 Mississippi Presbytery Federal judge sends congregation's motion for temporary restraining order back to state court By Patrick Jean Staff Writer The Layman Online Wednesday, January 2, 2008 A legal complaint pitting a Mississippi congregation that left the Presbyterian Church (USA) against the Presbytery of Mississippi has been returned to state court by a federal judge. Grace Chapel Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Madison, Miss., is seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent Mississippi Presbytery from violating a final declaratory judgment that resolved a property ownership lawsuit that the church brought against the presbytery in March. Mississippi Presbytery moved the church's request to U.S. District Court within 30 days of its Aug. 29 filing, saying there was a federal question about the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But in his ruling Dec. 21, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel P. Jordan III said there was no such question. "The only relief sought in the TRO motion is the enforcement of the final judgment and the preservation of the property rights delineated therein," he wrote. Jordan's ruling sends the church's motion back to Madison County Chancery Court. "We are thanking God for this answer to prayer and are looking forward to the day that Grace Chapel can minister to this community unhindered," the church's pastor, the Rev. Steven S. Bryant Sr., said in an e-mail to The Layman Online. In addition to seeking to have Mississippi Presbytery uphold the terms of the final declaratory judgment, Grace Chapel Church also seeks:
The motion was filed Aug. 29, two days after the presbytery approved an administrative commission to assume original jurisdiction of the church. According to the minutes of the presbytery's called meeting Aug. 27, the seven-member commission was necessary because the Grace Chapel Church congregation voted to immediately disaffiliate from the PCUSA. Bryant told The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss., that his church separated from the PCUSA because of its growing drift away from historic creeds and confessions, in particular its decision during the 217th General Assembly in June 2006 to approve the Peace, Unity and Purity report that keeps the current ordination standards in the PCUSA Constitution, but allows those who choose not to obey them to declare them to be non-essential. "The General Assembly basically created a whole new system wherein each governing body can determine for itself what is right and what is wrong," he said. "That kind of 'anything goes' mentality is very destructive to the whole Church." At its Aug. 27 meeting, the presbytery passed a resolution declaring that the congregation's vote was unconstitutional; "knowingly violated" a ruling by the presbytery's Permanent Judicial Commission that ordered the meeting stayed; and was not binding on the presbytery. The administrative commission was given power "over all matters pertaining to Grace Chapel including, without limitation, property, assets, membership and governance of the church; to retain legal counsel and to take such legal actions as may be advisable or necessary to protect the interest of the presbytery or the church; to exercise any and all powers and responsibilities of a session (G-10.0102); to develop recommendations to the presbytery as to the future status of Grace Chapel Presbyterian Church (USA) and appropriate actions to be taken by the presbytery." At the presbytery's stated meeting Oct. 25, the administrative commission recommended that the word "property" be removed from its powers, and that the presbytery authorize the administrative commission to prepare a quitclaim deed from the presbytery in favor of Grace Chapel Church to be made a part of the final declaratory judgment. Presbytery commissioners agreed on both counts. However, two problems remain:
The final declaratory judgment ordered that:
"As stated, the prayed-for relief seeks maintenance of the property rights reflected in the final judgment," he wrote. "Plaintiff may obtain such relief under Mississippi law. … Because plaintiff sought recourse available exclusively through state law, it matters not that plaintiff could have raised First Amendment claims, too. … In other words, the well-pleaded complaint doctrine is not violated because plaintiff could, and did, seek relief without relying on a federal claim." The judge noted that the presbytery said it had the church's motion moved to federal court "because plaintiff asks a civil court to order relief that would invade the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the presbytery, and which may not be done consistent with rights secured by the religion clauses" of the First Amendment. "Defendant seeks relief under the First Amendment as a defense to plaintiff's attempt to enforce the final judgment under state law," Jordan wrote. "However, defendant's reliance on First Amendment safeguards against state interference with religious doctrine or polity does not create a federal question." Mississippi Presbytery also was "untimely" in moving the church's motion to federal court, the judge found. "Defendant removed less than 30 days after plaintiff's TRO motion (filed Aug. 29), but more than 30 days after service of the original complaint (filed March 19)," he wrote. "Defendant claims that the TRO motion was actually a new civil action that triggered defendant's right to remove; or, alternatively, that the TRO motion triggered the second removal window because the complaint spoke only to property matters and was not removable." Jordan disagreed with the presbytery's claim about a new civil action. "The court finds that the TRO motion is part of the original civil action," he wrote. The judge also disagreed with the presbytery's argument that the TRO motion opened another window to move to federal court separate from the original March 19 complaint. "The court finds that defendant's suggested federal question applies with equal force to the complaint," he wrote. "Defendant argues that the complaint spoke only to property issues and gave defendant no indication that Grace Chapel would act in such a way as to prevent defendant from exercising its ecclesiastical authority," Jordan wrote. "In fact, the complaint, which defendant describes as relating exclusively to non-removable property claims, addresses the issues of ecclesiastical authority even more directly than does the TRO motion. Thus, assuming the presbytery is correct and a federal question exists, it existed on the face of the complaint, and defendant should have removed the case within the original 30-day window. The court has considered and rejected the remaining arguments raised in defendant's response." Patrick Jean is a staff writer for The Layman and The Layman Online. He can be reached at pjean@layman.org. |
|
Respond to this article |
|
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|