 Piety and Property: Testing the Talk  The Layman Volume 41, Number 2, Posted April 10, 2008
What made the three percent “True?” Nothing theological. “True” turns out to be real estate language. On behalf of its “true church,” presbytery leaders proceeded to claim title to the 97 percent’s property. Then they unveiled an olive branch. They invited the evangelical 97 percent to an out-of-court meeting (all the while making private preparations to sue them) for the announced purpose of praying and reasoning together. Montreat evangelicals declined the invitation, a shun that evoked wailing and gnashing of teeth from area institutionalists: “They wouldn’t even sit down and pray with us!” they cried. “Can you imagine that?” exclaimed presbytery’s pecking order when hearing reports of the rejection. “They leave us no option but to take them to court.” Left out of the litany was the fact that the presbytery leaders had attached a precondition to their invitation. They stipulated that their ersatz church owned the property, not the 97 percent whose contributions had paid for it. So, the prayer meeting’s agenda turned out to be how much of the 97 percent’s former property might presbytery allow the evangelicals to use, and for how long. The Montreat congregation found it impossible to participate in an event based on this premise. ‘Amazing Grace’ Its generosity having been so callously disdained, the presbytery announced it would sue. Not only would it attempt to confiscate a building owned by others, but it plans to have someone else pay its legal fees. Western North Carolina will launch a national campaign, presumably under the guise of preserving Montreat’s Presbyterian heritage, to raise a $50,000 war chest from out of state donors. Similar deceptions have been employed by the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, whose Timberridge Presbyterian Church is attempting to clarify title to its property in court. The Timberridge congregation is rapidly outgrowing its facilities, but its leaders will not conduct a capital funds campaign while their property ownership is in doubt. According to church trustee, Dan Patterson, major donors will not contribute to a property that can be confiscated by presbytery. Congregational leaders were familiar with “The Louisville Papers,” that advise presbyteries to confiscate church properties, change the locks, issue eviction notices, freeze bank accounts, defrock ministers and depose church sessions. Anticipating retaliation by the presbytery for its attempts to clarify title to its property, Timberridge prepared a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and told presbytery leaders that the document would be served and a court hearing scheduled if the presbytery tried to do to the congregation what “The Louisville Papers” were advising them to do. Promises, promises The presbytery responded with lofty language, imploring Timberridge not to seek the court’s protection against fellow Christians and urging instead that the parties reason and pray together. They promised Timberridge that the presbytery would not take hostile actions against it in retaliation for its attempts to secure clear title. Inclined to accept the presbytery’s invitation, Timberridge representatives said they would withhold setting its motion for a TRO for hearing if presbytery lawyers would put their do-no-harm promise in writing. But the lawyers balked. So, Timberridge served the TRO and, after a hearing, the court granted it. The order enjoins the presbytery from taking any action against Timberridge property while the ownership question is being adjudicated. Presbytery officials cried foul over the TRO, publicly denouncing Timberridge for going to court in lieu of praying and reasoning with fellow Christians. Omitted from their lament was the fact that Timberridge had agreed to set aside its TRO if presbytery leaders would sign what they had said. They also failed to mention something that is now apparent – that, at the very time they were imploring Timberridge not to serve its TRO, presbytery officials were preparing a lawsuit of their own. Courthouse records show that the presbytery not only answered Timberridge’s suit, but simultaneously filed an extensive countersuit claiming an enforceable trust over Timberridge’s property. The Presbytery of Greater Atlanta – largest in the denomination and home of a General Assembly moderator who has gone to her knees praying that Presbyterians love one another – has brought shame upon itself with this attempted slight-of-hand maneuver. Strip away the veneer of piety and what remains is presbytery’s demand that the congregation lay down its shield while presbytery lawyers sharpen their spears. Fortunately for Timberridge, the judge who decided the TRO was moved more by neutral principles of law than by religious rhetoric. Four months later, the presbytery, in addition to its pending countersuit, also filed a separate suit seeking to evict Timberridge from its property. In its eviction suit, the presbytery not only claims ownership of the property but alleges that the 94 percent of the congregation that paid for it are trespassers. The congregation’s answer alleges that the presbytery’s attempt to evict it constitutes a clear violation of the TRO. In the presbytery’s passion to punish Timberridge, it may find itself in contempt of court, for in filing its eviction demand, presbytery is doing precisely what the court ordered it not to do. Timberridge has offered to settle, so long as it is not compelled to give one dime to a denomination that it believes has left the faith. It will give $10,665, an amount equal to its General Assembly per capita payment, to an area soup kitchen if presbytery will match its gift and drop all claims against Timberridge’s property. Presbytery refused, demanding a blank check of $350,000 from the upstart congregation, representing approximately one tenth of the congregation’s assets. Upping the ante At the outset, Timberridge sought only to clarify title so that it could proceed with its building campaign. The question of leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA) was not on the table. But when presbytery leaders overreacted by requesting powers to remove the minister and wrest control of the church from its elected officers, what began as a corporate property matter became an ecclesiastical rebellion. The Timberridge session called a congregational meeting and told its people what presbytery leaders were preparing to do. By a 94 percent majority, the congregation then voted to disaffiliate from the denomination. How many more cases will emerge before PCUSA officials learn that the strong-arm tactics and half-truths they recommend in “The Louisville Papers” do irreparable damage to the very cause they purport to represent? One cannot persuasively defend the truth by telling only half of it. And one cannot promote a trust by engaging in untrustworthy activities. Each time presbytery officials follow “The Louisville Papers’” playbook, as the presbyteries of Western North Carolina and Greater Atlanta have done, they sink this denomination deeper into disingenuousness, and they alienate additional congregations. Attempting to coerce unity, General Assembly headquarters has forgotten that we live in a country where churches are voluntary associations. No law can tell people that they must belong to a particular church, and no law can tell a particular church that it must belong to a specific denomination. No rule can shackle people to associations they do not respect and cannot trust. And no one can deny a gathering of Christians the right to worship under whatever label they choose. In such circumstances, presbytery property grabs are doomed to failure no matter the legal outcome. The best presbyteries that follow Louisville’s advice can hope to achieve – and we predict that they won’t achieve it in a growing number of cases – is a handful of dirt, for by confiscating a congregation’s property, the denomination will drive away its people. What remains after that deed has been done can hardly be called a church. The Rev. Parker T. Williamson is editor emeritus of the Presbyterian Lay Committee. |
||
| Respond
to this article Previous columns by Parker T. Williamson Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
