May 19, 2013

October 31, 2012


PCUSA Apes Mafia

From the Layman Online comes the news that the Presbyterian Church (USA) continues it march to become one of America’s biggest protection rackets:

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) has ruled that a presbytery must “fulfill its fiduciary duty under the trust clause,” when it considers dismissing a congregation from the Presbyterian Church (USA) into another Reformed body.

And that fiduciary duty “requires that the presbytery exercise due diligence regarding the value of the property of the congregation seeking dismissal. Due diligence, of necessity, includes not only an evaluation of the spiritual needs of the congregation and its circumstances but also financial analysis of the value of the property at stake. Payments for per capita or mission obligations are not satisfactory substitutes for the separate evaluation of the value of the property held in trust.”

On Oct. 26, the GAPJC heard the case of Wilber Tom, David Hawbecker and Thomas Conrad vs. the Presbytery of San Francisco. The commission’s decision was released on Oct. 30.

The case arose when several members of San Francisco Presbytery filed a remedial complaint with the Synod of the Pacific PJC which protested the presbytery’s decision to dismiss Community Presbyterian Church of Danville, Calif., to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The dismissal agreement included the congregation paying the presbytery a one-time lump-sum payment of $108,640; and an annual commitment of $42,500 for targeted PCUSA missionaries, ministries and ministers, paid quarterly for the five years following the congregation’s dismissal.

The dismissal agreement fully satisfied the policy of the presbytery which was unanimously adopted by the Presbytery in September 2009.

That decision was appealed to the GAPJC, and on May 18, 2012, the congregation and presbytery both fulfilled their obligations described in the dismissal agreement. The congregation paid the per-capita and mission funds to the presbytery and the presbytery executed the quitclaim deeds to Danville which assumed sole responsibility for substantial debt on the properties in question.

In its decision the GAPJC acknowledged that the presbytery’s action could not be undone, but stated that the commission would exercise its declaratory authority to provide guidance to lower councils, seeking to prevent future “violations.”

Translation: even in situations where a presbytery wishes to exercise its constitutional power to dismiss a congregation to another Reformed denomination, the powers-that-be are going to look over its shoulder and demand that it extract every pound of flesh possible. It will do this under the power of the all-mighty “trust clause,” which, however, is of no legal consequence in states that have adopted so-called “neutral principles” rather than deferring to hierarchies in determining property ownership (South Carolina, Louisiana, and Missouri, for instance), so who knows whether presbyteries in those states will bend to the GAPJC’s will.

Heaven forbid the PCUSA, dying on the vine and looking at the loss of millions of dollars from thousands of contributors, not suck every cent out of departing congregations that it can. Great Christian witness ya got there, Louisville.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

5 comments

Boy they are learning in a hurry from TEC how to ruin your denomination via lawsuits. Ain’t it grand!!!!

[1] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 10-31-2012 at 09:05 PM · [top]

We used to trust our denominations, then they took advantage of that trust by imposing their trusts upon us. It was a misplaced trust indeed when we first believed, “In the denomination we trust.”

[2] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 11-1-2012 at 08:39 AM · [top]

Good thing our money says “In God we trust”- a bit more reliable Person in which to put our trust.

[3] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 11-1-2012 at 09:25 AM · [top]

This week has been a disaster for Christians in the PCUSA.  First, the GAPCJ essentially overrode the “gracious dismissal” policy which an earlier General Assembly had urged presbyteries to adopt, essentially now taking the word “gracious” out of it.

Second, it ruled that a lesbian minister could not be disciplined for “marrying” her partner, saying that (1) since she had not “married” in the PCUSA (she was married by a UCC minister and two TEC ones) she did not offend against the PCUSA’s requirements regarding marriage, and (2) just because she “married” someone did not support the conclusion she was in a sexual relationship with them (the same gambit played in the Church of England).

Third, it ruled that it is “unconstitutional” for a presbytery to adopt standards that candidates for ministry must be chaste in singleness or faithful in marriage.  In other words, it is now unlawful for a presbytery in the PCUSA to require that its ministers not be engaged in a lifestyle of adultery or fornication.

I would think this will substantially increase the rush for the doors, both by churches and now by presbyteries.

[4] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 11-1-2012 at 03:00 PM · [top]

I am saddened to read of this change in policy. It will be interesting to see how much church *growth* comes of these changed policies.

[5] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 11-1-2012 at 04:24 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.