According to the Layman Online, the Heartland Presbytery (Kansas) has turned down the requests of two churches to discuss leaving the PCUSA. One, Hillsdale Church, voted 77-5 back in June to ask to be dismissed to the New Wineskins/EPC transitional presbytery. The other, First Church (Paola), voted 200-81 in June to ask for dismissal directly into the EPC.
Hillsdale was told they couldn’t be dismissed into a transitional presbytery. Other presbyteries have neither been so legalistic nor so willing to get into the internal affairs of the EPC. But it’s the Paola situation that is really egregious:
In the Paola case, the administrative commission wrote in its report that, “After careful consideration of the facts and provisions of the Book of Order that are applicable, it is the decision of the administrative commission that the request of First Presbyterian Church … be denied.”
The administrative commission also warned First Presbyterian Church in its report about the congregation’s property, writing:
“The administrative commission also reiterates to First Presbyterian Church of Paola, its session and its pastors that pursuant to the provisions of the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (USA), they are prohibited from selling, leasing or otherwise transferring property held in the name of FPC Paola to any other person, organization or entity without the consent of the presbytery or this commission, and with regard to funds of FPC Paola in financial institutions, and with regard to personal property of FPC Paola, the use of such funds and property should be limited to the ongoing ministries and programs of FPC Paola, as a part of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
The presbytery also was informed that, “at a later date,” the administrative committee will “provide additional written details concerning its decision.”
You can see the letter the presbytery wrote to the session here. As you can see, it is abrupt and uncommunicative, stating that it will let the congregation know later (whenever that is) about the reasons for its decision. The reason, however, I think, is pretty clear from the longest paragraph in the letter. The administrative commission might just as well have written to the church and said, “We don’t care what you do, just leave the property and assets behind.”
In a letter posted here, signed by the Clerk Pro-Tem of the Paola session, Stacy Boan, the session explained the non-listening process by which the AC arrived at its decision:
“The Heartland Presbytery administrative commission met with the elders (session) of First Presbyterian Church on Sunday night, Sept. 9. We had hoped this meeting, our first face-to-face contact, would be a time to share the details of our current ministry and heart for Christ, to ask and answer questions about our mission, ministry goals and reasons for seeking dismissal to the EPC. We hoped to spend time considering the needs of all the members of the church in light of the understandable duties of the presbytery. Instead, we discovered that the administrative commission had already made up their mind – they had already reached a decision and had come to meet with us to tell us what they had decided.
“You read this correctly – the administrative commission had made its decision prior to meeting even once with the session of First Presbyterian Church. … We are very disappointed that the session and the great majority of members were not given the same consideration as those within our church who want to stay PCUSA. In fact, though not meeting with us, the commission found time to conduct a separate worship service for members who wish to stay and met with them numerous times. One such meeting aided in the production of an official accusation by a small group of church members against our pastor. Pastor Kirk will gladly answer them, but is chagrined that the commission has helped members take such a course. We are equally dismayed that, despite our invitations, the committee would not meet with us in their deliberations.
“Further, in Sunday’s meeting, we realized that the commission had based its decision on understandings, opinions and information that, had they met with us earlier, could have easily been corrected. It seems they based their decision on meeting with those who wanted to stay, private investigation and by reading 2,600 pages of documents the session supplied at their request.”
I don’t know what was in those 2600 pages, of course, but the idea that you could make a decision about a matter as important as this without ever once talking to the people who made the request strikes me as simply unChristian. But then again, if your mind is made up before you start deliberating, why not skip the confrontational stuff and cut right to the chase? Once again, the White Queen–“verdict first, then trial!”–wins the day.
The Reformed Pastor 
September 24, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Of course, you fail to mention the rights or feelings of the at least 80 members of this church with historic ties to the PC(USA) who have no interest in moving to EPC. Nor do you comment on the interesting fact that in a church of a reported 550 members (and growing) only 281 members bothered to show up and vote on a matter so vital to the future of the church. Where are the other 269 persons on the active role and what is their position with regard to the matters that are at hand. Under these circumstances, I hardly think this vote qualifies as overwhelming.
I am curious as to what you think the responsibilities of a Presbytery are to 80 or perhaps significantly more members of a PC(USA) congregation who have no interest in the campaign of their pastor to leave a denomination.
Are you also aware that, while Paola First Presbyterian was still indisputably a member of Heartland Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church (USA), the present leadership engaged in a clearly unconstitutional process for calling pastoral leadership to the congregation, contracting with an ordained EPC pastor to become Associate Pastor without the knowledge or advice and consent of Heartland Presbytery…or as far as I understand it the knowledge of the EPC judicatory of which the person is a member until after the fact.
I suppose it suits your purpose to leave these matters out of your posting. It would seem the issue of pastoral responsibility and good communication cuts both ways.
September 24, 2007 at 4:01 pm
You bad, bad man!
I want that graphic! (He said covetously…)
September 24, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Toby: For some reason your two comments today got caught in the spam filter. Glad I caught them amidst the garbage.
As for the graphic, this can be yours, and much more. Go here, and you can make your own.
Jeff: I had no idea about the Associate Pastor situation. Seems odd, since an EPC pastor isn’t allowed to take a call in another denomination without getting approval to labor out of bounds.
As for the 80 folks at Paola, of course the presbytery has a responsibility to them. I did not suggest they didn’t. What I did suggest was that their approach seemed to be more concerned with property than people, and looking at the documents that have been made available on the Web regarding their approach, I’ll stand by that assessment. If they want to change me (and lots of other people’s) mind, perhaps they should take a look at the way presbyteries like Beaver-Butler, Washington, and Cascades have handled their dissident congregations.
Oh, and as for the numbers: maybe someone should be polling those others, instead of just assuming they are satisfied with the status quo. And when 200 members of a church vote for a proposal like this, one that could prove very costly to them, I’d say it’s hard to characterize it simply as a “campaign of their pastor.”
September 25, 2007 at 10:13 am
I am quite certain that the Administrative Commission is diligently trying to determine what the position of the members who did not vote is in this important matter. Just because the Administrative Commission has denied the request doesn’t mean they have packed up and gone home. I never said that I assumed what these peoples’ position was…only noted that a large portion of the reported active membership did not vote and noted that this is a factor in determining the “overwhelming” nature of the decisionmaking process.
As for the property matter…clearly the ability of a group of members who desire to remain loyal to the Presbyterian Church (USA) to continue to historic ministry and witness of the First Presbyterian Church of Paola in the PC(USA) is directly related to the disposition of the property. It is easy to see why the matter of the property is a central concern.
You might be interested to know that all of the meetings that the Administrative Commission has held in Paola have been open to any and all members of that congregation…including the pastor and the session. The fact that no one from the session nor the pastor evidently availed themselves of the opportunity is further evidence (along with the call process I previously referred to) of the leadership’s desire simply to sidestep the constitutional processes that each of them have taken vows to be governed by in their ordinations.
November 13, 2007 at 2:21 am
80 people… 🙂 Yeah. We actually hadn’t seen many of them in years… some I’ve never seen at church. You know how when you walk into your home congregation, and you recognize EVERYONE… at least their faces. Well, at the June vote, it was like walking into a differient church! Who are all these new people?! And when people ask you, “Now, where is the sanctuary?” it kind of makes you wonder.
November 13, 2007 at 8:43 am
I’ve been certain that there’s been some, maybe a lot, of that going on in these votes. It will be really interesting to see how many of them actually show up when the “true church” starts worshiping in the sanctuary that they couldn’t find.
November 13, 2007 at 8:13 pm
New information is posted at FPCPaola.com concerning denominanational issues & property. http://www.fpcpaola.com
November 18, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I find it interesting that the “new faces” referred to are assumed to have voted against separation since the vote was conducted as a secret ballot.
I have friends and family on both sides of this conflict and they both have well thought out points.