A member of Colonial Presbyterian Church in Kansas City, which has been locked in conflict with the PCUSA’s Heartless Presbytery, left a comment on my previous post on the situation. She has further news on the situation, and has given me permission to share that as a post. She writes:
As a member of Colonial, I am proud to say we “Officially” left the PCUSA today and joined the EPC. For us, it is business as usual. Of course we want to keep our property – we are paying for it, never a cent from Heartland. If it is decided that Heartland technically owns it, they also occur all the debt that goes with it – they cannot afford that kind of debt.
This past week, right before we took our vote, we received a letter from our Elders that was sent from Heartland, basically saying our Elders are incompetent and do not know what they are doing. We elected those people so basically they are saying the same thing about us. It is sad Heartland is caught up in the financial and political aspect of things rather than focusing on the real issue: Christ, spreading the Word and missions for the greater good of all of humanity.
We will continue to pray for Heartland and if this is their “gracious” plan for exiting, I pity their enemies.
She has also sent along a link to an archive of the various documents pertaining to the Colonial discernment process, including communications from the presbytery, which you can find here.
Thanks for the information, sister. Our prayers will continue to be with our brothers and sisters at Colonial.
UPDATE: This comes a little late, for which I apologize to my contact at Colonial. She has sent along scans of two other documents that need to be out there to substantiate some of what she says above. Here they are:
The notable thing here is the remark in the administrative commission’s letter:
There is no provision within the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) for a congregation to vote itself out of the denomination. Individuals are able to leave the congregation but no majority vote can move the whole membership from the congregation.
This is technically correct, of course. Congregations can’t vote themselves out of the PCUSA. What they can do, however, is survey the congregation to find out what the will of the members is, and take a vote of the congregation to ask for dismissal. Colonial has done both of those things. Heartless’ administrative commission, however, isn’t interested in trivia such as what the desire of the congregation might be; its only interest, to all evidence, is in keeping the property.
August 24, 2010 at 7:28 am
Of course this is Heartland’s position. They’ve had zero commitment to buying/maintaining the property, yet believe it belongs to them. So it’s perfectly consistent for them to now say that even though they have no involvement in leading this particular church or choosing its ruling elders, it nonetheless possesses the spiritual discernment to cast summary judgment on the leadership’s competence. It strikes me as rather devastating that while we do not worship an ivory tower God who is unfamiliar with our sufferings, too many believers are under the thumb of ivory tower ecclesiastical entities who are entirely unfamiliar with the pulse of some of the churches they wrongly claim are theirs.
August 24, 2010 at 9:14 am
Fairlington Presbyterian in Alexandria, VA (suburb of Washington, DC) went through a difficult ordeal with the PCUSA over 20 years ago. We were not able to retain the property. Led by the Spirit, the majority left and founded Faith EPC in Kingstowne, VA and Faith is now the mother church of our fellowship at The Cove. I continue to thank the Lord Jesus that I was serving on the Session of Fairlington and was able to vote with the overwhelming majority to leave the PCUSA. I am aware that Romans 3:23 applies to us all; however, I am proud to be a part of the EPC.
–Doug
August 24, 2010 at 9:37 am
It would be nice if the PC(USA) just admitted it was episcopalian in polity.
August 24, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Heartless Presbytery is all about domination, money and revenge against any who will not toe its humanist line. Three years ago, it took a thriving 500 member congregation, let over 300 members leave for the PC(USA), and then claimed “victory” because it hung on to about 100 members in a heavily encumbered building. Don’t expect this leopard to change its spots.
August 24, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Too bad cooler heads can’t prevail, churchs have gotten to their goal by the process without pre-empting the process and without all the presumptive and distructive language and lawsuits. Why not give the process a chance before shooting ourselves in the foot?
August 25, 2010 at 12:51 am
I looked at every single document Colonial’s site posted and can’t find anything that addresses or even mentions the church’s elders, let alone one that calls them “incompetent.” The only document your source could possibly be referring to is the one from the standing Administrative Commission addressed to the Pastor and Clerk of Session, advising them that their sense of the risk of Colonial losing its property if it disaffiliates from the PC(USA) seems to be miscalculated.
I didn’t think I would. For, while “Heartland” is an easy villain to skewer in a blog comment, there’s no such entity here. “Heartland” is the Administrative Commission is the Administrative Review Committe is the Committee on Ministry is the presbytery. All those entities are peopled with faithful and earnest Elders and Ministers. I know people all over that presbytery, none of them villainous.
What I don’t understand is why Colonial’s version of events goes so unchallenged here and in The Layman.
August 25, 2010 at 8:49 am
Look at the post again. I’ve updated it with a couple more documents that address your comment.
I should add that there’s been a persistent pattern of behavior on the part of various people in that presbytery that earns them the moniker I use for them. They have consistently refused to cooperate in any way with congregations that have wanted to be dismissed from the PCUSA, thrown up various roadblocks to their doing so, and repeatedly made clear that they aren’t interested in the views of the congregations or their leaders. Nor have they done what the denomination asked all presbyteries to do, which is set up a process for “gracious dismissal.” Until they do, they will continue to be Heartless.
August 25, 2010 at 10:30 am
First, thanks for updating the post with these documents. The August 16th letter from the AC chair to Colonial’s Clerk uses the word “unable,” which, in this charged climate, can easily be taken for “incompetent.” The session of Colonial, however, has done something for which there is no constitutional basis; Mary Jorgenson and the AC are absolutely within their right in representing the presbytery to say, “Wait a minute. You can’t just vote yourself out of the denomination. That’s not how it works.”
Like it or not, graciousness requires some common adherence to constitutional standards. That is the heart of Colonial et. al’s complaint against the PC (USA) in terms of theology, is it not?
I’m not in Heartland’s bounds anymore. I was when the AC was established in 2007, and I argued in favor of it on the floor of that meeting. Presbyteries can’t be expected to simply stand by while ministers lead entire congregations out of the denomination. The energy for these departures–their inception and guidance–comes entirely from the pastors, regardless of what said pastors vowed to do as part of their ordination, and regardless of what they’ve repeatedly told the presbytery in good faith.
You call the AC’s actions roadblocks. I’m going to call their actions basic competence.
August 25, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Mr. Supinger is incorrect on two points. First, in my experience, the impetus for congregations usually comes from congregations and their elected ruling elders, who are fed up with the drift of those people in Louisville; the pastor is usually one of the last to recognize the call to leave for a more theologically orthodox pasture.
Second, Mr. Supinger(and my dear brother, David)are constitutionally incorrect: the congregation is fully within its rights, under G7.0304(a)5, to exercise its permissive power to leave the PC(USA).
There is a presumption that each word contained in a document such as the Book of Order has a meaning and is not mere surplussage. Londonderry, et al. v. Pby of Northern New England, (Remedial Case 213-2, GAPJC 2001)(it is the task of governing bodies and judicial commissions to resolve tensions and ambiguities in the Constitution’s provisions in such a way as to give effect to all provisions).
In this regard, § G-7.0304 is instructive. At §G-7.0304a, it 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.)
Some may opine that the list is exclusive, relying on § G-7.0304b:
b . Business at congregational meetings shall be limited to the foregoing matters (1) through (5). Whenever permitted by civil law, both ecclesiastical and corporate business may be conducted at the same congregational meeting.
However, when §G-7.0304 is read as a whole, that argument must fail, if for no other reason than that the entire section is ambiguous. The inclusion of the phrases “shall include” and “such as” clearly connote that the list is not exclusive and that other business “such as” the topics set forth may properly be “include[d].” In other words, the topics listed are by way of example.
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.
The fact that the proposed new Form of Government, written under the aegis of the General Assembly, strips the congregation of any permissive powers and places all power in the hands of the Louisville episcopacy is prima facie evidence that they are powers which protect the congregation from the tyranny of the denominational leadership. Thus, while the current Book of Order is still in force, Colonial is constitutionally permitted to disaffiliate.
August 25, 2010 at 8:35 pm
I will, of course, defer to my brother Mac (hope you are doing well since we last met in July) on a constitutional matter.
I see your point, my friend, but I doubt that you could get the PJC to agree with you, even at your most persuasive.A secular court might well be another story, though I don’t know what the courts in Kansas and Missouri are like on these matters.
August 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm
The PJC has not agreed with Mac. It’s already been done. Churches have no permissive powers outside those listed in the BOO. Mac’s line of argument was tried in the Sundquist case and failed.
Again, this kind of loose interpretation would be deplored as Godless if it was employed by “liberal” churches.
August 27, 2010 at 8:27 am
Actually, the Sundquist decision is nowhere near as explicit as Mr. Supinger would have us believe. It merely cited to g7.0304 for support for its decision. It said that a congregation has only those powers set forth in g7.0304 and then proceded to ignore section a(5). By failing to Trecognize the presumption that each word contained in a document such as the Book of Order has a meaning and is not mere surplussage, Londonderry, et al. v. Pby of Northern New England, (Remedial Case 213-2, GAPJC 2001)(it is the task of governing bodies and judicial commissions to resolve tensions and ambiguities in the Constitution’s provisions in such a way as to give effect to all provisions), Sundquist was, as have been so many other recent PJC decisions, results-oriented, i.e., the PJC knew what it wanted to do and then bent the Constitution to obtain the desired result.
If the Constitution is “loose,” the fault lies with the GA and the PJC has a duty to interpret the Constitution against the drafter, i.e., the GA and in favor of the session.
Finally, despite the desires of many in Louisville to move the Book of Order into the canon,,it is not the 67th book in Scripture.
August 27, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I am tired of hearing the charge that churches leaving are being led out solely by the pastor. Not only does it treat church members as blindly following the leader without a brain in their head it is just not true. I worked in a clerical position at a church that researched all issues surrounding the denomination, including doing deed research while they were WITHOUT a pastor. When they did call a pastor the train had already left the station, they just found someone willing to go along for the ride.
August 29, 2010 at 9:25 am
Marlene, show me the church that wants to leave the denomination against the wishes of its pastor, then we’ll talk.
Going along for the ride is hardly emblematic of responsible pastoral leadership.
August 29, 2010 at 5:14 pm
My apologies for saying that the pastor went along for the ride. That was certainly not the case and would be an insult to the pastor.
My point was that the church elders were very much aware of the denominational issues and were doing the research to consider leaving prior to calling the pastor.
I do not believe they called the pastor with the intention of him leading them out of the denomination but they were certainly open to that.