Outlook Online Exclusive
from Dennis H. Piermont, Executive Presbyter;
Presbytery of the Miami Valley
In the fall of 2011, four congregations in the Presbytery of the Miami Valley each decided to hold congregational meetings on Reformation Sunday to seek “disaffiliation with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” Each of these congregation occupied significant places in the life of the presbytery; each of their pastors served in some presbytery leadership capacity; and many of their ruling elders and members had various roles in the presbytery ministry.
These departures, now complete, have been difficult for this presbytery, bringing not only a loss of resource and talent, but also significant sadness in the loss of colleg
ial connections. Perhaps the most difficult part of all of this was the realization that in our theologically diverse presbytery, where for many years we seemed able to weather the storms of denominational crises, our relational bridges were not strong enough to withstand the rising floodwaters of the tempest.
While no doubt we would like to think our troubling experience unique, with a few exceptions, presbyteries across this denomination, to varying degrees, have suffered as much as the Presbytery of the Miami Valley. Congregations have departed, or are in the process of doing so. But while the outcome is essential the same – loss – the process undertaken by this presbytery is significantly different in one major respect: we have not dismissed any congregations or teaching elders to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) or to the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO), choosing instead to dissolve.
This is neither a distinction without a difference, nor is it some kind of legal strategy, but rather, it expresses our understanding of living in fidelity to being Presbyterian.
One of the central themes over the years with the denomination’s growing theological rifts, has been that for many of our conservative, orthodox and evangelical leaders and congregations the PC(USA) has abandoned its historical principles – that we have become a church without standards. I believe that with respect to denominations not covered under our Formula of Agreement (and particularly to those that might be seen as schismatic) dismissing congregations and teaching elders (or validating ministries) to those denominations without careful consideration and process, confirms and justifies the complaint – indeed, we have no standards.
While it is also clear that the last two years have brought growing numbers of congregations seeking release from their historic connections, besetting presbyteries with issues of magnitude unprecedented in generations, it is nevertheless essential that as we move through this time of uncertainty, we do so in a manner that does not lose sight of our larger context – that our life as Presbyterians is importantly rooted in those discerning struggles that provide us our covenantal way of connecting with one another – that our lives together make us richer than our lives alone. It is in this larger context that we must find our way as we struggle with our new discernment. But however new the journey is for us, there is guidance along our path.
In 2008, the 218th General Assembly adopted a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) in response to the Presbytery of Charlotte concerning the dismissal of congregations and transfer of ministers to the transitional presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. This was adopted by the 218th GA as Authoritative Interpretation and (along with the GAPJC remedial case, Tom et al v. Presbytery of San Francisco, No. 221-03, dealing with a requirement that property values must be addressed) formed the basis of how the Presbytery of the Miami Valley understood its responsibility for congregations wishing to depart the denomination.
“Presbyteries may dismiss congregations to other ecclesiastical bodies of this denomination, and to denominations whose organization is conformed to the doctrines and order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). No congregation may be dismissed to independent status, or to the status of a nondenominational congregation. It is the responsibility of the dismissing presbytery to determine whether the receiving body meets these standards, and this responsibility cannot be delegated to any other entity within the presbytery (such as an administrative commission). Thus the General Assembly may not determine in advance whether a particular denomination or its constituent bodies qualify under these standards.
“The provisions of G-15.0203 a and b do, however, require that the General Assembly advise its presbyteries in this matter. Therefore the 218th General Assembly (2008) therefore advises the presbyteries that they must satisfy themselves concerning the conformity with the denomination of a transitional presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in matters of doctrines and order. Presbyteries may facilitate the exploration of conformity by means of an administrative commission, although such commissions may not be empowered to approve the dismissal of the congregation. In exploring this matter, presbyteries should consider such questions as whether the receiving EPC presbytery is
-
- doctrinally consistent with the essentials of Reformed Theology as understood by the presbytery;
- governed by a polity that it consistent in form and structure with that of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.);
- of sufficient permanence to offer reasonable assurance that the congregation is not being dismissed to de facto independence
“Failure on the part of the presbytery thoroughly to explore and adequately document its satisfaction in these matters may violate, however, unintentionally, the spirit of the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” [Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 218th General Assembly Minutes (Part 1), page 15]
Initially, word of only one congregation seeking departure came to the presbytery. Within a week or so after forming an Administrative Commission to work with this congregation, we learned of similar desires from the other three. Then the commission’s work was expanded to include all four congregations. Early in the process, the commission adopted two statements to govern their work, and against which all commission decisions and recommendations to the presbytery were to be measured:
- Do no harm to the Church of Jesus Christ
- Model Christ in the undertaking of the tasks at hand.
Two realities quickly emerged as well:
- Each congregation had “done its homework” with respect to demonstrating “being of one mind.” The votes taken in each congregation ranged from 92% to full unanimity to concur with separation, and each meeting was extremely well attended, so much so, that the intention of each congregation left no room for doubt. (It is also important to note that this presbytery had no policy in place for “gracious separation.”)
- Property law decisions from Ohio state courts had been uniformly decided on what is known as “Neutral Principles of Law” the central premise of which is that a court must apply two elements of neutrality to any judicial review: content generality and equal applicability. These decisions effectively rendered the Trust Claus of the PCUSA constitution impotent.
These two realities thus suggested that seeking legal relief for the presbytery’s interest, either to keep its congregations in the denomination, or failing that, the property, was not a strategy that could be justified on many grounds – not the least of which was stewardship. It was logical therefore that the commission seek a peaceful process, with whatever elements of fairness and graciousness might be possible. It also seemed logical that such a process would move toward “dismissal.”
But it was in looking at “how to dismiss” that the notion of not dismissing but dissolving arose.
To begin with, conforming to the provisions of the Authoritative Interpretation from GA 218 raised a specter of asking the presbytery, reeling from what many saw as a broadside attack on the denomination, to engage in a thoughtful, serious and patient process of judgment and discernment at a time when wounds were raw and emotions high.
It also needs to be understood that while four congregations acted concertedly en masse to seek departure, there were perhaps eighteen others in this presbytery recognized as sympathetic to the theological positions of the departing congregations, but which had chosen to remain in the denomination. Many connected with those non-departing congregations expressed a sense that the Presbytery of the Miami Valley is a place in which their voices are heard and respected, even when in a minority.
The twin prospects of a commission or task force charged with making a recommendation as to the conformity of the EPC (in order to dismiss a congregation or pastor), and the debate that would doubtless occur on the floor of presbytery, evoked scenarios in which those sympathetic congregations and their pastors (along with several other teaching elders in the presbytery not currently serving churches) could be characterized as “extreme” – the result of the more liberal shift of the center of the presbytery because of impending departure of more-conservative voices. This concern was expressly stated to me by the pastor of one of the congregations that had chosen to remain.
I have no doubt that the risk of this was real and great, and I have no doubt that without our continuing care and vigilance, that risk continues. Without question, there are many in this presbytery who have been, and continue to be, angry, perhaps even justifiably so, because what has been seen as a conspiracy by others against the denomination outside of our purview and bounds; and irrespective of the “target” of the conspirators, it is this presbytery that is taking the direct hit; and that we were chosen specifically because of Ohio court rulings on property. There is no also no doubt that amid all this, any forum concerning the EPC (or any other denomination understood as being “against” the PCUSA) would bring out angry rhetoric.
Therefore the decision to dissolve congregations and require teaching elders to renounce jurisdiction, rather than dismiss was reached clearly in the interest of “doing no harm to the Church of Jesus Christ” – the commission feeling that the ordination vow to further “the peace, unity and purity” trumped any consideration of determining a process for dismissal that abided by the AI.
Of course, this also raised property issues. Didn’t our understanding of the Trust Clause, irrespective of state court rulings, mean that the ownership of the property of dissolved congregations would automatically “move up” the ladder of jurisdiction? How, therefore, could a congregation be dissolved with property?
Whenever a congregation is formally dissolved by the presbytery, or has become extinct by reason of the dispersal of its members, the abandonment of its work, or other cause, such property as it may have shall be held, used, and applied for such uses, purposes, and trusts as the presbytery may direct, limit, and appoint, or such property may be sold, or disposed of as the presbytery may direct, in conformity with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). [Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order, G-4.0205 – Property of a Dissolved or Extinct Congregation]
In all four congregations, there was prior action taken to restructure and re-title corporate charters (on the advice of legal counsel) and therefore dissolution would remove them only as PCUSA congregations, not as functioning religious institutions holding title to property. Thus the presbytery dissolved congregations with property seemingly in violation of G-4.0205.
However, the so-called Trust Clause, a construct of the denomination, is nevertheless subject to court interpretations of legal property law (which vary by state). The provision of G-4.0205 assumes that the Trust Clause is in effect, something which has not been upheld in Ohio. For us here, it might be argued that this provision in the Book of Order conflicts with the ordination vow regarding peace, unity and purity.
Again, the commission understood the property provision as denominational and subordinate to any vow concerning the larger Church of Jesus Christ.
It should be noted that several presbyteries that have dismissed congregations and teaching elders to the EPC have also validated ministries permitting PCUSA teaching elder members to serve EPC congregations. I believe that the major impetus for doing this without undertaking a process that satisfies the three requirements of the AI concerning doctrinal consistency, structural form, and de facto independence, is born out of a desire “that we all get along” – something that often has significantly far reaching repercussions for both religious and secular society.
An EP colleague and friend, after consulting me about congregations wishing to leave in his presbytery, wrote to me about his disagreement with our conclusions that we must dissolve, and his reasons for advocating dismissal:
“My take on the EPC, the PCA, and the ECOP, they are all recognized entities with whom the GA stated clerk’s office has communication and whom are within the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. They were born of schism….as were we. For the health….peace, unity and purity some congregations are better suited to these other denominations….My take is, if staying causes so much pain and agony, for them and the rest of the body, and there is unanimity, let them go and serve the Lord and be blessed.”
While the sentiment expressed may be laudatory, this statement is not factually correct, and, in my opinion, perhaps a bit irresponsible if we are to take what we consider to be the Foundations of Presbyterian Polity seriously. While the Stated Clerk’s office does have communication with these denominations, communication is not the same as “correspondence” – we have communication with the Roman Catholic Church but we could not dismiss either a congregation or teaching elder to that faith.
More importantly, I believe, that despite our desire “that we all get along,” there are very basic issues that inform our polity and theological understanding, and how do these play into any tacit notion that since the EPC, PCA and ECOP “are within the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition” here is somehow doctrinal conformity and order? For instance, in the EPC, women’s ordination is a “local option” but one rarely used in most presbyteries, never in some, and completely prohibited by the PCA.
Where is the doctrinal order and conformity concerning property in the EPC? There is no trust clause whatsoever – all property is completely held by an individual congregation – meaning that in some ways, since any congregation being dismissed to the EPC can subsequently leave that body and become an independent or nondenominational church, could not our dismissing congregations be seen, by extension, in violation of the AI?
While these might seem as arcane points of minutiae to some – they (and many others) represent often decades of study, discernment and struggle. And this history must be honored even if we make decisions that are counter to the status quo if we really believe that there are “foundations” to our polity.
Through all the difficulty we have seen new things, and some of them are good. There have been some cautious and tender overtures to reframe new collegial relationships, not denominationally, but as Christian colleagues in ministry. My relationships with the pastors of the departed congregations, while now a bit distant and less-frequently nurtured, paradoxically continue to be very warm. And we have never stopped praying for each other.
As a presbytery, we are a bit bowed, even battle-weary, but not broken. Out of this has come new energy to imagine and dream in new and restorative ways how we might be the Presbytery of the Miami Valley – we are learning and exploring just what it might mean to live together in a covenantal relationship. As a result, we have adopted a presbytery covenant which makes our oneness in Christ the imperative for our relating to each other as a presbytery, and recommits each of us to the promises made in our ordination vows.
A gifted pastor and preacher has told me that the original sin was “taking shortcuts.” I believe she is right. So much of the trouble we get ourselves into, whether in our individual lives, our congregations, or our denomination often can be traced directly to our looking for the easy way. Certainly for the Presbytery of the Miami Valley, the easy way, the short cut, would have allowed some things move this troubled time more quickly and perhaps even feeling a bit better. But our counsel with each other also told us that such direction would undermine any sense of the value of the principles and standards of being Presbyterian.
Without question our colleagues in other presbyteries have navigated and continue to navigate their courses in these uncharted waters with the same desire of fidelity to Presbyterianism as we in the Presbytery of the Miami Valley. But our course has been significantly different, and it seems we have travelled alone.
Paraphrasing Lillian Hellman, we could not and did not cut our conscience to fit this year’s fashions.
We have our standards.
