On May 6th, at the Sacramento Presbytery meeting in Weed, the Presbytery voted not to appeal the court's ruling that First Presbyterian Church of Roseville California owned their property.
Now an e-mail has come from the Presbytery staff that, once again, David Thompson, Garry Cox and Timothy Little, Pastors at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Sacramento, filed a complaint against the Presbytery. The notification goes on to state:
"On May 13, 2008, the Stated Clerk of the Synod, Joey Mills notified the Temporary Stated Clerk of the Sacramento Presbytery that a stay of enforcement on the motion was granted signed by Melvin Kachigian, SusanBarnes and Linda Lee.
The stay orders that the corporate officers of Sacramento Presbytery,Barbara Farley (Moderator of Council), Marie Segur (Treasurer), and Claire Pisor (Temporary Stated Clerk), be directed to authorize the presbytery's attorney to file a timely notice of appeal of the judgment. Accordingly,the officers have complied with the order of the Synod Permanent Judicial Commission."
This order to file a notice of appeal is all very dis-heartening and one of the reasons so many churches are asking to be dismissed from the Sacramento Presbytery.
32 comments:
WOW. Ordering a Presbytery to file a court action?????? Unbelievable. Those "pastors" who precipitated this, and the Synod officials who agree with them, should be deeply ashamed of themselves. I am embarassed to be in the same denomination with these Pharisees.
But this is where God has put us--so I guess we will have to be embarrassed for Christ sake. (Heb. 12: 1-3)
One would think that ethical presbytery officials would be obliged to resign rather than carry out an impractical and immoral order of this sort.
One can always hope someone with integrity will stand up against the violations of polity carried out by the mid and upper levels of an organization.
As in the time of Nixon's nefarious orders, these staffers should refuse and quit. I know this is tough advice, but when one is ordered to commit wrongdoing, one should refuse those orders.
Will & Toby,
Don't blame the officers of our presbytery. One of them, our Presbytery’s Moderator last year, worked long and hard so that we could have a half-way decent settlement with Roseville and Fair Oaks. And our Presbytery voted yes on that. It is the three pastors I have mentioned who first filed a complaint on the settlement which threw everything back into court and then filed again against the presbytery’s decision not to appeal the case that Roseville won that began the problem. And of course the biggest problem is the Synod’s ordering a Presbytery to appeal.
Yes it would have been a great act of bravery if they had refused, but these are confusing and difficult times.
Not to crowd my blog with my own comments but this is part of Jim Berkley’s take on the action of the Synod and the three pastors.
“So much for the fundamental of Presbyterian polity that "a majority shall govern" (G-1.0400). Three people in Sacramento made the presbytery do the mean-spirited action it had voted not to do--and this is supposedly through a "stay" of action, which, during a time of legally sorting things out, ought to restrain action rather than force it!”
To read the whole blog go to "Heads, They Win; Tails, We Lose," at http://jimberkley.blogspot.com/
Viola - I concur that it is probably unfair to expect such a standard from presbytery officers. Nonetheless, it is an action I'd like to see - one I'd call moral and courageous - and I'm tempted to ask ... if not now, then when? At what point is that the appropriate thing for people of good will stuck in such a position?
I'm seriously asking.
Will,
I understand your feelings; I share them. But I am not sure on this issue, I am wondering if when a stay turns into an order to do something is that lawful? Someone more knowledgeable then I am will have to answer that.
But of one thing I am sure, the order is immoral and to have refused to do it would have been courageous.
lThere is no question that the action was immoral and offensive.
However, where Will and Toby, and Jim and so many of the rest of us go wrong is in expecting courage, morality and ethical behavior from people (aka corporate shills) who have as their first concern, protection of their "career." - e.g. pension, job security, et al.
James and all,
I would like to turn this back to where I started from. This was about the Synod of the Pacific and their action. It was about how they have allowed three pastors of one Church in a Presbytery to rule over the rest thus putting themselves, the synod, in power over the Presbytery on matters that should have been left to the Presbytery. I was not aiming at the leadership in the Presbytery. Please address that if you want to make a comment.
The Presbytery officials are required by the stay of enforcement to preserve the presbytery's rights in this case. Therefore, they need to file an appeal in a timely manner.
It can always be withdrawn if the Synod PJC determines that the case is invalid. It could not be filed later if the Synod PJC fails to rule before the civil court deadline.
This is not an immoral action - it's just taken to preserve the presbytery's rights. I would hope that the Presbytery officers also take the implication to request postponements of any civil action until the Synod PJC has ruled.
In other words - you have to stop the bleeding before the doctors can argue about the best course of action for the patient. It does nobody any good if the patient dies while the doctors are arguing.
Viola,
Of course you were not aiming at the presbytery! They are in a bad situation, no question.
The thing about blog comments, as I have seen a time or two, is that they often take on a life of their own. You are fully correct that we can (and should) get back to YOUR post.
Why do Synods think that they are the cops of the playground? That's what I really want to know. What got into their minds that they think that overriding the representational process of our presbyterian governance is good or healthy for our common life together?
I guess this once again proves that people can delude themselves into thinking that even the worst acts are for the best when it gets them a result that they think benefits them.
Sad, sad.
It seems to me that in this case, the Synod is not acting - the Synod PJC is responding appropriately to a complaint.
In Louisiana, the Synod is taking affirmative action.
Mark,
I don't think you quite understand what I have written. The Presbytery officials did file after the Synod ordered them to, but that is not preserving the Presbytery's rights. The Presbytery's rights should be to go with the vote they had not to appeal the case. They are being forced to appeal a case they did not wish to pursue. The fact is, beyond the immorality of this--the Presbytery is almost broke and still owing on the case. By next year they may be unable to pay their bills.
Toby,
This is a great question, "That's what I really want to know. What got into their minds that they think that overriding the representational process of our presbyterian governance is good or healthy for our common life together?"
I think if the Synod would back off we would quit bleeding churches, and notice I said churches not members. I think they believe if they act as authoritarians they will stop the flow instead they are simply aggravating the wounds—to change my metaphor.
No, I think you don't understand the law.
If the corporate entity that is the PCUSA, Synod of the Pacific, and Sacramento Presbytery to preserve their rights to the property in question, an appeal must be filed. The civil court isn't going to accept a late filing. This is putting a finger in the dike while figuring out how to fix it.
The corporate entity mentioned above includes all of the relevant levels. The presbytery is currently being called to task (potentially) for ignoring the fact that they are part of a larger body which has rules that apply to them.
Presbyman - personally, I am embarrassed to be in a denomination where a significant segment of the population insists on unquestioned obedience to one part of the body's Constitution (G-6.0106b) but feels free to ignore another (G-8). Isn't it the conservative, evangelical side that insists on absolute obedience to the former clause?
Now, there's no question in my mind that others do the opposite - insist on obedience to the Property clause while playing fast and loose with the chastity clause. But I'm not one of them.
There's enough hypocrisy to go around. Work on your own log first, then start pointing out specks.
Mark I know what you are saying—but you don’t seem to “hear” what I am saying. The Presbytery voted to not pursue the property case. They had a right to vote on that. The Synod could have decided for their vote and not demanded they appeal. I don’t believe there is any law that is against that.
But this is your give away, “The Presbytery is currently being called to task (potentially) for ignoring the fact that they are part of a larger body which has rules that apply to them. You agree with their decision, I of course do not. I don’t think that has any thing to do with the law, but with moral reasoning.
I put this as part of a comment on Jim Berkley's blog, I will put it here also.
"My own thoughts on this, and I can be quite a cynic, is that The Synod realizes that we are almost broke and this places them in a position to take more control of our Presbytery. We are in a three Presbytery Partnership over which which they have a lot of influence. They have just placed a temporary Executive Presbyter over us from the Redwoods Presbytery. It was a surprise at our last Presbytery meeting, not even on the docket. They let us know that they are very generous and are paying the new Executive Presbyter Rev. Dr. Gary Torrens.
Mark,
Nice try, but no cigar.
There is nothing I can read in our Constitution that would ever require a Presbytery to appeal a secular court decision. That was really the Presbytery's decision to make one way or the other. It is quite shocking ... unprecedented, really ... for a Synod to order a Presbytery to appeal a secular court decision against its better judgment at the behest of a few mischief makers. The Constitution does grant to the Presbyteries the authority to handle dismissals of congregations wishing to depart. This Synod interference is a strange new innovation, which seems designed to harass departing congregations.
OTOH, G-6.0106b is a mandatory and explicit part of our Constitution, which is being enforced in the breach.
There is simply no comparison between these situations.
Viola,
So another layer of bureaucracy is being created, that will of course have a mandatory paid staff.
That is EXACTLY the wrong way to go.
Actually, Mark has hit the nail on the head, but he bent the nail. This a matter of civil corporate law, not cannon law.
Sacramento Presbytery,Inc. a California corporation) is the party to the suit, not the ecclesiastical presbytery. The The Trustees of that corporation owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation, not the synod. presbyteries are not wholly-owned subsidiaries.
The voting members of the corporation (cf., shareholders)overwhelmingly told the officers of the corporation to refrain from appealing the decision of a California court. I suspect that, in part, the decision to refrain from appealing was to avoid further needless expense.
The corporate trustees took direction from the ecclesial synod, an entity that had no authority over the trustees of the corporation, and that potentially puts them at risk. The corporate Trustees have placed the interests of a third party which has no legal interest in the corporation, i.e., the Synod, ahead of the interests of the corporation in contravention of their fiduciary duty to the corporation.
I hope that Presbytery of Sacramento, Inc. has D&O coverage for its trustees. I also hope the trustees obtained independent advice of counsel regarding their duties before they turned their backs on the corporation.
Presbyman,
For us that is already true.
It will probably surprise you, but I support the original presbytery decision to let the church go with their property. I'm on record a number of places (my own blog being one) saying that I believe that any church that wants to leave should be free to do so, PROVIDED that they work with the presbytery and are not having a substantial schism within the congregation. IF they have received funding from a PCUSA body that hasn't been paid back (or was a long time ago), they should pay it back as part of the departure.
Now back to my point.
The whole issue here is how the civil court interacts with our polity. The rule in stays of enforcement is to freeze things as much as possible - to keep the status quo until a decision is rendered. By ordering the presbytery to appeal the decision releasing the property, the PJC is making sure that things will be the way they are today when a PJC decision is rendered.
Suppose a church decided to demolish its sanctuary and use the money to rent space in a local arena for their services. They sue the presbytery to clear their title in order to allow the demolition. The presbytery loses the suit, and subsequently chooses not to appeal. If the Synod PJC failed to force the presbytery to appeal, the building might be demolished before the PJC can act.
It's the same deal here. The presbytery needs to keep a property interest at least until the PJC rules, or the case is moot. I understand that YOU would prefer that outcome, but it is contrary to our polity. Our polity requires us to be deliberate when a complaint is filed.
The order to appeal is simply a way to preserve the status quo.
"A stay of enforcement is a written instruction, obtained in the manner described in D-6.0103a, that orders the implementation of a decision or action be delayed until a complaint or appeal is finally determined." - D-6.0103
The implementation of the decision of the presbytery is the act of NOT filing an appeal. It is correct that an appeal is required to prevent that implementation from occurring prematurely. Should the PJC decide in favor of the presbytery, the appeal can simply be dropped.
"IF they have received funding from a PCUSA body that hasn't been paid back (or was a long time ago), they should pay it back as part of the departure."
Let me reword that.
A congregation that received funds from a PCUSA body RECENTLY should not be allowed to leave with all of their property unless they have a plan for paying back that money.
mac,
You are ignoring the fact that the bylaws of the corporate entity Sacramento Presbytery Inc. explicitly state (I suspect - I haven't seen them) that they are subject to the Constitution of the denomination. That Constitution includes chapter G-8.
Or, in essence Sacramento Presbytery Inc is a wholly owned subsidiary of PC(USA) Inc., and has documented that in their bylaws.
(Again - my supposition - it's a common element of presbytery bylaws)
Mark,
I'm glad you have us all straightened out--but I am still sticking with my thoughts that this is a moral issue that should not have gone the way it did. And perhaps that’s the problem. Even in a Democratic society if enough people fail to up-hold moral standards soon enough bad laws will be voted in to change to a totalitarian government.
If property issues in the PCUSA become the main issues for our governing bodies and not the Lordship of Jesus Christ, soon there won’t be any way to hold righteousness and constitutional lawfulness together.
Why is it moral to let a church go with property in contravention to Chapter 8, but it is not moral to ordain a gay person in contravention to G-6.0106b?
I suspect the answer I'll get is either "because I said so" or "because I think God said so".
Under Chapter 8, doesn't a Presbytery have the option to dismiss a congregation with property, or through a mutally agreed upon settlement? Since when has Chapter 8 been interpreted as a "fight till the death" provision?
OTOH, there is nothing optional about G-6.0106b (although it is being increasingly treated as such).
Again, apples and oranges, Mark.
Let the world note this moment in history.
Mark is right.
Since the Presbytery staff are in essence employees of the constitution they must act out the directive of the Synod PJC.
Unless they choose the path of civil disobedience. But it would be disobedience.
Mac's point is valid too but I'm not qualified to go down that path.
What I am qualified to say is that this points out two very important facts:
1) the system is too far destroyed to be repaired.
2) you can't trust the presbyteries to grant you property freedome because they can no longer provide that which they are offering.
I never for a minute blame the staff of the Presbytery of South Louisiana for the problem we went through it was purely the creation of the national organization (through the Synod).
This process is going to continue.
The right response has become - get out, get out now, get out often, because your very presence in this system sustains it and in a sense justifies it.
Mark,
I was about to write partly what Presbyman stated. But to be even clearer, in case you are not upon the facts, our Presbytery worked out a fair dismissal with Roseville and Fair Oaks to another Reformed body the EPC. I do believe that is constitutional.
The three pastors who filed the complaint against the Presbytery because of our vote to not appeal the case also filed against that dismissal. They did not want them to take their property at all or at least to pay the value which is in the millions. Since the Presbytery was using Christian graciousness and abiding by the Boo I believe the contrary actions are immoral.
But it is not constitutional to ordain practicing gays. It is also unbiblical.
Interesting.
This raises the question of whether a person can be both an officer of the 'ecclesial' body and an officer of the corporation in this structure at the same time. If Mark's reasoning is correct (peradventure - I don't actually believe it to be so because I believe this determination falls within the express powers of the presbytery - and the synod is acting corruptly upon national instructions - abusing their powers and usurping that do not belong to them) - but IF Mark's reasoning is correct - then the officers in question would have conflicting duties. IT would seem these have become incompatible. Thus it IS a moral issue for them to choose to follow one or the other. They can't do both. It is kind of a God or Mammon issue.
The structure of the corporate entity is none of my business - but please dispense with the 'God talk' if it is about material assets.
"Let the world note this moment in history.
Mark is right."
This explains why my cats were chasing dogs today. :-)
Post a Comment