# Pcusa sues epc



## Scott1 (Jun 27, 2008)

The PCUSA is allocating substanital sums of money to litigate against the EPC.

The Layman Online

Is this a violation of I Corinthians 6:1-7? Other biblical principles?


----------



## CDM (Jun 27, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> The PCUSA is allocating substanital sums of money to litigate against the EPC.
> 
> The Layman Online
> 
> Is this a violation of I Corinthians 6:1-7? Other biblical principles?



Here's the rationale taken from the motion:

RATIONALE
We are in the civil court defending freedom of religion, the right of the PC(USA) and any other denomination to organize and govern itself according to its beliefs. The precedent set in the decision in this case could have serious and far-reaching effects. 


The Book of Order, G-1.0400, reads as follows: 


4. The Historic Principles of Church Government 


The radical principles of Presbyterian church government and discipline are: 


That the several different congregations of believers, taken collectively, constitute one Church of Christ, called emphatically the Church; that a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein; that, in like manner, a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united: that is, that a majority shall govern; and consequently that appeals may be carried from lower to higher governing bodies, till they be finally decided by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole Church. For these principles and this procedure, the example of the apostles and the practice of the primitive Church are considered as authority. [The text of this section was adopted in 1797 by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. In this quotation the word “radical” is used in its primary meaning of “fundamental and basic,” and the word “appeals” is used in a general sense rather than with reference to a case involved in judicial process.] 


The PC(USA) holds that the Church is an organic unity of which its synods, presbyteries, and local congregations are integral parts. 


On September 15, 2007, the Presbytery of Northern New England recognized a problem in the Londonderry Presbyterian Church of Londonderry New Hampshire, in that the session had called a congregational meeting and recommended that the congregation vote to disaffiliate with the PC(USA). In response to this action, the presbytery elected an administrative commission to work with the session and congregation for resolution. 


On September 27, 2007, the session of the Londonderry PC(USA) filed suit against the presbytery, obtaining a court order prohibiting the administrative commission from taking any action, prohibiting the presbytery from exercising any oversight in the selection of their pastor, prohibiting the presbytery from exerting any control over the property of the congregation, and prohibiting any minister or elder or representative of the presbytery from entering onto the church property. 


On September 30, 2007, the Londonderry Presbyterian Church voted in a congregational meeting to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to join the New Wineskins Non-Geographic Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The session immediately brought a civil law suit against the Presbytery of Northern New England and obtained a civil injunction to prevent the presbytery from settling this matter within the framework of our Constitution, or even entering the property. 


The continuing congregation (those who did not vote to leave) is now about 200 members strong and is meeting in another location with 80 to more than 125 attending worship each Sunday. The newly constituted session of the continuing PC(USA) congregation has brought a civil suit against the dissidents to reclaim its property that was illegally taken.

These two lawsuits have been joined into one trial with the presbytery covering all legal costs. So far, we have incurred more than $226,000 in legal costs. We estimate another $150,000 by the end of this year. These legal costs are running much higher than the $80,000 in the presbytery’s 2008 budget. 


The Presbytery of Northern New England consists of 3,837 members in 31 churches and 3 ethnic fellowships. Most of the churches are small rural churches with an average membership of 124 and over half with less than 100 members. The presbytery’s budgeted income for 2008 is $347,925. The additional legal costs for 2008 may increase presbytery expenditures by more than 50 percent over its budget. Many of the churches are already struggling to pay their per capita of $35.25 and any significant increase is not possible. 


For a small, mostly rural, presbytery these legal costs are extremely difficult to handle. The result of this civil lawsuit will set a precedent for our entire denomination and all of us will benefit or suffer from the consequences. Our connectional system of government compels us to work together in our mission. It is unfortunate that part of our mission is to deal with such distasteful affairs as defending our constitution and our freedom of religion in civil courts. 


We have received small contributions from General Assembly and synod to help with our costs. Additionally, a law firm in New York has been made available to assist our attorneys. We are very grateful for this assistance, and we realize that neither General Assembly nor synod has the budgeted funds to provide any additional assistance. 


We must be careful that we do not lose the civil lawsuit and set legal precedent endangering our Constitution, simply because we cannot afford to put up the best defense. 


Thus, we ask that funds be provided to share costs in this matter. The $185,000 represents approximately half of the estimated legal costs of $376,000. 


The Reverend Thomas Woodward, Presbytery of Northern New England

Elder Ingrid Cyros, Presbytery of Northern New England​


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 27, 2008)

Do we have the Presbyterian Church of Londonderry, New Hampshire grounds or response? Or the EPC's? 


As an aside, relating nothing to the biblicity of ordaining women to church office, I find the following affirmant's title name quite funny:

*Elder Ingrid *Cyros, Presbytery of Northern New England


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 27, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> The PCUSA is allocating substanital sums of money to litigate against the EPC.
> 
> The Layman Online
> 
> Is this a violation of I Corinthians 6:1-7? Other biblical principles?



I don't know, unbelievers can sue anyone they want to.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 27, 2008)

Not to defend liberals but it appears the disaffiliating church went to civil court first?


----------



## Zenas (Jun 27, 2008)

It seems that way, although they might have been justified in their fears, albeit not their actions. 

To my understanding, when a congregation leaves the PCUSA, it is the denomination's practice to leave them with nothing or next to it.


----------



## mvdm (Jun 27, 2008)

The PC{USA}suit states it is based on the premise of the unity of the Church of Christ. I'd like to see the defendants file a motion to dismiss the suit on the ground that the PC{USA} no longer exhibits the marks of a true church. The point being is to stack the defense with Biblical issues {which are the real issue anyway}.

That forces the secular court to wrestle with a theological issue, which they are reluctant to do, and could lead to punting the case. 

Having said that, I do see courts getting less squeamish about deciding these church disputes, which is a sad state of affairs.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 27, 2008)

mvdm said:


> Having said that, I do see courts getting less squeamish about deciding these church disputes, which is a sad state of affairs.



And a violation of the Constitution.


----------



## Grymir (Jun 27, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > The PCUSA is allocating substanital sums of money to litigate against the EPC.
> ...




YEAH! Mega Dittos! Perhaps the best statement on the whole subject I've seen yet.


----------



## CDM (Jun 27, 2008)

Zenas said:


> It seems that way, although they might have been justified in their fears, albeit not their actions.
> 
> *To my understanding, when a congregation leaves the PCUSA, it is the denomination's practice to leave them with nothing or next to it.*



The Denomination actually owns ALL property of ALL its churches. The congregation does not own the property. 

The PCUSA's using the civil magistrate to enforce this policy and to evict the seperating churches off the property like a typical slum lord would. 

This may not be all there is to the epc's involvement.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 27, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Not to defend liberals but it appears the disaffiliating church went to civil court first?



Only after a matter of speaking, Chris. The going to court was not to _obtain_ anything from the Presbytery, but simply to avoid the Presbytery making an dispute a _fait accompli_ by seizing the property. That is standard PCUSA fare: they seize the property, fire the pastor, depose the elders, then raid the bank accounts. And I am not exaggerating.

I would not go to law against fellow believers, but if it is warranted to get an injunction againstthe Crips or Bloods, the same would apply in my opinion to the travesty called the PCUSA. Although I would also have to say that such congregations are only sleeping in the beds they made by staying in so long.

I pray that the Lord smites the PCUSA leadership, and destroys that Babylon, allowing Christians to be free.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 27, 2008)

mangum said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that way, although they might have been justified in their fears, albeit not their actions.
> ...



Actually, this is not true, strictly speaking. What _some_ courts have found in some (albeit numerous) cases is that the property is held _in trust_ for the Presbytery/denomination. This is significantly distinct from "ownership." (e.g. the Presbytery cannot mortgage such property) 

Even this is also not true of all congregations. What of a congregation that existed _before _the Presbytery? Current legal theory would say that the trust language is null and void (no privity of contract). Recent rulings in court cases are also going against the trust line of cases. That is why the PCUSA is getting as desperate as this.


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Jun 27, 2008)

wow....

Looks like they have taken from the Episcopal "Church's" playbook.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Jun 27, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Not to defend liberals but it appears the disaffiliating church went to civil court first?



To ask the civil magistrate for protection from the presbytery removing their pastor and session, and taking their property.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Jun 27, 2008)

mvdm said:


> The PC{USA}suit states it is based on the premise of the unity of the Church of Christ. I'd like to see the defendants file a motion to dismiss the suit on the ground that the PC{USA} no longer exhibits the marks of a true church. The point being is to stack the defense with Biblical issues {which are the real issue anyway}.
> 
> That forces the secular court to wrestle with a theological issue, which they are reluctant to do, and could lead to punting the case.
> 
> Having said that, I do see courts getting less squeamish about deciding these church disputes, which is a sad state of affairs.



This is something like what happened in the Free Church of Scotland in the early 1900's. The minority went to civil court arguing the majority was no longer following their constitutional standards and had ceased to be the Free Church of Scotland. The British House of Lords (highest court in the UK) agreed with the minority.

Doubtful a civil court would consider such an argument here. They’re primarily interested in contracts and laws regarding ownership of property.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 27, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > The PCUSA is allocating substanital sums of money to litigate against the EPC.
> ...





Dry humor, Todd . . . very dry. While I would be the first to admit that there are Godly people in all seven of the mainline denominations, finding one would be about as easy as . . .

. . . finding a beaver in England
. . . finding Rich at a Joel Osteen service
. . . finding Adam (Archlute) baptizing in the Jordon River (by immersion)
. . . finding a complementarian in any mainline denom
. . . finding Hal Lindsay at WSCAL
. . . finding Sean Hannity on Obama's staff
. . . finding profits in this week's DOW average
. . . finding "He Touched Me: the autobiography of Benny Hinn" in Josh's library
. . . finding a clean shaven picture of Puritan Covenanter
. . . finding a day without a YouTube post by PB's 20,000 boy, Andrew.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 27, 2008)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > The PC{USA}suit states it is based on the premise of the unity of the Church of Christ. I'd like to see the defendants file a motion to dismiss the suit on the ground that the PC{USA} no longer exhibits the marks of a true church. The point being is to stack the defense with Biblical issues {which are the real issue anyway}.
> ...



What was quite amusing was that the breakaway faction (The Free Church (continuing)) only had 25 ministers and was very small compared to the majority of the Free Church that had merged with the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, The Free Church (continuing) lost in every court until it hit the House of Lords and to everyones amazement it won on the basis that the merged church had departed from the historic calvinism of the Free Church.

This was quite embarrasing because the assets were huge compared to the small faction of the continuing church. 

The State stepped in and passed an act of Parliament to share the assets "fairly", therefore in effect the House of Lords ruling was reversed by statute. To be honest the end result was fair enough.

I do not think that the Free Church was right to sue for the Churches assets, but it probably would have been right to "squat" in its churches.

Let us also not forget that what is now the PCUSA succesfully sued the OPC to force it to change its name from PC of A, it chose OPC as an alternate. The PCUSA therefore has some "form" in this area.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 27, 2008)

> Not to defend liberals but it appears the disaffiliating church went to civil court first?



In many of these cases, the departing churches are going into court as a preemptory strike. They are trying to get a declarative judgment from the court to determine that the departing church has title to their property.



> The Denomination actually owns ALL property of ALL its churches. The congregation does not own the property.



It is more complicated than that. Each state, by its common law, has case precedent as to whether a particular denomination is "hierarchical" or not. If a denomination is "hierarchical" it is easier for the denomination to assert ownership rights over every church property under its jurisdiction.

In some cases, historic Churches believe they are bound by earlier agreements than the joining and receiving that formed the PCUSA (the national and mainly southern entities that merged in 1983).

In other cases, the status of agreements worked out with the local presbytery is uncertain and the churches are trying to "quiet title" before they move forward.

The large majority of these churches are going to the EPC. A very small number are going elsewhere- to the PCA, ARP or are going independent.

Incidentally, the PCA has gone to court and won in declarations that it is not "hierarchical" but is rather "connectional." These terms have big implications legally and in terms of church polity.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 27, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > Not to defend liberals but it appears the disaffiliating church went to civil court first?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is the EPC confessional as we would understand it?


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 27, 2008)

> Is the EPC confessional as we would understand it?



Without going any further on this, so we stay on topic...

I would say the EPC sure _seems_ confessional from where the PCUSA Churches are coming from.

In addition, the EPC is offering a very gracious "non-geographic" presbytery transition option to departing churches- it gives them time to see if they fit in and vice versa.

I think after the dust settles, if we remain biblically Reformed and faithful, more of these churches will migrate over to the full spectrum of NAPARC denominations.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 27, 2008)

You have got to love this:



> "The provisions of G-15.0203 a and b do, however, require that the General Assembly, as the highest governing body of this denomination, advise its presbyteries in this matter. The 218th General Assembly (2008) therefore advises the presbyteries that they must satisfy themselves concerning the conformity with this 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;


So, asking the brain dead individual - "Did Einstein really understand science?"

I'd rather have a three year old do open heart surgery on me than trust the theological formulations from the PCUSA bureaucrats in Louisville.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 27, 2008)

I think this kind of thing hurts smaller PCUSA churches who want to leave more than it does bigger ones. Often the bigger ones leave without much of a fight. One reason is that the Presbytery could never pay the mortgage on the property anyway if they did manage to get control of it. Others seem to have essentially bought their freedom. This link from the Layman that someone posted the other day showed that many of the departing churches agreed to pay the Presbytery large sums of money, either all at once or over the course of a few years. In some cases it was over $100,000.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 28, 2008)

> This link from the Layman that someone posted the other day showed that many of the departing churches agreed to pay the Presbytery large sums of money, either all at once or over the course of a few years. In some cases it was over $100,000.



Yes, and another reason given for this litigation.

If the State's case law precedent is unfavorable, a particular church may choose to negotiate a "buy out" from its presbytery. If they are on good terms with their presbytery, this may be on terms very favorable to the particular church.

Let's say a majority of the Presbytery do have good relations with the local church desiring to depart the denomination and the presbytery votes a very low settlement price (for, ostensibly, its property). My understanding is that the Synod (above the Presbytery jurisdictionally in the PCUSA), or more likely an agent of General Assembly may step in and try to vanquish the agreement, thinking that:

1) the financial deal is not a good deal for the denomination
2) it will only encourage more particular churches to depart

Apparently, the long-time Clerk of the denomination has been aggressive in enforcing, at the denominational level, the denomination's perceived property rights. This has even included advanced pad locking of church doors to prevent departure by churches that appear to be going to get a very favorable "buy out" from their presbytery.

With the denomination having lost more than 50,000 members this past year, and loss projections for more than that this year, one can see what a huge problem this is for the PCUSA. Hence, this litigation.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 28, 2008)

> I don't know, unbelievers can sue anyone they want to.





As for Rich attending a Joel Osteen service, can you just see Rich kicking off family devotions by holding his Bible above his head and saying to Sonya and the children: "This is my Bible. I am what it says I am..."


----------



## calgal (Jun 28, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Do we have the Presbyterian Church of Londonderry, New Hampshire grounds or response? Or the EPC's?
> 
> 
> As an aside, relating nothing to the biblicity of ordaining women to church office, I find the following affirmant's title name quite funny:
> ...



 And the PCUSA apparently mandates that all their churches and foreign churches that they support MUST have female elders. That might make a migration to a faithful reformed denomination a bit more difficult.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 28, 2008)

> And the PCUSA apparently mandates that all their churches and foreign churches that they support MUST have female elders. That might make a migration to a faithful reformed denomination a bit more difficult.



Yes, that is one reason. Not the only reason, but certainly one of them. 

Behind this litigation is a targeting of the EPC's gracious offer of "non-geographic" transitional presbyteries which allow a five year transition period for departing churches.
In fact, the PCUSA yesterday asked for an investigation of the EPC in this regard by an ecumenical body both denominations are members of- the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC).

Interestingly, the long time PCUSA Clerk known for the aggressive pursuit of litigation in this matter is also President of WARC.

A lot of "settling" can occur in terms of doctrine, polity, and membership during the five year time period given by the EPC in the "non-geographic" presbytery created for these departing churches. 

Don't forget, these churches have been faithful in contending for the very existence of the Gospel within their denomination, and for the most basic of Christian doctrines for a long time.

While most of these departing churches have lost many of their Reformed distinctives, such as the historic Doctrines of Grace, some will, if we remain biblical and faithful, find their way back towards their Reformed roots.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 28, 2008)

calgal said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Do we have the Presbyterian Church of Londonderry, New Hampshire grounds or response? Or the EPC's?
> ...



Actually this isn't true - at least if true it's not enforced. They may WANT all of their congregations to have female elders, but churches don't get kicked out for having biblical elders only.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 28, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> The PCUSA is allocating substanital sums of money to litigate against the EPC.
> 
> The Layman Online
> 
> Is this a violation of I Corinthians 6:1-7? Other biblical principles?





Why should it matter if this is a violation of Scripture when much of what is coming out of the PCUSA is a violation of Scripture. If Scripture is not your standard of authority it would not matter


----------



## Galatians220 (Jun 28, 2008)

Grymir said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...


 
And likely the most dispositive of the entire matter...  

Margaret


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 28, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...



I'd be curious about your statement, Todd. I know of at least a couple of PCA TEs who were disciplined years ago because they would not permit women elders in their own churches. I have also seen churches get disciplined for that. In fact, the _only_ thing I have ever seen discipline enacted for in PCUSA contexts is failure to ordain women.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 28, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > calgal said:
> ...



Fred, in your second sentence you state, at least a couple of PCA TE's were disciplined. I assumed you meant to say PCUSA TE's. Is that correct?


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 28, 2008)

*Enforcement 9/10 of the law*



> And the PCUSA apparently mandates that all their churches and foreign churches that they support MUST have female elders. That might make a migration to a faithful reformed denomination a bit more difficult.
> 
> Actually this isn't true - at least if true it's not enforced. They may WANT all of their congregations to have female elders, but churches don't get kicked out for having biblical elders only.
> 
> I'd be curious about your statement, Todd. I know of at least a couple of PCA TEs who were disciplined years ago because they would not permit women elders in their own churches. I have also seen churches get disciplined for that. In fact, the only thing I have ever seen discipline enacted for in PCUSA contexts is failure to ordain women.





The PCUSA Constitution requires that ordination not be denied women by any session or Presbytery. There are mechanisms through denomination agencies to promote it as well. 

Enforcement of the constitution is, as we say, 9/10 of the law.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 28, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > And the PCUSA apparently mandates that all their churches and foreign churches that they support MUST have female elders. That might make a migration to a faithful reformed denomination a bit more difficult.
> >
> > Actually this isn't true - at least if true it's not enforced. They may WANT all of their congregations to have female elders, but churches don't get kicked out for having biblical elders only.
> >
> ...




Well, I know of a session and pastor of a PCUSA church near us (no names, no places given) that will ordain no women (and have heard of others) - and the congregation is behind them as well. So far as I know, they've received zero flak from the denomination (perhaps it's because the pastor has little to nothing to do with either Presbytery or the GA).


----------



## Hippo (Jun 28, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > > And the PCUSA apparently mandates that all their churches and foreign churches that they support MUST have female elders. That might make a migration to a faithful reformed denomination a bit more difficult.
> ...



And probably because no one has lodged a complaint.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 28, 2008)

Stephen said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > toddpedlar said:
> ...



No, but I was not clear. I was talking about men who are now PCA TEs, who were disciplined (or at least threatened) years ago when they were part of the mainline church.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 30, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 30, 2008)

In a parallel case to litigation between the PCUSA and EPC is this case involving the Episcopal Church in Virginia:

Court Rules in Favor of Departing Churches in Constitutionality of Virginia Statute

Some State's case law ("hierachical") automatically assume a particular church's property is owned by its denomination or a unit thereof such as a presbytery or diocises.
Other State's law does not assume that. In these State's, the court would expect a denomination to protect its property rights by filing in court. That's the initial action in this court case.

It's implication is that a presbytery might not have title to a particular church's property if the presbytery has not tried to assert that property right in court before (by filing a deed, quiet title action, etc.)


----------



## raekwon (Jun 30, 2008)

Interesting. A friend of mine is a member of Londonderry. I'll have to ask him to keep me (and us) posted on the happenings.


----------

