a request to be dismissed is clearly one option for terminating denominational affiliation, it is not necessarily the only option under the Book of Order. Because the congregation is the body designated to make such essential missional decisions, absent a clear, unambiguous limitation on congregational authority, unilateral disaffiliation must also be an option open to a congregation. And such power is absolutely necessary to avoid the consequences of a presbytery which, wrongfully or in bad faith, withholds dismissal.

Some might argue that a presbyterian veto is necessary to prevent untoward departures. That is yet another symptom of the modern preference for coercion over trust.

While a presbytery’s deliverances and policy statements are not binding on the membership of the local Church, if a presbytery refuses to give its assent to a request for dismissal, and does so for valid reasons, its statements should be considered worthy of the respect and prayerful consideration of the requesting congregation’s members. Ordinarily, only if dismissal is improperly withheld would resort to unilateral disaffiliation be necessary.

Of course, when evidence exists of presbytery’s predisposition to withhold, such as previous action by the presbytery to ignore dismissal requests or previous resort to administrative commissions or civil suit, immediate resort to disaffiliation would be reasonable. A recent example of such appropriate evidence is the secret distribution by denominational headquarters to the presbyteries in 2005 of two documents: “Church Property Disputes: A Resource For Those Representing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Presbyteries And True Churches In The Civil Courts” (Office of the General Counsel, PC(USA), rev. 12/05) and “Processes for use by presbyteries in responding to congregations seeking to withdraw,” (Department of Constitutional Services, PC(USA), September 2005).

These documents, which have come to be known as the “Louisville Papers,” are plans for a punitive and pre-emptive legal campaign against congregations merely suspected of considering seeking to leave the denomination.

Despite the attempt by some writers to characterize denominational affiliation as a permanent choice, we all know that members of a congregation may “vote with their feet” and change churches and even denominations at will. The most often used comparison is enlistment in the armed forces. See, e.g., Elder Bill Newkirk “To Leave or Not to Leave: An Open Letter to fellow Presbyterians,” Presbyterian Outlook on-line (03/05/2007) (“What makes anyone think that they can pick up and leave any time something comes along they don't agree with? In the military services they call that desertion.”); Rev. Paige McRight, “Personal reflections on the New Wineskins convocation,” id. (03/12/2007) (“Until I was ten, my father was an Army officer and we lived our lives by military orders. We drove the posted speed limit on base, my dad wore the uniform prescribed in the orders of the day and when the Army said move, we packed.”) But see, Elder Michael R. “Mac” McCarty, “Going Where God Has Ordained Us To Be,” id., (03/21/2007) (“The desertion analogy would be correct only if the PC(USA) were the one true church. But it isn’t. In this case, many congregations have received an order from God to ‘stand detached from the PC(USA) and proceed and report to the EPC for duty.’ God is our commander-in-chief. The entire Church is His. When He issues orders to ‘Go,’ and to ‘Do this,’ obedience of those orders is mandatory. Obedience cannot be desertion because the departure is with authority. The recipient of those orders must pack and go.”)

That's the finish line ahead!