The PC(USA) and Church Property

Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use or for use in a Christian ministry, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit where credit is due. For all other uses, please contact me at mark@markdroberts.com. Thank you.

The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 1

Part 1 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series

This post is Part 6 of the series Why Not Just Leave the PC(USA)? It is also Part 1 of a new series called The PC(USA) and Church Property.

In my last series I gave five reasons why I am not currently planning to leave the PC(USA). Today I want to explore one of the stronger reasons for not leaving the PC(USA), a reason that is fraught with complication and controversy.

If you are committed to your local Presbyterian church, whether as the church’s pastor or a member, then you’d tend not to want to leave the PC(USA) unless your church leaves with you. But, in many cases, it’s a very difficult and painful thing for a church to leave the PC(USA). There are two main reasons for this.

First, when churches vote to leave the PC(USA), they rarely do by a vote of 100% for leaving and 0% for staying. (In June of this year, Lancaster Presbyterian Church in New York did vote 243-0 to leave the denomination, but this sort of unanimity is unusual.) This means that when a congregation votes to leave the PC(USA), it is also voting to split itself into two different congregations. People who have worshipped together, prayed together, and served together will now be in separate churches. Friends may very well end up on different sides of the vote and therefore in different churches. From a relational and emotional perspective, therefore, it’s hard for a church to leave the denomination.

Second, when a church votes to leave the PC(USA), it is not entitled to keep its property. Unlike the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which allows congregations to leave the denomination with its property if two-thirds of the members vote to leave, the PC(USA) claims to own the church property even if 100% of the members vote to leave. This claim is ensconced in the PC(USA) Book of Order, which reads:

G-8.0201 Property Is Held in Trust

All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

This means, in effect, that a particular church does not really own its own property. If it leaves the denomination, it leaves its property, or at least it surrenders the right to keep its property. This is true, in principle, even if, as is almost always the case, the property was purchased and developed by the members of the church, with relatively little assistance from denominational bodies.

The Book of Order does not address directly a situation when a church votes 100% to leave the PC(USA). It does speak of what should happen when a congregation has a split vote to leave.

G-8.0601 Property of Church in Schism

The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery. (G-11.0103i) If there is a schism within the membership of a particular church and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the particular church at the time of the schism.

What this means is that, in theory, the presbytery of which a church is a member has the right to dismiss that church to another denomination. (I say “in theory” because presbyteries that have voted to let churches leave with their property are being challenged by their synods. It seems the the "higher ups" in the denomination don't trust the presbyteries in this case.) In most cases, however, the presbytery will decide that the faction that has voted to remain in the PC(USA) is “the true church” within the PC(USA), and therefore entitled to the property. This has nothing to do with the percentage of the vote. Even if 95% of a church voted to leave the denomination, the presbytery could decide that the “true church” was the remaining 5%.

In fact, as more and more churches are voting to leave the PC(USA), presbyteries are responding quite diversely. Some have allowed churches to leave with their property without any payment. Other presbyteries have required churches to pay some relatively small amount of money to keep their property. Other presbyteries have required departing congregations to leave without their property. When congregations have refused, these presbyteries have taken them to court. So you end up with a situation where a presbytery and a former congregation of that presbytery are suing each other in civil court.

In my next post I’ll have a few things to say about this regrettable situation. For now I simply want to note, by way of summary, that it is not an easy thing for a church to leave the PC(USA). I’m not suggesting, by the way, that it should be easy. But sometimes you’ll hear people recommend that evangelical churches leave the denomination as if it was a simple and painless thing to do. In fact, it is neither simple nor painful.

The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 2

Part 2 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series

In my last post in this series, I offered some reasons why it is hard for a church, and therefore church members and pastors, to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA). One of the main problems for churches that might want to leave is that, according to PC(USA) polity, the particular church doesn’t actually have the rights to the property. Every bit of church property “is held in trust . . . for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” (Book of Order, G-8.0201). This means that if a church votes to leave the PC(USA), it might very well lose all of its property, unless the local presbytery allows the congregation to keep it. Sometimes presbyteries do; sometimes they don’t. And in some recent cases, when the presbytery does this, it gets in trouble with higher governing bodies. Most of the time, the PC(USA) wants to keep its property.

The legality of the “property held in trust for the denomination” clause is being challenged in a variety of state courts, as churches sue presbyteries to keep their property and presbyteries sue churches to evict them. Most recently, Kirk of the Hills, a large, formerly PC(USA) church in Oklahoma that is now an EPC congregation, lost its two-year legal battle to maintain its property. But the church will appeal the decision to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, so who knows how it will end? At any rate, the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma has been victorious, so far, in its effort to oust the 2400 members of Kirk of the Hills, who, incidentally, paid the considerable expense of developing the property. But, as an attorney for the presbytery said:

"When a local church participates in, prospers from and enjoys the benefits afforded by the parent church, as has been the case here for more than 40 years, it cannot then disclaim affiliation when it disagrees with the parent body, so as to shield church property from the equitable or contractual interests of the parent church.”

No, I have no reason to believe that this attorney was being ironic.

As I begin to discuss the issue of church property ownership, I must lay my cards on the table. I feel a deep sadness concerning situations like this one. It might be because I was a pastor of a local church for sixteen years, a church that labored with great effort and faithfulness to build two buildings so that we might faithfully pursue our mission in Irvine, California. So I may very well be biased in this matter. But, whatever the reason, when I read about what has happened with Kirk of the Hills, my heart feels very heavy, with a good bit of anger mixed in. It seems incredible to me that we in the PC(USA), who also happen to be brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, would actually be fighting over property in this way. I just can’t imagine how it advances the cause of the kingdom of God for presbyteries to prohibit congregations from continuing to use the buildings they have, in most cases, worked so hard to build and maintain for ministry. Will the kingdom of God be better off if Kirk of the Hills is evicted? In most cases, it’s not as if presbyteries have thriving churches ready to use the vacated buildings. Moreover, I can’t believe that we Presbyterians think it’s edifying to the PC(USA) or helpful to our mission, not to mention the mission of God’s kingdom, to conduct our property fights in secular courts.

In conversations with Presbyterian leaders from various theological persuasions, I have sometimes said, “Why don’t we make it possible for churches to leave with their property if two-thirds of the members believe this is what’s right for their church? I don’t care if it’s a liberal church leaving a conservative presbytery, or a conservative church leaving a liberal presbytery, or some other situation. Why won’t we just let churches leave so they can continue their ministries?”

In my experience, most younger church leaders can envision the benefit of letting churches leave the denomination with their property. But most mature church leaders don’t think we should do this. Some point to our covenant connectionalism and shared ministry. Others say something like, “You can’t leave your family just because you want to.” Others point to the Book of Order as if it offered God’s Final Word on such matters. But other leaders have been more practical, responding with something like: “If we open up the door for churches to leave, hundreds will do so. This will devastate our denomination. Presbyteries won’t have the funding to continue operating, since many of the departing churches would be the larger, wealthier ones. Denominational finances would be in shambles. We’d have to lay off tons of presbytery and GA staff, and lots of missionaries. It would be terrible for the PC(USA).”

I don’t know if this fear is valid or not, though I think it probably is. If the PC(USA) changed the Book of Order to allow churches to leave with their property, I do expect that many (but certainly not all!) theologically conservative churches would leave. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of the liberal churches in conservative presbyteries might follow suit, perhaps joining the United Church of Christ where they’d be free to pursue the mission they believe is right. And, yes, I expect that all of this would be very difficult for the PC(USA) in terms of denominational income.

But if this is true, what are we saying about our unity as a denomination? We can talk all we want about covenant communion and the missional benefit of unity, but it seems that, for tens of thousands of Presbyterians, what holds us together isn’t theology or shared mission or even a desire to be together, but property and money. Is mammon the glue that holds the PC(USA) together? Lord help us!

In my next post in this series I’ll explore further the implications of the PC(USA)’s claim to “own” all congregational property.

The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 3

Part 3 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series

In my last post in this series I began to consider the implications of the PC(USA)’s claim to “own” all congregational property. One implication is the possibility that what holds the PC(USA) together as a denomination isn’t so much theological conviction or covenant communion as property and money. This seems to be implied when people fear that letting churches leave with their property would lead to hundreds of departing congregations.

I realize that what I’ve just said doesn’t reflect well upon the PC(USA). I’m quite sure that there are hundreds of churches that are joyfully part of the PC(USA) and would never consider leaving. For them, the church property issue is moot. But as I try to understand what’s going on in this church property issue, I read things that deeply trouble me about the health of the PC(USA). Let me start at the foundation, with the statement of property ownership in the Book of Order. It reads:

G-8.0201 Property Is Held in Trust

All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

I understand that this language has a legal tone because it was intended to prevent churches from leaving the denomination with their property. But when I read the last clause, my theological conscience cringes. Should we say that church property “is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)”? Legally, this language may be defensible, some would say necessary. But is it theologically defensible? Is church property actually meant for the use and benefit of a denomination? Isn’t church property meant first and foremost for the use and benefit of the Lord? Shouldn’t we say this when we talk about church property? What if Christ, for his purposes and in his wisdom, actually wanted a PC(USA) church to join another denomination? What if it was actually better for some congregation to be allied with another denomination? Are we in the PC(USA) open to that possibility? Or are we certain that in every case the best thing for a congregation and for the kingdom of God is for church property to remain in the PC(USA)?

An analogy might be helpful here. When I became ordained as a Minister of Word and Sacrament in the PC(USA), I made many strong commitments to our denomination. But if I believed that God was calling me to be a pastor in a sister denomination, that wouldn’t be frowned upon or prohibited. In fact, my switch to, say, the ELCA would surely be blessed my presbytery, representing the whole PC(USA). The PC(USA) doesn’t believe it has some lasting and irrevocable claim on my services. I am not “held in trust . . . for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). So doesn’t it make sense that we view church property in a similar vein?

Again, I get what the Book of Order is trying to do. And, in general, I’m not one to encourage churches or individuals to leave the denomination. In fact, I’ve never done so in my life. I’ve been a member of the PC(USA) (previously, the UPCUSA) for over forty years, and an ordained PC(USA) pastor for half of that time. Whenever members of my former church in Irvine would raise the issue of leaving the PC(USA), I’d discourage this idea. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the way the Book of Order talks about property is inconsistent with the true purpose of the denomination, and even with our basic convictions about the nature of the church.

Part of what concerns me about the statement that church property is “for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” is that it gets the order backwards. I have argued elsewhere that denominations exist to support, advance, and extend the ministry of individual congregations. That’s their primary purpose. Particular churches, after all, are on the front lines of ministry. At their very best, denominations help churches do their ministry faithfully and effectively. Churches do not exist to support and further denominational concerns, for the most part. Denominational interest in church property, therefore, should focus on the use and benefit of the individual congregation in its community, not the use and benefit of the denomination. If a church is considering leaving the PC(USA), what should matter most to a presbytery is the question of what is best for the particular church and its mission. The Book of Order gets things backward, in my opinion.

There may well have been a time when denominations were a primary instrument of ministry and mission. I have argued, in fact, that denominations have done many valuable things throughout the ages. (See my series: What’s Good About Denominations?) But almost everyone who studies church life today concludes that the age of denominationalism has passed. And, in my opinion, there’s no biblical argument for the necessity of denominations. Yes, churches will continue to be involved connectionally in ministry and mission. Yes, churches will gather for worship and communion. But future partnerships will be less and less rigid and institutional, and more and more flexible and organic . . . rather like the body of Christ, come to think of it.

In addition to my “getting it backwards” criticism, I have another, even more significant objection to the idea that church property exists “for the use and benefit” of the denomination. I’ll explore this in my next post.

The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 4

Part 4 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series

In my last post I began to lay out my objections to the notion, as stated in the PC(USA) Book of Order, that all church property is “for the use and benefit” of the denomination. I believe that denominations should exist for the sake of their particular churches, not the other way around. Church property, therefore, should, if anything, be employed “for the use and benefit” of the particular church. Moreover, if a congregation is considering leaving the PC(USA), denominational bodies should be mature enough to consider whether this will be better for the church and its ministry. It would be arrogant in the extreme for any denomination to believe that it is always the best denomination for its churches, or that church property would always be best used in that denomination only.

But I have an even more substantial problem with the statement that church property is “for the use and benefit” of the PC(USA). In fact, I would have the same objection if the Book of Order were to state that church property is “for the use and benefit” of the particular church. It seems to me that either “held in trust for the use and benefit” statement is at best in theological tension with, and at worst an outright contradiction to, the opening section of the Book of Order. Here’s how the Book of Order begins:

G-1.0100 1. The Head of the Church

Christ Is Head of the Church

a. All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.

Christ Calls the Church Into Being

b. Christ calls the Church into being, giving it all that is necessary for its mission to the world, for its building up, and for its service to God. Christ is present with the Church in both Spirit and Word. It belongs to Christ alone to rule, to teach, to call, and to use the Church as he wills, exercising his authority by the ministry of women and men for the establishment and extension of his Kingdom.

We believe that Christ has given the Church “all that is necessary for its mission in the world,” which surely includes its property. Notice, Christ gives this to the Church with a capital ‘C.’ This is not the same thing as saying that Christ gives all that is necessary for mission to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). We are simply one small facet of “the Church.”

Moreover, Christ has the authority “to call, and to use the Church as he wills” for the purpose of “the establishment and extension of his Kingdom.” If this is true, then I wonder:

Aren’t we compelled to say that all church property exists, ultimately and most truly, for the use and benefit of Jesus Christ and his kingdom?

Can we ever know with certainty that Christ would never lead a PC(USA) congregation to leave the denomination with its property?

Does our attachment to property trump our submission to Christ and to his mission?

Isn’t the most important question of all when it comes to church property this one: What does Christ want to do with his property?

For the record, I’m not assuming that in every instance a church that votes to leave the PC(USA) has done the right thing. And I’m not assuming that every church that wants to leave should always be able to take its property. What I’m saying is that I’m deeply disturbed from a theological point of view by the way we PC(USA) folk have framed this issue. (Photo: A church building in Bodie, California, a ghost town. This was last a Methodist church.)

As I’ve said earlier in this series, I understand that the language in the Book of Order that claims church property “for the use and benefit” of the denomination is meant to have legal clout. It’s not, on the surface, a theological statement. But in the unqualified way the Book of Order talks about church property, it is making an implicit theological statement. Moreover, this statement has encouraged members and leaders of the PC(USA) to take for granted the notion that all church property rightly belongs to the PC(USA). I have never heard someone in this debate add something like: “But, of course, we know that the real owner of the property is Christ, and what matters most is what he wants to do with his property.” (I’m sure some have said this, but I’ve never heard it myself.)

Yet Christ’s ownership of all church property is, I submit, the most important thing to say about church property. In spite of what legal documents might say, the property belongs ultimately and rightly to the Lord. It exits for his use and benefit. This fundamental fact must undergird every single conversation about church property. And it must trump every legal claim or statement in the Book of Order. The only question that really matters is: What does Jesus want to do with his property?

Sadly enough, this question seems rarely to be asked by denominational officials when congregations are wanting to leave the PC(USA) with their property. In fact, when congregations leave and try to hang onto their property, what often happens these days is that some of Jesus’ people use a lot of Jesus’ money to sue others of Jesus’ people who defend themselves with a lot of Jesus’ money over the question of who gets to use Jesus’ property. Both churches and presbyteries, communities of Jesus’ people, initiate these lawsuits. Meanwhile, Jesus’ money that could have been used for Jesus’ ministry and mission gets consumed in legal battles.

I believe that there is a way out of this sad situation. I’ll explain this way out in my next post.

The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 5

Part 5 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series

In my last post I offered a theological critique of the Book of Order’s statement that all church property “is held in trust . . . for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” This statement is in tension with what is said elsewhere in the Book of Order about Christ and his church. In the first chapter we say that:

God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.

Christ calls the Church into being, giving it all that is necessary for its mission to the world . . . . . It belongs to Christ alone to rule, to teach, to call, and to use the Church as he wills . . . . (G-1.0010 a, b)

It seems to me, therefore, that any legal or ecclesiastical statement about the ownership of church property must always be qualified by the fundamental fact that all church property belongs to Christ, and that he can do with it as he wills.

This is surely implicit in the Book of Order, which may be why it isn’t included in the specific statement of church property being held in trust for the use and benefit of the PC(USA) (G-8.0201). If we were to ask those who actually wrote G-8.0201 about this, they might very well say: “Of course all property ultimately belongs to Christ, and it’s his to do with as he pleases.” At any rate, I think that’s what we in the PC(USA) should be saying today, in light of our own statements in the Book of Order about Christ’s headship, not to mention biblical statements concerning Christ’s lordship over all. After all, if our own bodies belong to the Lord and not ourselves (1 Cor 6:19-20), surely we’d have to say that land and buildings dedicated to him belong to him first and foremost. We’re just renters, in a way.

Actually, the Book of Order implicitly and explicitly allows that it could be right for a church to leave the PC(USA). In Chapter XV on “Relationships,” we state:

G-15.0203 Reception and Dismissal of Churches

a. When a particular church of another denomination requests that it be received by a presbytery of this denomination, the presbytery shall verify that the church has been regularly dismissed by the governing body of jurisdiction, and the advice of the highest governing body of that denomination dealing with relations between denominations has been received, and shall then receive the church in accord with its responsibilities and powers. (G-11.0103h.)

Dismissal of Churches

b. Similar procedures shall be followed in dismissing a particular church from this denomination to another. (G-11.0103i)

By recognizing that it’s okay for the PC(USA) to receive a particular church from another denomination into the PC(USA), we’re implicitly acknowledging that it can be right for a church to leave a denomination and join another. Our statement on the dismissal of churches makes this explicit. Though nothing in Chapter 15 mentions church property explicitly, it stands to reason that if a church can rightly leave a denomination, then it could be right for that church to leave with its property. If the PC(USA) recognizes that there are times when it’s right for a church to leave a denomination, surely we can allow such churches to leave with their property?

But could the PC(USA) ever let a church leave with its property since we state that all church property is held is “held in trust for the use and benefit of the denomination”? Yes, I think we could. I believe that the PC(USA) could, with freedom and integrity, allow churches to leave with their property. How? The argument would go something like this:

All church property in the PC(USA) is held in trust for the use and benefit of the denomination. Ordinarily, this means we strongly discourage churches from leaving the PC(USA) over minor differences of opinion. But when the differences between a particular church and the denomination are significant, when they involve central issues of theology and mission, and when these differences have led a church into a wise and godly process of discernment that has ended in super-majority vote of the congregation to leave the PC(USA), then it may very well be consistent with the “use and benefit of the PC(USA)” to allow a church to leave with its property. Why? Because the PC(USA) does not exist to advance its own cause or its own glory. It does not in fact exist for its own benefit. The PC(USA) exists to benefit Jesus Christ and to extend his kingdom. Thus hanging on the ownership of church property may not be for the benefit of the PC(USA) in all cases, given our greater commitment to Christ. Even as we confess individually that our chief end as human beings is “to glorify God and enjoy him forever,” so the chief end of all church property is God’s glory (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1). We recognize that it may not always be most glorifying to God for the PC(USA) to retain ownership of all church property.

Again, the case of a pastor leaving the PC(USA) helps by way of analogy. When I became ordained as Minister of Word and Sacrament in this denomination, committed myself to the following (G-14.0405)

(5) Will you be governed by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline? Will you be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit?

(7) Do you promise to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church?

(9) Will you be a faithful minister, proclaiming the good news in Word and Sacrament, teaching faith, and caring for people? Will you be active in government and discipline, serving in the governing bodies of the church; and in your ministry will you try to show the love and justice of Jesus Christ?

westminster abbey These were strong commitments, not simply to the Church of Jesus Christ, but to the PC(USA) in particular (lower case “church”). But the PC(USA) does not insist that, as a pastor in the denomination, I can never move to another denomination and maintain my ordination. Even as we recognize the ordination of pastors ordained in sister denominations when they join the PC(USA), so we can dismiss pastors to other denominations with their ordination intact. We understand that that PC(USA) is not the whole Church, but only a church within the whole Church. Perhaps this same sort of logic would give us the freedom to release congregations with their property. (Photo: From inside of Westminster Abbey, where the Westminster Shorter Catechism was considered in the 1640s.)

Now I realize that, in fact, it often gets very messy when churches consider whether or not to leave their denominations. This is especially true when churches feel threatened by denominational bodies, as is often the case in the PC(USA), and for good reason. On many levels, the denomination has made it clear that it will evict churches that vote to leave the PC(USA), and pursue legal action against churches that seek to leave with their property. In response, churches have sometimes not involved their presbyteries in the discernment process, and have even sued their presbyteries preemptively. Surely something is terribly wrong with this picture. (Sin, for example.)

So what should happen if a church, which usually means its leaders, begins to think that it should leave the PC(USA)? I’ll sketch out the contours of what seems to me a godly, just process in my next post in this series.

The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 6

Part 6 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series

If a congregation in the PC(USA) begins to consider leaving the denomination, what should it do? (When I say “congregation,” I mean especially the leaders of the congregation, including elders, deacons, and pastors.)

I’m going to sketch out some contours of an ideal process. I fully recognize that what I’m describing may not work in many, many cases. It requires that church leaders and denominational leaders be mature and gracious in seeking, not their own will, but God’s will. Sometimes this happens. Often it does not. In far too many cases, the hearts of church leaders are captured by some demonic power, perhaps unrighteous anger, spite, vengeance, or Mammon.

When the issue of church property arises, Mammon gets especially busy, and often prevails, at least in the moment. I’m not simply waxing poetic here. Scripture teaches that our true battle as Christians “is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12). Mammon is one of these powers specifically named by Jesus himself (Matt 6:24). Church property fights are not fundamentally battles between churches and presbyteries, though they might seem so. They are, more deeply, spiritual battles that engage all sorts of cosmic powers.

I say this not simply to be theological or dramatic. It seems to me that, if a church believes God might be leading it to leave a denomination, the very first step is to take seriously the spiritual dimensions of what lies ahead. If it’s true that the church’s leaving will strengthen its mission, then you can be sure that the hosts of Hell will do what they can to derail the process. Besides, Satan and his minions rejoice when Christians sue each other, when they drain away kingdom resources in court battles, and when they look like enemies before the eyes of the world.

So what should a church do if it begins to consider leaving the PC(USA)? The starting point, given the reality of Ephesians 6:12, is to follow Ephesians 6:13-18:

Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints.

So, then, here is the first thing a church should do if it thinks God might be leading it to leave the PC(USA):

1. Put on the whole armor of God.

Specifically, this means a congregation should ask itself questions like:

Belt of Truth

• Are we being faithful to the whole of God’s truth, including biblical passages that make us uncomfortable?

• Are we being truthful in all of our communications with members, with presbytery, etc.? (Photo: A mosaic of two Roman gladiators found in Kourion, Cyprus)

Breastplate of Righteousness

• Are our motivations truly righteous and honoring to God?

• How much are we willing to sacrifice for the sake of God’s righteousness?

• Are we committed to treating all people rightly, even and especially those who disagree with us?

• If we are in a presbytery that may not be supportive of us, will we always do the right thing in relationship with the presbytery? Are we willing to turn the other cheek and walk the second mile?

Shoes of the Gospel of Peace

• Have we made a legitimate effort to make peace with the denomination?

• Are we committed to being peacemakers in this process?

Shield of Faith

• Will be put our trust in God first and foremost? Or will we put our trust primarily in ourselves? Or in our lawyers?

• Will we offer all that we are to the Lord, including our property?

Helmet of Salvation

• Will we rest secure in the knowledge that we belong to Christ our Savior?

Sword of the Spirit

• Will we be guided by Scripture in all of our deliberations?

• Will we allow Scripture to challenge us as well as to encourage us?

• Will we obey biblical passages that govern relationships within the church? Will we avoid gossip? Will we be quick to reconcile and forgive?

Pray at All Times for all the Saints

• Will we pray faithfully throughout our process of deliberation?

• Will we pray for wisdom for ourselves, for presbytery officials, and for all others involved in this process?

If you’re a practically-minded person, you may find what I’ve just said to be distraction from what really needs to be done. But, given biblical teaching on what is most real, I believe that the most practical thing any church can do when it begins to consider leaving the PC(USA) is to put on the armor of God in tangible ways.

In my next post in this series I’ll consider what comes next.

The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 7

Part 7 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series

In my last post I began to consider what a congregation should do if it begins to think that God might be leading it to leave the PC(USA). On the basis of Ephesians 6:10-20, my proposed first step is:

1. Put on the whole armor of God.

I explained in some detail what this might entail for a church. Now on to the next steps.

2. Congregation leaders should communicate with leaders from other churches that have considered leaving the PC(USA), or have left, to learn about what was good and not good in their process.

For most of us, considering leaving a denomination leads us into uncharted waters. Yet others have navigated those waters before us. Some crashed on the rocks. Others made it safely through. There is much to be learned from the experiences of other churches.

3. Congregation leaders should communicate with the presbytery.

Now I know I’m going to get some negative comments about this suggestion. I know of many evangelical PC(USA) churches that find themselves in hostile presbyteries. I’ve heard of cases where presbyteries seek to remove pastors who even allow their churches to entertain a conversation about leaving the denomination, not to mention situations where pastors are in favor of leaving. Pragmatically speaking, it may seem foolish for a church to notify its presbytery about its considerations.

But, according to our Book of Order, presbyteries have the authority “to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i). It is the rightful role of the presbytery to guide and support its churches, even when they’re thinking about leaving the PC(USA). Presbytery leaders should be mature enough and Christian enough to do this well, even if they strongly oppose a church’s dismissal. But even in a case when the presbytery leaders are not able to do what’s needed, I think a church should still be committed to acting rightly toward its presbytery . . . putting on the breastplate of righteousness, if you will. (Photo: The breastplate of Augustus, from the statue of Augustus found at Prima Porta.)

I do not have direct experience of something like I’m describing, so one could accuse me of being hopelessly naïve. Naïve I may be, but surely not hopeless! Yet I have watched a pastor friend who faced an analogous situation in his church. He had on his staff a director who worked with younger people in the congregation, primarily folks in their 20s and 30s. This director’s ministry was flourishing, much to the delight of my pastor friend. But his delight disappeared when the director starting talking about breaking off the group and starting a new church, not a PC(USA) church, I might add. The pastor made it clear to the director that this was not a good thing, in his view. But he didn’t fire the director immediately and demand that he never return. The pastor tried to walk the second mile with this director and the young adult group. When, in the end, they decided to leave the church and start a new church, the pastor refused to bad-mouth them or hamper their efforts. In fact, he believed that it was his calling to continue to pray for and support his former director and the new church he was planting. This was not easy for my friend, who felt plenty of grief and anger. But he tried to be faithful to God’s call.

A couple of years later, the new church that had broken off from my friend’s church was struggling along. My friend found himself in the strange position of being a mentor and encourager to his former director. Meanwhile, my friend’s church had a new young adult ministry that was thriving, stronger than ever before. His overall attendance and membership numbers were up noticeably, contrary to what one might have expected. I am convinced that my friend’s maturity in Christ, his graciousness, and his willingness to walk the second mile had everything to do with the blessing on his church.

I know there are other stories, stories that don’t have such happy endings, stories that illustrate human sinfulness and downright meanness. I have heard some of these stories, and they grieve me. But I believe that sometimes (often?) God calls us to do what seems foolish in terms of this world. Walking the second mile is pretty foolish. So is loving one’s enemies. The greatest foolishness of all is the gospel of Christ crucified. Therefore, if a church does what’s right by communicating directly with its presbytery, I believe that God will be honored by that action, and will find ways to bless the church, even if presbytery leaders are unwilling to respond graciously.

It will be rare, of course, for a presbytery to be enthusiastic about losing one of its churches. But, even so, there will be presbytery leaders who will be able to engage in a constructive process with a church. This is surely their calling as Christian leaders who are to imitate the servanthood of Christ. Moreover, if a presbytery is involved with a church that votes to leave, the involvement of presbytery leaders may very well pave the way for a church to leave with its property. Treat me with respect and I’ll be apt to treat you in the same way. Treat me with disrespect and I’ll be apt to return the favor. That reminds me of something someone said about treating others the way you want to be treated. Hmmmm. Maybe step #3 should read, simply: Treat presbytery leaders as you would like to be treated, or perhaps even, Do unto others as you would them them do unto you.

The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 8

Part 8 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series

In my last few posts I’ve been suggesting a process for a congregation that thinks God might be leading it to leave the PC(USA). So far the steps are

1. Put on the whole armor of God.