Back door attack on PCA property protection provisions?

[Edward]

The liberals are trying to progressively chip away at the congregational property protections which are foundational to the PCA.

PCA BCO permits a congregation to leave the PCA with its property at any time it desires to do so. PCA BCO 25-9 and 25-11.

BCO 25-10 provides
25-10

The provisions of this BCO 25 are to be construed as a solemn covenant whereby the Church as a whole promises never to attempt to secure possession of the property of any congregation against its will, whether or not such congregation remains within or chooses to withdraw from this body. All officers and courts of the Church are hereby prohibited from making any such attempt.

The quorum for holding a vote to leave with property now range from 25% of resident communing members for small churches to 1/6 of the resident communing members for all other churches (BCO 25-3)

Now the liberals want to double or triple the number of voters required for such a vote. (Overture 16 to the 2017 General Assembly). http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/upl...ic-NW-BCO-25-3-on-quorums-for-withdrawals.pdf

Now, some of you may say that you don't see a problem with requiring half the members to show up for an important vote. But it appears that this is just the first step toward requiring a supermajority to leave with property (like the PCUSA's Article 13 process?):

Note - Approval of a departure motion would still only require a simple majority; just a higher quorum. Our Presbytery also considered whether BCO 25-11 should be revised to require more than a simple majority to withdraw, but we believed the quorum change would be sufficient. But if the Overtures Committee believes it is also prudent to revise BCO 25-11, our Presbytery would regard that as a germane.

So where will they stop? 2/3 of the congregation? 90%? We've seen that kind of progression with the former PCUS congregations. So if a church EVER wants to leave with their property, they need to get moving on the planning process, and be setting aside money for lawyers.

 

[ZackF]

I don't understand. What are the implications of this development?

 

[arapahoepark]

I don't understand. What are the implications of this development?

A move toward centralization of power in the PCA.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Why propose this; has this been a real issue with churches leaving the PCA with a 9% vote of the membership?

 

[Wayne]

It might be helpful to compare how things are done in at least two other NAPARC denominations:

ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

16.7. A congregation may withdraw from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church only according to the following procedure:

a. Before calling a congregational meeting for the purpose of taking any action contemplating withdrawal from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the session shall inform the presbytery, ordinarily at a stated meeting, of its intention to call such a meeting, and shall provide grounds for its intention. The presbytery, through representatives appointed for the purpose, shall seek, within a period not to exceed three weeks after the presbytery meeting, in writing and in person, to dissuade the session from its intention. If the session is not dissuaded, it may issue a written call for the first meeting of the congregation. The call shall contain the session's recommendation, with its written grounds, together with the presbytery's written argument.

b. If the vote of the congregation favors withdrawal, the session shall call for a second meeting to be held not less than three weeks, nor more than one year, thereafter. If the congregation, at the second meeting, reaffirms a previous action to withdraw, it shall be the duty of the presbytery to prepare a roll of members who desire to continue as members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and to provide for the oversight of these continuing members.

c. The presbytery shall be given the opportunity, at any congregational meeting at which withdrawal is being considered, to dissuade the congregation from withdrawing.
​

ASSOCIATE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

3.13 The withdrawal of congregations and church property is as follows:

A. If two-thirds or more of the membership of any local congregation, as certified by its Session, votes to withdraw, the Presbytery shall be so advised in writing at its next stated meeting.

B. At such meeting, the Presbytery shall appoint a commission to counsel, advise, and mediate with the local congregation in order to effect reconciliation or in the alternative an orderly withdrawal.

C. If the commission decides that it is in the best interest to proceed with the withdrawal, they shall conduct a second election and shall certify the results thereof to the stated meeting of the Presbytery, one year after the meeting upon which the application for withdrawal was received.

D. If the election results show that two-thirds or more of the membership of the local congregation as certified by its Session votes in favor of withdrawal, the Presbytery shall at such stated meeting approve the withdrawal of the congregation.

E. Upon withdrawal, the Presbytery shall require some equitable financial settlement from the withdrawing congregation in regard to property under its jurisdiction, taking into consideration such factors as:

(1) outstanding debts and liabilities
(2) previous contributions or support by the Presbytery or the General Synod
(3) the percentage of the membership of the local congregation voting in favor of withdrawal.
​

F. In particular, both the withdrawing body and the Presbytery will recognize their responsibility, both financial and spiritual, to the minority that remains in the denomination. The Presbytery shall have the authority to require that assets be divided when the minority is sizeable enough to continue ministry.

G. If a local congregation does not comply with the withdrawal procedures set forth above, then that congregation shall forfeit all its right, title, and interest in and to its property to the Presbytery within which it is located.
​

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Wayne, does the OPC have a minimum vote to withdraw; I see ARP is 2/3rds.

b. If the vote of the congregation favors withdrawal, the session shall call for a second meeting to be held not less than three weeks, nor more than one year, thereafter. If the congregation, at the second meeting, reaffirms a previous action to withdraw, it shall be the duty of the presbytery to prepare a roll of members who desire to continue as members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and to provide for the oversight of these continuing members.

 

[Edward]

I don't understand. What are the implications of this development?

As an example, only 56 percent of Highland Park Presbyterian voted to leave the PCUSA, so it eventually cost the church $7.8 million to buy its way out - AFTER getting a favorable court ruling. So if you have a few billionaires in your congregation that can cover the costs, it really shouldn't be a problem.

Otherwise, if the denomination sets the bar high enough, it will always end up with the real estate, if not the members (example, the Falls Church (Episcopal) in Virginia.

It might be helpful to compare how things are done in at least two other NAPARC denominations:

(By the way - good to see you posting -- I haven't run across you for a while and I was wondering how you were doing.)

Not at all relevant to the unique factors which led to the PCA. The property issue was the precipitating factor. During the negotiations leading up to the merger of the northern and southern denominations, the PCUS folks had been promised they would be giving an exit path since the PCUS had one. Then in a meeting in Atlanta (correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is at the Air Host Inn), a cabal pulled the exit provision off the table. When word got out, churches realized they had to jump before the merger. Although backtracking led to Article 13, trust never was restored, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I would submit that ANY tinkering with the Chapter 25 property rights is a similar breach of trust, a violation of the "solemn covenant", and that anyone pushing for this should be brought up on charges for violation of the prohibition of "making any such attempt."

Of course, we all know what kind of trials they have up in PNW. So it wouldn't be worth the effort.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Of course, we all know what kind of trials they have up in PNW. So it wouldn't be worth the effort.

Not necessarily progressive but certainly just as uncaring for confessionalism; but is this just that they have someone who loves to tinker (seems something often comes from them of late) or do they have a real reason for not wanting churches to leave their presbytery easily? It's small isn't it?

 

[Wayne]

. . .the PCUS folks had been promised they would be giving an exit path since the PCUS had one. Then in a meeting in Atlanta (correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is at the Air Host Inn), a cabal pulled the exit provision off the table. When word got out, churches realized they had to jump before the merger. Although backtracking led to Article 13, trust never was restored, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Jack Williamson was the one who brought word back to the conservatives that the exit provision had been pulled, which in turn prompted the PCA's formation.

(I'm doing well, by the way. Continued good health, so far as I can tell, praise God!)

 

[Edward]

or do they have a real reason for not wanting churches to leave their presbytery easily?

Instead of fighting to keep someone in, it seems to me that sometimes it would make a lot more sense to subsidize a departure. As long as per capitas are voluntary, at least.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Chris:

The OPC FG (at 16.7, as cited by Wayne) requires a simple majority for withdrawal. Unless a super majority of some kind is explicitly required in the FG (as it is in several places), the default position (and RONR makes this clear as well) is that motions require only a simple majority.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Jack K]

Years ago, I took note of the small number of members needed for a quorum in a PCA congregation, and I imagined how big changes could be made with only a tiny percentage of the congregation actually voting for the changes, presumably due to many being unaware or uninterested. I thought to myself, "A larger quorum should be required for truly important votes, like calling a senior pastor or changing denominations."

But then I considered how easy it is to join a church and how reluctant sessions are to kick people out, and how apathetic people can get about attending congregational meetings, and I figured the low-quorum rule made sense if only to make sure important business can actually get done. I decided the small-quorum rule was probably okay, though it still feels like it's too small when it comes to monumental votes.

At no point, however, did I think this gave an advantage to either liberal or conservative factions in a church. Why do you see it as an advantage for conservative members? Do you think conservatives are more likely to show up to sparsely-attended congregational meetings? How is the move to change the rule a liberal plot rather than just a sensible rule change?

I understand the history that caused the PCA to make it relatively easy for congregations to break free of the denomination. But we also don't want our churches to be jerked around by small factions, do we?

 

[greenbaggins]

Jack, I hear you. The thing is that RONR provides for this. You need to set the quorum at the minimum number that you think will normally attend such a meeting. If people don't show up for important meetings when they have been duly notified (this is VERY important), then they have made a decision: their decision is to let others make the decision for them.

 

[Wayne]

Saving those who otherwise might have to look it up:

RONR = Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised.

(Rev. Keister is a registered parliamentarian)

 

[Edward]

then they have made a decision: their decision is to let others make the decision for them.

Not necessarily. I recall a congregational meeting where there was widespread dissatisfaction with the recommended course of action which was clearly going to pass. Someone suggested the absence of a quorum. (Not me - I happened to be just outside the door.) The meeting ended without being able to take action, and a point was made. There, those not attending made their decision to NOT let others make their decision for them.

In another case, the session took action that caused an immediate backlash. As the email chains began to organize, folks began to point out how easy it would be to force a congregational meeting on the issue. To its credit, the session rescinded the action pending additional study and discussion.