Scandal of the Decade: The Louisville Papers
After a long night of reflection and analysis, I have come to believe that the Layman Online's recent release on the internet of the confidential legal advice from Louisville to denominational officers involved in lawsuits will be the Presbyterian scandal of the decade.
The 1970's had the Angela Davis thing (I guess, since I was 3 years old at the time!); the 1980's had the Kenyon case; the 1990's saw the Re-Imagining God Conference. But the first decade of the 21st century should remember this latest revelation quite well: It's a disclosure of the corruption that our denomination suffers at its highest level.
Why such a pronouncement?
Go and read the scanned documents for yourself. It's all there, for all the world to read.
See the shameless secular outlook on church splits. Feel the total absence of any Christian love in the heartless and ruthless tactics that are recommended.
So this is what we have come to. The PUP Report, with all of the grand language about forbearance and conversation means nothing. The Institution and its assets are everything.
Here's the basic message of the Louisville Papers: "If a church decides it must leave our fold, then squash them in civil court. Go in with guns blazing and take their property, label them schismatics and troublemakers. Do what it takes to win."
This is not the path of Jesus. This is the tactic of Ahab.
For Louisville is now taking the time-honored role of playing the institutional Ahab to the congregation's Elijah:
"When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, “Is it you, you troubler of Israel?” And he answered, “I have not troubled Israel, but you have, and your father's house, because you have abandoned the commandments of the Lord and followed the Baals." 1 Kings 18:17-18
So with this un-Christian and petty move, the Louisville Papers show the whole world how human power games and control fantasies always turn out. They split the people of God, shame the church and grieve the Holy Spirit.
What is left then for all Presbyterians who love Jesus, liberal and conservative, progressive and evangelical? Stand together against this proposed injustice. Stand in one common witness to a better way for us all.
Friends, there is a better way. For all of us: The path of cross-centered lives, rooted in the forgiving love of God seen so clearly on the cross.
So may Isaiah's proclamation now be our own:
"For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a burning torch." --Isaiah 62:1
Posts
28 remonstrances:
If this paper is legitimate, then it is outrageous! Presbyteries are made up of local congregations; they are not the bully-boys of Louisville. When did we start spying on local judges and questioning their religious affiliation? And when did we become a hierarchical church, in order to convince the courts to give the PCUSA our church properties?
Holy, freakin' ...
Excuse me. I must get my temper under control.
Thank you to The Layman (a phrase I thought I'd never use) for showing the true colors of the folks in Louisville.
I'm generally progressive, but these actions and papers are about as far from Christ-like as you can get without resorting to weaponry.
How is it that our stated clerks office can be so concrete on one issue but so ambiguious on others? Could there possibly be a bias at the highest levels of our denomination? ;)
We have no intention of leaving the denonomination, but actions like this sure make a tough situation that much harder.
all kidding aside is this in reaction to the NWI? Or did this begin before GA in anticipation of PUP passing?
We continue to pray for our church and its leaders.
Jim
The documents were dated Sept 2005 and December 2005.
Mark:
Say thanks also to the leaker, who sent this to the Layman! They just posted it.
Somewhere out there, there is a Presbyterian whistleblower who deserves all of our thanks for this bold and defiant act!
Jim:
I like your new handle!
I wondered about the dates, I skimmed the documents from Toby's link but did not pay attention.
I was a little incredulous at first, because a seminary friend in Eastern OK Presbytery assured me that the Layman had things wrong with their story about property issues in that Presbytery. I am amazed and saddened that this is what things are coming to. I am terribly afraid that faithful people will continue to give up and slowly trickle away from the PCUSA.
We will just have to wait and see what will come of our denomination. We have a men’s intercessory prayer group that meets every Thursday morning and we continue to pray that God’s will is done. My summer intern is leading a study on the Westminster Confession; I wonder what the drafters of that document would think of our current state of affairs? Probably put us all in the stocks.
Toby, think about attend the Small Church Retreat at Mo-Ranch. We will be there.
These documents are so bad it's hard to believe they are for real.
Who are these people in the national office to write such stuff? Is there anything to be done about recalling these people or getting them out of office? This is simply unacceptable.
I can't see what the problem is here. Did anyone think that the denomination was just going to sit back and watch while people walked off with a chunk of the church's property? It was done at the time it was because people have been making noise about leaving if they didn't get their way. These folkshave been planning on leaving for months, even holding meetings on the subject with booths and displays and books on how to hang onto property. Why should everyone else who wants the denomination to continue just sit back and not make similar preparations? Were they supposed to wait and consult a lawyer after churches started petitioning to go?
The use of the term hierarchical in the report has a completley different meaning than the way it is commonly used in our polity, which is that officers in the church are different in function but not in value or spirituality than members. In the legal document it is quite clearly simply short hand for a denomination with higher governing bodies. This is a no-brainer for anyone who has ever read the first four chapters of the BoO.
Nor is there any hint of "spying" on a judge. It is simply a matter of trying to prepare to educate a judge who may have come from a congregational polity about how a connectional one operates. If one has not been exposed to this distinction, one might make inferences about a church's inner life that one would not make if one had that information. Again, tthis is simply the kind of prudence that any attorney would be providing a client, not the nefariious act people are making it out to be.
All in all, this is a tempest in a teapot.
To Public Theologian...
I'm sorry, where was it in the bible that it says to go out and hire lawyers and develop your legal strategy to hang on to property and preserve your denomination?
Also, a quote from one of the documents..."When necessary, change the locks and "secure" the property."
It rather reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition (or perhaps Monty Python's parody if it). Are we no longer allowed to talk? Will faithful churchgoers (sorry, maybe I should "pejoratively identify them as schismatics") come to church one Sunday morning to find the door padlocked?
It would humorous if it weren't so sad.
Dear Pew--
Right next to the passage that says "Go join a denomination"or in the case of New Wineskins, "Go form a corporation for the purposes of extracting one's property from the denomination you just joined." If this is about expecting one's ideological opponents to find a prooftext authorizing their every move, what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I don't hear anbody complaining about the propriety of the conservative lawyer on Presbyweb this afternoon opining on the prospect of legally challenging the property clause using the Confessions, but let the other side try and protect what it feels like are their legal rights and they get called greedy Ahabs.
There simply ought to be a recognition by the adults on both sides of the issue that property disputes are legal matters and that all of us are subject to the laws of the state (cf. Romans 13). That either side would enter into this conflict without having consulted legal counsel would be foolish in the extreme. Are we to imagine that the Love Grove Church has not gotten legal advice? If it turns out that they have, will everyone be as scandalized as they appear to be now when it turns out that Louisville has gotten counsel? I wonder if those praising the whistleblower in the PCUSA would sing the praises of anyone who leaked the Love Grove's legal strategy?.Or would this be another instance of spying?
This process is painful enough without needlessly ginning up the conflict and making reckless charges.
At first I thought that you were referring to the scandal of aconfidential attorney-client document having been leaked. I can assure you that if you ever find yourself in a personal (and, of course, I hope that you never do) legal quagmire, you will not want to wake up one morning to find your attorney's advice and stragegy all over the internet.
Maybe other attorneys here view this document differently, but I am unable to see it as outrageous. It may seem unsavory because the client is a church rather than a secular entity, but the reality is that lawyers are obligated to educate their clients about the substance and procedure of the law, about positions and tactics, and about how to secure and defend their clients' rights and obligations. And lawyers are required by the ethics of the profession to be vigorous advocates for their clients. The lawyers on both sides are subject to the same obligations.
Dear Theologian,
Look, I'm not a pastor, a theologian, or a lawyer. I work in IT, and it's fun! I love my job.
I'm just a lay person who attends church with my family, volunteers for stuff at church, teaches Sunday School, and tithes money to the church. Until about four months ago, I was oblivious to what was going on at the Presbytery or the denomination. I attend a large, conservative church. Denominationl matters are never mentioned, and I believe our pastors are doing that deliberately to try to shield us.
However, I got wind of what was going on from an elder at church and started reading all the Presby websites and blogs. In those four short months I've learned about GA, Voices of Sophia, Reimagining, and a host of other things. Perhaps you can understand why I'm a bit riled up.
So, Public Theologian, what do you suggest that churches do when they decide that in order to remain biblically faithful they cannot remain in the PCUSA? Should we all just go to court and duke it out? Should the church members quietly walk away from the property (that they paid for, by the way), leave it for the Presbytery, and scrounge around for another meeting place?
Is there a more Christian way? I'd like to hear your comments.
I don't object to advice, legal or practical, offered to presbyteries which are faced with this situation. There are, however, 2 elements of scandal here -- that strike me as appallingly poor conduct for a church. A church, by claiming to follow Jesus Christ obligates itself to a higher standard of ethical behavior -- not the lower standard of legality.
The first scandal is the fact that these documents are confidential. You may complain that they were leaked -- and the propriety of this is dubious. But they should not have been secret in the firs place. The people tasked with making these decisions in our form of governance DO NOT RESIDE IN LOUSIVILLE. They are ruling and teaching elders working together in presbyteries. If there is advice from the national offices, it should have been in the hands of every ruling and teaching elder in the denomination. Otherwise it is manipulation only. If we cannot subject ourselves to the light of day, we forfeit the right to pretend to be a church -- regardless of the norms of the legal profession.
The second scandal, or at least appalling portion of this is the fact that it casts the PC(USA) in the role of the bully. I suspect and hope that most Presbyterians object to bullying, perhaps having pity and loathing for those insecure enough to be bullies. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in the property disputes, it is clear that there is far more power in the national denomination than in any congregation. It is also clear that somewhere along the line our leadership has ceased to wash feet and taken up lording their position over Presbyterians.
public theologian: Both papers advise lying - for example, one says (paraphrasing from memory) "although we don't speak of ourselves as 'hierarchical', say that we are because it helps with the legal theory that is more advantageous to us". Both talk about "portraying" churches in one unfavorable light or another - "portray" does not in any way imply truthfullness. It implies saying anything to favorably dispose a judge.
You talk about walking away with the denominations's property. In our case, you can't find "PCUSA" on any deed or other legal instrument, nor will you find one penny of PUSCA money nor one drop of PCUSA sweat in our building.
You may be comfortable with the Philistines that have taken over the PCUSA. Many of us are no longer willing to be yoked to such creatures. The PCUSA stands for greed, power, and money. It is a dying worldly institution focused mostly on saving itself. It has no interest in the spiritual well-being of Christians who have become entrapped in the tar pit of its apostasy. It is simply a human organization that has failed to prevail against the gates of Hell; it is not the church.
Pew--
I think that churches have to earn the right to leave. I have served seven PCUSA churches and the angrier they were with the denomination, the less they had anything to do with it. The had an almost congregational polity in that they never participated in the presbytery, the used Sunday School material from the local fundamentalist bokstore, and sang the music they heard on the local Pentecostal radio station. And then they groused about how their denomination had left them--never taking responsibility for the ways in which they were the ones who had withdrawn. Churches who have not been participatory in the lives of their presbyteries have no more moral right to leave in my judgment than people who haven't made love to their spouse in five years have a moral right to a divorce.
If a congregation has been fully engaged, and some who want o leave hare properly engaged, they still have a responsibility for the purity of the church. I hear all this talk about heretics and apostates and the like and how people are forsaking their ordination vows, but it is always when the conservatives are talking among themselves. If folks know there is an apostate or someone who has forsaken their ordination vows, why aren't they following through with ecclesiastical charges against that person or persons? Is leaving justified if the denomination has apostates? Of course it is But where are they? To read the Riverside Church's letter, the PCUSA is crawling with them, but then where are all the disciplinary actions that the church ought to have filed if this were the case? Isn't that what one is suppsoed to in our polity if this is what one encounters? It would be one thing if they had done this and been rebuffed in their presbytery, by their synod and by the GA. But none of this has happened. So what is ostensibly presented as an act of defiant courage on their part is really an act of cowardice by people who would rather cut and run than do their duty, which is to stay and fight for what theu understand to be the truth.
Now if a congregation had in fact done this, and exhausted all possible ecclesiastical remedies to removing the heretics from the church, the congregation would then have earned the moral right to ask to withdraw. They could then use all ecclesiastical means to make this happen. But if they are rejected in this, it is their Christian duty to leave without the property, as this was what they agreed to in their ordination vows. To turn to the secular courts to try and make null and void their affirmation of the property clause of our Constitution is to trun what was presented as prophetic critique into simply an instance of self-advancement. One cannot be leaving a denomination because others have not adhered to their vows while at the same time ignoring one's own. Put starkly, you can keep the church building or you can keep your integrity but you can't keep both, having made such a vow. Even if the rest of the church was apostate and that lone congregation was the true church, the cost of having to build another church would be less than having to go back on one's word.
Theologian,
I read your blog. You and I come from different worlds.
Peace to you.
The scandal is that people in the pew are being treated like cattle. There are many chruch members who have stuck by this denomination for decades, paying their per capita, contributing to building funds, keeping their churches renovated and in good condition.
Louisville has not contributed one cent, and now, if the people in the pew want to keep their congregation, the PCUSA is going to steal their building.
It may all be legally astute, diligent and correct, but it is not ethical, moral or Christian.
The documents are real and our presbyteries have copies of them. Check with your Presbytery Executive or Stated Clerk, as I did.
Pew--
I don't doubt that we have our differences, but we share "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (and one Book of Order!) The way Paul tells it, what we share should be greater and more compelling and thus overcome what separates us.
So Paul is saying that in the interest of corporation we should stay with those who pervert the faith? I do not see that in Paul at all. Paul when speaking to nearly all the churches in his letters speaks of purity before unity. Throw out the blasphemers if they will not accept correction is the message Paul brings.
Public Theologian,
If they went through all of this trouble to get an Authoritative interpretation passed in the GA giving local churches the power to deem what is essential to the faith/ordination of leaders, why all of struggle over property?
Which is more important "the essentials" or a piece of land?
It sounds like property and wealth to me.
Dear x--
I agree with you. I said that very same thing earlier in the thread. But if one has not done this, as most of the people who are threatening to leave have not, then one is tacitly admitting that the person with whom one is in ministry is not an apstate. Otherwise, one's inactivity to do what scripture requires to an apostate is the evidence of oune's own dereliction of duty. Inasmuch as neither person in the pew nor anyone else has sustained or even filed a charge against me for being a heretic, I am assuming he would consider me a brother in Christ, as I do him.
Dear x--
_ I inadvertently addressed you rather than Backwoods. Sorry to both of you.
To me all of this is simply prudence and doing one's duty. There is all kind of langauge in the BoO irrespective of the property chapter which speaks of teh responsibilities of governing bodies, one of which is to secure and maintain the body's assets. When the woman in Louisville made off with $100k a while back of the GA's money, did anyone accuse the Louisville folks of being bullys, or Ahabs, or obsessed with wealth and power when they took countermeasures to see to it that this never happened again? Of course not. They were doing what we expect of them In this case there is a faction which thinks that they and not Louisville should have the right to control the assets, despite their ordiantion vows to the contrary. The folks in Louisville are doing exactly what they have been charged to do, which is to manage the assets and to protect them from folks who have no right to them. That the current claimants are members makes no difference. Inasmuch as all of the deacons, elders and ministers have acknowledged the GA's right to the property, and since the Louisville folks work at the discretion of the GA, this ought to be an open and shut case when it comes to discerning who is acting properly.
The other side seems to think that if they are dealing with heretics that they don't have to keep their word which they gave in their ordiantion vows. To me this is as huge of a theological problem as anything over which they are criticizing everyone else.
Dear public theologian,
Many of us have attempted to do our duty, to be good presbyters, but perhaps in smaller ways than a court case. Having no real power in our presbytery, it would be a futile effort.
Just as there is great diversity of individuals within the PCUSA, this is mirrored in our presbyteries.
Grace & Peace,
Renee
For those of us who have been closely following the demise of the PCUSA none of what was written in these documents should be surprising.
What is surprising is the vast number of churches who continue sending money to the denomination so the denomination can hire people to oppose them.
Churches need to wake up!!!!!
The denominational leadership is only concerned about how they can coerce people in the pews to continue sending money.
public theologian wrote:
All in all, this is a tempest in a teapot.
But today's news makes the leaked papers into "tip of the iceburg".
I went to the PCUSA to see if they had any comment on this situation and their lead article is: California courts rule in PC(USA)’s favor in three church property cases
.
Enough said. The facts and events speak for themselves.
Post a Comment