{"id":552,"date":"2008-10-03T01:01:27","date_gmt":"2008-10-03T01:01:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html"},"modified":"2008-10-03T01:01:27","modified_gmt":"2008-10-03T01:01:27","slug":"the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html","title":{"rendered":"The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 12"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part 12 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
\n<\/em>Permalink for this post<\/a> \/ Permalink for this series<\/a>
\nI ended yesterday\u2019s post by promising to discuss another stunning move by the General Assembly in relationship to the church property issue. I will fulfill this promise on Tuesday. Today and Monday I want to focus on a breaking story<\/a><\/span><\/strong> from Oklahoma<\/strong><\/a><\/em>. (If you’re new to my blog, I should say that my weekend blogging is lighter and more inspirational. I get back to heavy lifting when the week starts.)
\nAccording to the Tulsa World<\/em>, the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma has offered to sell the property where the Kirk of the Hills had been meeting for forty years to Kirk of the Hills for $1.75 million. Here\u2019s a bit of history: Two years ago, Kirk of the Hills, a 2500+ member congregation in Tulsa, Oklahoma, voted almost unanimously to leave the PC(USA) and join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The congregation intended to keep its well-developed property, which it had built at its own expense. Apparently, the presbytery had helped Kirk of the Hills get off the ground financially forty years ago, but these costs had been repaid over the years. Nevertheless, the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma demanded that the congregation vacate the property, even though the presbytery had no congregation that needed the property, and Kirk of the Hills had no other property to use for ministry. An extensive court battle ensued, and in August, an Oklahoma judge ruled that the presbytery did own the property. Kirk of the Hills promised to appeal the decision. (I have no idea how much of Jesus\u2019 money got burned up in this litigation, but I bet it was plenty.)
\nThe presbytery\u2019s offer to sell the property to Kirk of the Hills was not without strings attached, even in addition to one and three-quarters million financial strings. If Kirk of the Hills buys the property, the congregation must also drop its legal appeal. But if the church appeals and wins, it owns the property without having to pay the presbytery. If the church does not appeal and pays what the presbytery demands, it owns the property and the presbytery has a whole lot of money. Moreover, the legal precedent would help to intimidate most other churches who might think about challenging the financial empire of the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma.
\nThe Rev. Greg Coulter, the leader of the presbytery, said that the $1.75 figure was \u201ca very fair and reasonable settlement\u201d since the property was worth more than this figure. He didn\u2019t mention that it was worth so much because the congregation built the buildings at their own expense. But it could be that Coulter is speaking truly here. If, for example, the property, with its buildings, is worth $17.5 million, then the presbytery is asking for a tithe of its value, which impresses me as a fair request. If the property is worth more, the fairness increases; if less, it decreases, as far as I\u2019m concerned.
\nRev. Coulter went on to explain what he and the presbytery were trying to accomplish:<\/p>\n

“We’re trying to find an appropriate balance between our constitutional responsibilities as members of the Presbyterian Church USA and our pastoral responsibilities toward our brothers and sisters in Christ who have been partners in ministry for more than 40 years with us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I want to parse this statement carefully, since it helps us to understand the presbytery\u2019s motivation. Rev. Coulter says that the presbytery is \u201ctrying to find an appropriate balance between our constitutional responsibilities . . . and our pastoral responsibilities.\u201d He assumes that constitutional responsibilities go on one side of the scale and pastoral responsibilities go on the other. That creates the balance. In the way Rev. Coulter and the presbytery see things, their constitutional responsibilities are opposed to their pastoral responsibilities. They seem to know that their actions are not helpful to the church, but they defend these actions as being demanded by the PC(USA) Constitution.
\nIf this is true, doesn\u2019t it call into question the rightness of the PC(USA) Constitution? If loyalty to the Constitution means that presbyteries have to do what which is not pastoral, that which is not best for congregations, then shouldn\u2019t the Constitution be changed? Do we want to have a church Constitution that puts institutional loyalty ahead of pastoral care?
\nFrankly, I think Rev. Coulter and his colleagues should re-read the PC(USA) Constitution, and not just the part about church property held in trust for the denomination (G-8.0201). Consider what is said in our Book of Order<\/em> about the responsibilities of a presbytery (G-11.0103, italics added):<\/p>\n

b. to coordinate the work of its member churches, guiding them and mobilizing their strength for the most effective witness to the broader community for which it has responsibility<\/em>; . . .
\nf. to provide encouragement, guidance, and resources<\/em> to its member churches in the areas of leadership development, church officer training, worship, nurture, witness, service, stewardship, equitable compensation, personnel policies, and fair employment practices; . . .
\ng. to provide pastoral care for the churches and members of presbytery<\/em>, visiting sessions and ministers on a regular basis; . . .
\ni. to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members; . . .
\nj. to control the location of new churches and of churches desiring to move; . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Also, through its Committee on Ministry, the presbytery offers special care for churches in hard times (G-11.0502, italics added):<\/p>\n

i. It shall serve as an instrument of presbytery for promoting the peace and harmony of the churches<\/em>, especially in regard to matters arising out of the relations between ministers and churches. Its purpose shall be to mediate differences and reconcile persons, to the end that the difficulties may be corrected by the session of the church if possible, that the welfare of the particular church may be strengthened, that the unity of the body of Christ may be made manifest<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From these passages, it\u2019s clear that pastoral care for churches is not something to be pitted against constitution responsibilities. Indeed, caring for congregations, wanting their best, and even sending them to other denominations is an explicit constitutional responsibility of the presbytery<\/em>. The presbytery is expected by our Constitution to do far more than make sure church property stays in the PC(USA).
\nFurthermore, I would encourage Rev. Coulter and his colleagues to read, not just the chapter in the Book of Order<\/em> on presbyteries, but also the first four chapters of the Book of Order<\/em>. These chapters place our whole ministry as a denomination within the larger work of God in the world. We\u2019re not in the business of building a denomination, but serving God by participating in his mission in the world. Therefore, if it\u2019s in the best interest of a congregation and its mission to keep its property when it moves to another denomination, then it could be completely constitutional for the presbytery to release that congregation, property and all. There is no demand in the Constitution that a presbytery must hang onto the property when a church leaves, though there could be situations when this would be best (as in a close vote of a congregation, or in a case where another church could use the vacated property, etc.).
\nMoreover, as I\u2019ve explained earlier in this series<\/a>, the PC(USA) exists under the authority of and for the mission of Jesus Christ. All church property belongs truly and ultimately to him, to be used for his purposes. So Rev. Coulter and his colleagues in the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma are not in any way bound or encouraged by our Constitution to kick Kirk of the Hills out of the property they themselves developed, if that property would be well used for that congregation and its mission, even when it is an EPC church. Surely the leaders of the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma would acknowledge that the EPC is part of the kingdom of God, and that an EPC church belongs to Jesus Christ. If a church were trying to sell its property to a commercial enterprise or to a pagan cult, then the presbytery would do well to prevent it. But, when I last checked, the EPC is pretty much like the PC(USA) in the basics of faith and mission. In fact, to my knowledge, no denomination is closer to the PC(USA) than the EPC.
\nFor many reasons, I would argue that a balanced reading of our Constitution makes it clear that there is no need to pit constitutional concerns against pastoral concerns for a congregation. The presbytery is constitutionally compelled to do what\u2019s best for its congregations and their mission, and I don\u2019t see where this responsibility ends just because a congregation moves to another limb of Christ\u2019s body. If a presbytery has another congregation that needs and can use well the property of a departing church, then it might have a good argument for hanging onto the property. But if a presbytery doesn\u2019t have such a congregation, if it\u2019s planning to rent or sell the property, and if the departing congregation will be able to use the property in the mission of Christ, then, I believe, the Constitution of the PC(USA) directs the presbytery to let the church go with its property.
\nI\u2019ll finish up my response to this story on Monday.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Part 12 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property Permalink for this post \/ Permalink for this series I ended yesterday\u2019s post by promising to discuss another stunning move by the General Assembly in relationship to the church property issue. I will fulfill this promise on Tuesday. Today and Monday I want to focus on…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":214,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pcusa-church-property"],"yoast_head":"\nThe PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 12 - Mark D. Roberts<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 12 - Mark D. Roberts\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Part 12 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property Permalink for this post \/ Permalink for this series I ended yesterday\u2019s post by promising to discuss another stunning move by the General Assembly in relationship to the church property issue. I will fulfill this promise on Tuesday. Today and Monday I want to focus on…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Mark D. Roberts\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-03T01:01:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Mark D. Roberts\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 12 - Mark D. Roberts","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 12 - Mark D. Roberts","og_description":"Part 12 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property Permalink for this post \/ Permalink for this series I ended yesterday\u2019s post by promising to discuss another stunning move by the General Assembly in relationship to the church property issue. I will fulfill this promise on Tuesday. Today and Monday I want to focus on…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html","og_site_name":"Mark D. Roberts","article_published_time":"2008-10-03T01:01:27+00:00","author":"Mark D. Roberts","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html","name":"The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 12 - Mark D. Roberts","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-03T01:01:27+00:00","dateModified":"2008-10-03T01:01:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#\/schema\/person\/1ff094a57b7e41f534434b1723df3d73"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/10\/the-pcusa-and-church-property-part-12.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 12"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/","name":"Mark D. Roberts","description":"Mark D. Roberts: Thoughtfully Christian Reflections on Jesus, the Church, and the World","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#\/schema\/person\/1ff094a57b7e41f534434b1723df3d73","name":"Mark D. Roberts","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/f2d\/f2ddf5f080861f66ea230384f9d1bab2x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/f2d\/f2ddf5f080861f66ea230384f9d1bab2x96.jpg","caption":"Mark D. Roberts"},"description":"The Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts is a pastor, author, retreat leader, speaker, and blogger. Since October 2007 he has been the Senior Director and Scholar-in-Residence for Laity Lodge, a multifaceted ministry in the Hill Country of Texas. Before coming to Laity Lodge, he was for sixteen years the Senior Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church in Irvine, California (a city in Orange County about forty miles south of Los Angeles). Before his time at Irvine Pres, Mark served on the staff of the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood as Associate Pastor of Education. (Thanks to Janel Pahl for taking the photo to the right.) Mark studied at Harvard University, receiving a B.A. in Philosophy, an M.A. in the Study of Religion, and a Ph.D. in New Testament and Christian Origins. He has taught classes in New Testament for Fuller Theological Seminary and San Francisco Theological Seminary. Mark has written several books, including No Holds Barred: Wrestling with God in Prayer (WaterBrook, 2005), Dare to Be True (WaterBrook, 2003), Jesus Revealed (WaterBrook, 2002), After \"I Believe\" (Baker, 2002), and Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Word, 1993). His most recent book is Can We Trust the Gospels? Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Crossway, 2007). He is currently working on a commentary on Ephesians that will be published by Zondervan in 2014. Mark writes a devotional for The High Calling of Our Daily Work, a website associated with Laity Lodge. His \"Daily Reflections\" can be viewed online or sent as a daily email. If you wish to receive this email, just visit TheHighCalling.org and sign up. Mark serves on the editorial board of Worship Leader magazine, where he publishes articles and reviews, including his regular column \"Lyrical Poetry.\" Additionally, he has published dozens of articles in leading magazines and journals. He often speaks for churches and other Christian groups, and has been interviewed on over seventy-five radio programs nationwide. Mark is married to Linda, who is a Marriage and Family Therapist, a Spiritual Director, and a retreat speaker. They have two children, Nathan and Kara.For Publicity Photos and Bio Statements for Mark, please check here. Mark's Dossier Professional History: Senior Director and Scholar-in Residence, Laity Lodge, October 2007 to present. Senior Pastor Irvine Presbyterian Church, June 1991 to September 2007 Adjunct Assistant Professor Fuller Theological Seminary, 1994 to 2007. Courses: New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Adjunct Instructor San Francisco Theological Seminary, 1995 to 2001. Courses: New Testament Greek and Exegesis Associate Pastor of Education First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood, 1987-1991 Teaching Fellow Harvard University, 1980-1983 Education: Ph.D. in the Study of Religion. Harvard University, 1992. Area: New Testament and Christian Origins M.A. in the Study of Religion Harvard University, 1984. A.B. magna cum laude in Philosophy Harvard University, 1979. Phi Beta Kappa; Danforth Fellowship Books: Can We Trust the Gospels? Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Crossway, 2007 No Holds Barred: Wrestling with God in Prayer. WaterBrook, 2005 Dare to Be True: Living in the Freedom of Complete Honesty. WaterBrook, 2003. Jesus Revealed: Know Him Better to Love Him Better. WaterBrook, 2002. After \"I Believe\": Experiencing Authentic Christian Living. Baker, 2002. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther in the Communicator's Commentary Series. Word, 1993. Contacting Mark: You can reach Mark at: E-mail: mark@markdroberts.com mroberts@laitylodge.org Phone: Laity Lodge: (830) 792-1216 Address: Laity Lodge 719 Earl Garrett Kerrville, TX 78028","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/author\/mroberts"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/214"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}