I am ashamed to announce that on Saturday, the twentieth of September, the Sacramento Presbytery will be voting on a resolution to ask the Synod of the Pacific to appoint an administrative commission to act on behalf of the Presbytery regarding the suits by the First Presbyterian Church of Roseville and Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church. It can be found on the Sacramento Presbytery page.
It will hopefully be remembered that the Presbytery had settled the dismissal of those Churches in a gracious manner until a complaint was filed by the pastors of Westminster Church in Sacramento. When the Churches then won their case in court and the Presbytery voted not to appeal the pastors once again filed a complaint.
I wrote about that here A Dis-heartening Action involving the Synod of the Pacific . In light of the passage of item 04-28 a "gracious witness resolution" offered by General Assembly commissioner Robert Austell and passed by the GA, this is becoming a shameful episode in our presbytery's life.
Because the Presbytery Docket file is so large I am placing the resolution here:
"RESOLUTION RELATING TO
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ROSEVILLE V. PRESBYTERY OF SACRAMENTO
AND
FAIR OAKS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH V. PRESBYTERY OF SACRAMENTO
WHEREAS, the Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church and First Presbyterian Church of Roseville (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") have heretofore initiated the above-captioned suits (collectively, the "Original Suits") against the Presbytery of Sacramento (the "Presbytery") to quiet title in certain real property; and
WHEREAS, the Original Suits have been consolidated in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer as Case No. SCV 20758; and
WHEREAS, the Synod of the Pacific (the "Synod") has filed a motion for leave to file its complaint in intervention in connection with the Original Suits, which motion has been granted; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2008, a judgment was entered in the Original Suits in favor of the Plaintiffs; and
WHEREAS, if an appeal (the "Appeal") is to be taken, notice of appeal must be filed no later than 60 days after the entry of judgment, which will be November 10, 2008; and
WHEREAS, certain other churches have threatened suit or may in the future initiate suits to quiet title in certain other real property (the "Additional Suits"); and
WHEREAS, the Presbytery has incurred substantial expenditures in connection with the defense of the Suits and is financially incapable of funding the Appeal and/or the defense of the Additional Suits; and
WHEREAS, the issues in the Original Suits and the Additional Suits (collectively, the "Suits") involve or may involve the validity and enforceability in the State of California of the trust clause of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (G-8.0200) and, upon appeal, it is likely that the law of the State of California will be interpreted in a way that will establish precedent applicable to Presbyterian churches throughout the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the Synod of the Pacific is a regional governing body of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that has jurisdiction over six presbyteries within the State of California and is "responsible for the mission of the church throughout its region," (G-12.0102), having the responsibility and power "b. to initiate mission through a variety of forms in light of the larger strategy of the General Assembly; . . .e. to develop and provide resources as needed to facilitate the mission of its presbyteries. . . . j. to provide services and programs for presbyteries . . . . within its area that can be performed more effectively from a broad regional base;" and
WHEREAS, for the reasons set forth above, it is more appropriate that the Synod, as a higher governing body, having access to greater resources and having a larger territory of jurisdiction
within the State of California, be responsible for the defense of the Trust Clause by means of the Appeal;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Presbytery hereby petitions the Synod to appoint an administrative commission under G-9.02503, with the power to act on behalf of the Presbytery in all matters related to the Suits, including the Appeal and to provide or obtain funding in connection therewith..
# 5604578_v2 "
A good answer to this problem of property is offered by Rev. Mark Roberts here The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 4
Please pray for Sacramento Presbytery.
10 comments:
I pray the Presbytery can see the divisive intent of those filing this motion and rule it inconsistent with civil Christian behavior. Perhaps an administrative commission could be established to deal with the divisiveness and evil intent of those filing this, as it truly is both
This sounds like the presbytery passing the responsibility on to the synod.
If I remember correctly the presbytery originally said it would not oppose the court cases filed by the churches and then pastors and a church in the presbytery brought a case in the synod pjc to force the presbytery to oppose the court cases.
I don't know if the synod pjc required the presbytery to oppose or not. But it sounds like the presbytery is saying, "We can't afford it. If you are so insistent that the cases be opposed, you pay for it!"
I don't like what the presbytery is doing either, but does the presbytery now have a choice in fighting the churches in court or not?
The Presbytery does have a choice of whether or not to ask the Synod to appoint an administrative commission to act on their behalf in all cases.
I believe they are doing this because we are already in debt and have no more money to appeal the cases. But that is the three pastors at Westminster’s fault not the Presbytery's. And I believe there is a new case with another Church coming up. But the Presbytery does not have to do this. I am sure the Synod has their hand in this.
A couple of interesting things about this resolution: it wasn’t placed on our docket until the 17th and the meeting is tomorrow. That should, I would think, made it new business. The other is that Judy Austin the Moderator of the Synod is a guest at the meeting and we were notified of this at least a week before the resolution was placed on the docket.
I have deleted a comment because I don't like people to insult others on my blog. I can understand why some might want to be anonymous about this posting but not with unhelpful comments.
Anonymous has it right. "Discipline" is a one way street in many places within this denomination.
Thanks, Viola, for your witness.
Hi Hi Viola,
I have been wanting and trying to send you an invitation to read my main blog via email, but I can't find your email....
Of course....I would like to share with you... That's why I left a message on your blog saying that I'd close my blog for a little while....
a long story...
I have been back from my Thailand short missionary trip. See photos in my Thai mission.
Blessings....
Thanks for your prayers, and I pray for your continual growth in Christian faith and vision!
Hi Jesus' Gal,
It is so very good to hear from you. I guess I didn't understand. My e-mail is v.larson@worldnet.att.net. You can also find it at http://www.naminggrace.org/id8.htm which is my contact page on my web site.
To everyone else,
it was not a good day--not any of it, well except the Lord was there as He always is. And I did come home early because of pain from my shingles.I will blog about it tonight or tomorrow.
Thanks for your visit and always very warm message.
Yes, I am going to join the Sunday School class on Joshua.
Emotional maturity is like Emotion Quotient, a kind of emotional stability and how well one handle one's emotions, I would say.
I'd check on your blog and send you an invitation anyway, as I sometimes close my blog for a long time....
Wish you well, and led life with a Christian Vision!
Post a Comment