Musings On The News Report Of The First Presbyterian Church Of Bethlehem Property Arguments

First Presbyterian Church of Bethlehem

(By Steve Salyards, The GA Junkie). Once again, in the “where angels fear to tread” territory, I wanted to muse a bit and post some brief comments on the arguments in the Northampton County Court (PA) recently between the First Presbyterian Church of Bethlehem, Lehigh Presbytery, and the minority “stay” group.

The article from The Morning Call of Allentown is titledCourt arguments reveal deep divide in First Presbyterian Church of Bethlehem.”

I am going to cast this in the light of the most recent case law for Presbyterian disputes over property in Pennsylvania right now, the 2014 Peters Creek decision.

And with those two inputs, maybe there is something appropriate to Mark Twain’s quip “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

Now, it is worth noting that these were oral arguments to decide if this case needs to go to a full trial. The article quotes Judge Baratta as saying:

“I really would hate to render a decision at some point that’s going to hurt members of the community in matters of faith,” Baratta said. “If you’re getting close to a resolution I will do whatever I can to work with you, to push you over that line. But please, consider, 10 years from now when you look back on this, it may not be as difficult an issue as it is today.”

The argument from the majority of FPC Bethlehem is that the deeds do not mention the denomination and the church never explicitly accepted the PCUSA Trust Clause. The judge responded “So you’re saying they didn’t really mean all of the Book of Order … only the parts they liked?” The majority’s lawyer responded that was an ecclesiastical question and not the scope of the civil courts. The judge replied that it could be looked at under neutral principles.

I must presume the judge has done his homework on this one. Part of the Peters Creek decision was laying out the boundaries of the neutral principles and the trust law related to the church trust clause. Under that decision it seems clear to me (reference Twain quote above) this court can deal with the property issue. Also under the Peters Creek decision a formal acceptance of the trust is not necessary but actions that would acknowledge PCUSA ties and thus by inclusion the trust – like saying you are a PCUSA church in your bylaws and charter and accepting the current Book of Order – are enough to demonstrate implicit acceptance of the trust clause. The decision quotes an earlier Presbyterian property decision that says (p. 19)

“In order for a court to find that a trust has been created, there must exist in the record clear and unambiguous language or conduct evidencing the intent to create a trust. No particular form of words or conduct is required to manifest the intention to create a trust. Such manifestation of intention may be written or spoken words or conduct indicating that settlor intended to create a trust.”

While a final decision in this matter would involve the close examination and history of the church’s bylaws, charter and property documents, the exchange between the judge and the lawyer is telling and may suggest that FPCB has a bit of an uphill battle on this.

But the initial questioning of the Presbytery’s lawyer was no less problematic.




  1. REPLY
    peter gregory says

    The argument made by the Presbytery lawyers that members of the church somehow passively endorsed or agreed to the property in trust clause is ludicrous and laughable by any measure of logic and reason. It stands on the same legal grounds as guilt by association, that if someone is standing next to or in the same room as other person then he or she somehow passively has a relationship with said person, or endorsed whatever that person is about to do or say, or have said. if that is the best argument the PCUSA and Lehigh has to make on the matter, their money could be better spent.

    The Constitution of the PCUSA is precisely that. It is not a limited covenant. It is not a HOA, is is not a suicide pact. Neither in ecclesiastical or civil law is the concept that one voluntarily gives up any other constitutional rights of free assembly, association, freedom of faith by any questions posed to members of the PCUSA, ruling or teaching elders, in any affiliation or association to the denomination. Not pre 1982, not post 1982, UPC or PCUSA. The constitution of the PCUSA currently is the Book of Order and Book of Confessions. Are we now to believe that by some concept of divine right or fiat the PCUSA is free to either ignore, forget, pretend the Book of Confessions, Westminster, Helvetic, Scotts confession no longer exists as to those parts that talk about sexuality and marriage, even 1967, then to embrace the Property in Trust clause to use a club or tool against non-conforming churches and clergy. Logically and theologically absurd and intellectually lazy. Which is saying allot in any discussion about the contemporary PCUSA. If the PCUSA is about to make the concept of Property in Trust the sole reason for institutional survival or legitimacy, as I have said who ever wins or prevails is this case is irrelevant to the dying entity. The lot has already been cast. The narrative has been set. And its not changing, win or lose this case.

Post a comment