Timberridge Presbyterian Church has indeed voted to leave the PCUSA immediately, becoming an independent Presbyterian church, according to the Layman Online:
The Presbytery of Greater Atlanta has approved appointing an administrative commission for a church that went to court over its property rights, but softened language that would have let the panel investigate whether the pastor has attended any New Wineskins Association of Churches “events or conferences.”
Meanwhile, the congregation – Timberridge Presbyterian Church in McDonough, Ga. – has voted to immediately disaffiliate from the Presbyterian Church (USA), now considers itself an independent Presbyterian church and will not cooperate with the administrative commission, The Layman Online has learned. The church’s pastor, the Rev. Matt Allison, also has renounced the jurisdiction of the PCUSA.
The Rev. Ed Albright, executive presbyter of Greater Atlanta Presbytery, said presbytery commissioners changed the wording of the power to “investigate any contact by the pastor or church with the movement called ‘New Wineskins.’ This would include investigating any attendance at New Wineskins events or conferences.” That was changed to, “Grant the powers to determine the issues and causes contributing to the decision of the Timberridge Church to disaffiliate.”
Would that someone on the Committee on Ministry had thought of putting it that way in the first place.
Two hundred and 19 church members, or 62.5 percent of the church’s 350 members, took part in the Nov. 25 vote, sources told The Layman Online. Of those, 205 members or 94 percent voted for immediate disaffiliation and 14 members or 6 percent voted against leaving, the sources said. A separate vote was held on ratifying the election of the church’s session and pastoral staff, the sources said.
Two hundred members or 91 percent voted for ratification and 19 members or 9 percent voted against it, the sources said. On Nov. 27, Allison sent a letter to Albright informing him of the votes’ results and renouncing his jurisdiction in the PCUSA, the sources said. Albright said he was handed the letter at the presbytery’s stated meeting.
Immediate disaffiliation renders the administrative commission’s work moot because Timberridge Church no longer recognizes the authority of the panel or the PCUSA, the sources said. But Albright said while the presbytery accepts Allison’s renunciation of jurisdiction, it still considers his congregation a member of both the presbytery and the PCUSA.
Rev. Allison, of course, has no property for the presbytery to try to hold on to. And there are the 19 to be cared for, assuming they choose not to head out the PCUSA door with the rest of the congregation.
The Reformed Pastor 
November 30, 2007 at 10:19 am
Sad day for all involved. The bleed is slowly becoming a hemorrhage…
November 30, 2007 at 11:23 am
According to PCUSA stats Timberridge has 329 members and an average worship attendance of 220. There were 219 votes so that is close to average worship attendance. I do not know where the Layman got their 350 membership number.
Now comes the Greater Atlanta Presbytery with an Administrative Commission to discuss issues with a church where 95% voted to leave.
It would seem the “best and the brightest” in the largest PCUSA presbytery could have approved an action that made more sense than an Administrative Commission.
But then it seems PCUSA presbytery ministers and elders leave their brains at the door when they enter a presbytery meeting. According to an email I received from an elder at the presbytery meeting only a handful voted against the Administrative Commission.
It certainly looks like the future result for Timberridge will be the same as First Paola. Namely, the Presbytery intends to take control of the church property and 19 PCUSA diehards will be left to operate and maintain the property.
In 2006 the contributions at Timberridge were $474,963. The 19 diehards better have deep pockets as their share of expenses has now risen to $25,000 per year!!!!
November 30, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Larry: “I do not know where the Layman got their 350 membership number.”
Jim: From the churches website(about us page), which may be out of date. They had 400 in 2003 and 2004 and dropped to 350 in 2005 (pcusa stats)
Larry: leave their brains at the door when they enter a presbytery meeting.
Jim: I would say their brains and their *hearts.*
Larry: 19 PCUSA diehards
Jim: Not necessarily diehards, their are many reasons to vote no: F.U.D., Fear of losing property, Uncertainty of the future, Doubt that PCUSA is as bad as we say it is. or they could be diehards(idol worshiping?), or they agree with PCUSA actions.
Larry: the same as First Paola
Jim: Doubtful, First Paola chose no to resort to courts as a matter of principal.
Larry, I am not picking on you, just using your comments to organize my thoughts.
November 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Thanks Jim,
The Greater Atlanta Presbytery could have approved an Administrative Committee to negotiate an amicle agreement to settle the property issues with Timberridge.
Instead the Presbytery approves a document directing the Administrative Commission to dig into the records of Timberridge to find out who might have influenced the church members to vote 95% to leave.
Greater Atlanta Presbytery seems to have ignored the fact that 95% of Timberridge had voted to leave when they approved the Administrative Commission whose duties are a little too late.
The presbytery’s action seems to say that an amicable settlement will not be considered.
It would not hurt for other Presbyterians to inform their Presbyterian friends in the Greater Atlanta Presbytery that an amicable settlement with Timberridge would make the most sense. Otherwise, GAP will be negatively portrayed in the news for many more months.
December 1, 2007 at 7:49 pm
My name is Matt Allison, and I’m the pastor at Timberridge. Our membership is 350. I think the numbers reflected on the PCUSA website are for 2006. In terms of the 14 who voted against leaving the PCUSA, at least 5-6 were members who have left Timberridge and gone elsewhere. They simply came back to vote their opposition. The actual number of those who voted against the motion and continue to participate in the life of the church is very small. We also emphasized to them that Timberridge is their church home, and there is no reason they should leave. I think the majority will stay. In terms of the presbytery forming an AC, it was a gross over-reaction that left us with very limited responses. Our hope and prayer from this point on is that we can move forward without interference or harassment from the presbytery and that the property issue (in which all we wanted was a legal declaration that it is ours, and to which the presbytery responded with a countersuit) will soon be settled.
December 1, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Matt: Thank you for coming by, for the information and the update. God bless you and your congregation as you seek His path for your future ministry.
December 6, 2007 at 10:39 am
God Bless you, Matt. Our weekly men’s prayer group lifts up every congregation that is being harassed by the PC(USA). Feel free to leave any email me with any corrections or updates for my website (pcusalist.blogspot.com) about your church. I know that Kirk of the Hills had the same trouble with people wanting to vote that had not attended in years. I had forgotten another reason some people vote to stay – spite.
December 6, 2007 at 10:27 pm
David and Jim, thank you for your kind comments. I just read some of the comments from the entry about Timberridge dated 11-27. For what it’s worth, our trustees debated long and hard about going to the Greater Atlanta Presbytery and speaking to its leadership about the property issue. We decided, however, that that would not be wise considering the climate in the denomination (look at Heartland Presbytery), and the presence of the Louisville Papers (which the Greater Atlanta Presbytery has never repudiated but has in fact utilized). After the lawsuit was filed, we were willing to talk with the presbytery, but we wanted some assurance that punitive action wouldn’t be taken against the church for filing the lawsuit. By the way, Timberridge was established in 1829. It takes a lot of nerve to tell the members of this church–some of whom have been members here for more than 80 years and have families that go back generation–that they don’t own this property. And for those who believe our lawsuit violates Scripture, I obviously disagree. This lawsuit was not frivolous or vindictive. It did not seek financial gain. It only sought a legal declaration (so that there would not be further problems down the road) that the property belongs to the Timberridge Church.
Before we were willing to sit down and talk, we were prepared to get a TRO to protect the church against punitive actions by the presbytery. The presbytery’s counsel told our counsel that no punitive actions would be taken against the church and if we filed for a TRO it would be received very poorly by the presbytery. Our lawyer then ask if the presbytery would at least put something in writing and they refused to. The attorney said we should take his word. I’m sorry, the session would be irresponsible to risk the health and well-being of the church in order to take the “word” of the opposing counsel. Timberridge filed for the TRO and in just a few days the presbytery had filed its counter suit.
One last thing, much has been made of my involvement with the New Wineskins. The irony here is that while I attended one Wineskins event, we never even discussed the Wineskins in our session meetings. Even now we’re not in the New Wineskins and are functioning as an independent Presbyterian Church for the time being. The presbytery latched on to this however, even when told it was not a part of the picture.
December 9, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Rev. Allison,
If I understand correctly your Session based their actions on presumptions about your Presbytery based on presumptions about the actions of other Presbyteries. You seem to have presumed to know your Presbytery’s intent based on it not proving what you see as a negative. You seem to have sued the Presbytery before it had time to show its intent or meet with your Session about its request or even meet as a body to receive your request. Please correct me where I am wrong, but I’d be interested to know what prompted such seeming distrust of the particular brothers and sisters in Christ of your Greater Atlanta Presbytery.
In Peace,
Cameron Mott
December 9, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Mr. Mott,
The Timberridge Session based its decision primarily on two things. First, the reaction by other presbyteries toward churches like Timberridge that had sought clear title for their property. I’m sure you’re aware of such cases around the country and the punitive measures some presbyteries have taken. Second, the presence of the Louisville Papers (which we would not even know about if they had not been posted by the Layman). The Presbytery of GA has never repudiated that document. Due primarily to these two things the session believed it should be careful and cautious. I would also note that the presbytery could have responded to our lawsuit by acknowledging that the property belongs to Timberridge and not contesting it. If it had, Timberridge would have been the one with egg on its face and accused of over-reacting. Instead, the presbytery filed a countersuit against Timberridge.
Some might second-guess our decisions, but I believe our session’s decision was correct especially in light of the fact that the presbytery ended up doing everything we feared–utilize the Louisville Papers in their legal dealings with Timberridge and form an Administrative Commission with power to remove the ordained leadership (and thereby drop the lawsuit).
Blessings,
Matt Allison
December 11, 2007 at 12:12 am
Rev. Allison,
I don’t think we understood each other.
I take it you do not think it would be right for your Presbytery to treat you based on presumptions about other congregations or based on some advice written by another congregation that your congregation had not, as far as the Presbytery knew, yet repudiated or to prempt the dismissal process by suing your congregation before you had time to even hold a congregational meeting. Yet this is what your congregation has done, with roles reversed, to your Presbytery isn’t it?
Blessings to you also,
Cameron Mott
December 11, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Mr. Mott,
This dance could go on and on, so I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. May the Lord continue to guide each of us in our ministries to His glory!
Matt Allison
December 11, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Mr. Mott
Apparently you have not read the changes to the book of order of the PCUSA in 2006-2007 in regard to administrative commissions. Previously a congregation, and Presbyters had a vote in dismissals of ministers and sessions. That is now changed.
Timberridge did not make decisions on presumptions, only facts.
Peace to you and Merry Christmas
Dan Patterson
December 12, 2007 at 7:46 am
Rev. Allison,
We agree on that. Thanks for your patience.
Brother Patterson,
The presumptions stand apart from and are not the fault of any facts in the Book of Order.
Peace to you both, and yours, and Merry Christmas