The Presbytery of South Louisiana and First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge have entered into an agreed final judgment respecting the church’s petition to clear title to its property. A summary and links to the text of the judgment and the original petition filed by the church are available on its website here.
The judgment concludes that all property of the church is owned solely by the church and that neither the presbytery nor any agency acting through the presbytery may control the use and ownership of the church’s property. In short, the denomination has no trust interest in the property.
This is a very interesting case, but one that does not have broad application to other churches in the PCUSA. First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge has a particular history that together with the laws of the state of Louisiana, make its legal situation distinguishable from that of most other churches.
Most importantly, FPC was a PCUS church at the time of reunion. In 1987 the congregation exercised its right to declare its exemption from the “trust clause” of the PCUSA under G-8.0700 of the Book of Order. Furthermore, from the time the church was founded in 1827, it was never affiliated with any denomination that claimed a “trust” interest on its property.
The church’s claim that it had never taken any action in the past that would create an express or implied trust under Louisiana law was agreed to by the presbytery as well.
The petition was brought to clear title to the church's property as it planned a new capital campaign. According to the statements on the website, there is no plan to withdraw from the PCUSA at this time. The fact that the Presbytery of South Louisiana did not contest the petition, but stipulated that the facts alleged in it were true and entered into an agreed judgment that was approved at the November presbytery meeting is a credit to all involved.
Dr. Gerrit Dawson, senior pastor of FPC Baton Rouge commended the executive presbyter of South Louisiana in his letter to the congregation, saying "Dr. Cutter does not believe the denomination should be held together by property and trust clauses but rather through shared faith, mission and love in Christ." Dr. Dawson hopes that "our Presbytery’s action will be an example for the entire denomination. Unity forced by holding someone’s property title as a trump card is not unity nor the path to renewal".
While I earnestly share Dr. Dawson's hope, I think we must also recognize that the facts and circumstances surrounding this case limit its application to other churches. But I pray that the gracious and pastoral attitude displayed by this presbytery and its leaders will be an inspiration to other presbyteries and the folks in Louisville in resolving other property disputes in the future. For surely the PCUSA will not be held together by litigation but only by "shared faith, mission and love in Christ."
14 comments:
I would not paint the FPC Baton Rouge case as all sweetness and light. There was considerable distress in the Presbytery of South Louisiana that FPC took PSL to court in the first place, in violation of Paul's admonitions in I Corinthians 6:1-7. There is also considerable suspicion that because FPC is the biggest church in PSL it used its influence and resources to muscle PSL into a settlement. There is a clause in the stipulated judgment that PSL may take no disciplinary actions against FPC on issues "related to this litigation." Does that mean that if FPC leaves the denomination(and there is some expectation that it will ultimately do that) PSL can take no action? Frankly, the litigation has raised as many issues as it has settled, and alas, has contributed to an atmosphere of greater distrust within the presbytery.
Thanks for commenting.
I'm sure there are those who are skeptical of the FPC statements and were dismayed by the lawsuit. I didn't mean to leave the impression that all was "sweetness and light" in the wake of the agreed judgment, because my knowledge is limited to what is posted on the FPC website and the recent article in the Layman. I appreciate hearing from someone in PSL.
My purpose in writing this post was to make people aware that this case is not likely to be a precedent in property issues in the denomination for most churches.
For surely the PCUSA will not be held together by litigation but only by "shared faith, mission and love in Christ."
Amen to that!
There is little new distrust in South Louisiana. Those who thought First BR was the source of all things evangelical and evil still do and those who didn't still don't.
On the same day we took multiple steps to limit the power of committees, and to make the calling of administrative commissions more difficult. First Pres BR had very little to do with either of those issues.
I've been embarassed for my Presbytery to listen to the attacks on the folks at First for simply breathing oxygen and giving 25% of the Presbytery budget each year. While extending very little influence on the presbytery.
As a member of the Executive Council I can say unequivocally there was never a discussion of money (other than about wasting it going to court) in our decision but a cold hard look at the legal facts and the realization that Property should not be the source of our institutional unity.
QG - good analysis you hit it right on the head.
Yes, great analysis and very interesting resolution. The Napoleonic Code does present problems with applicability though, doesn't it?
Really interesting discussion. I'm with Denis and the Cutter quote.
The two largest Episcopal churches in Virginia (and 2 of the largest in the country I'm told) are voting next week to leave or stay in the American church or join an African communion of the Anglican church. Property battles have already started. One of the churches is older than the country (and the Episcopal denomination) so I suspect they'll have a good case for leaving the denomination with their multi-million dollar property.
A couple ot thoughts:
1. PSL appears to have, or at least think, they have set aside Chapter 8 of the Good Book. I do not think they have the power to this,
2. They agreeed mot to take future legal actions. That means they have "bound future councils" of PSL.
Can't do that either.
3. They have said they will not take future judical actions and imply that this means cases brought before the PJC og PSL. If so, i don't think thetcan do this either.
David,
Interesting that you call the Book of Order the "Good Book."
Recall that FPCBR followed the provisions of chapter 8 when it elected to declare its exemption from the trust clause. This was an option available to PCUS churches at the time of reunion so long as it was exercised within 10 years of the date of reunion. PSL wasn't setting aside the provisions of chapter 8 but was honoring them.
Your second and third points have some validity. A subsequent meeting of PSL would have the power to take legal actions against FPCBR, depending on the facts and circumstances at the time. A court would have to decide whether that suit violated the agreed judgment. If it didn't, it would go forward.
The same thing goes for future judicial actions before the PJC at any level. It all depends on the facts underlying the charges.
Calling the Book of Order the "Good Book." comes from being on the Poity discussion on Prescbynet. Ed Koster, Ststed Clery for Detroit P. and practing attorney and MWS has caused me make such reference.
As to FPCBR exercing property option in the Reunion Plan , they cede thier rights under the pln by failing to act within ten year time frame.
Thanks for doing what you do QG.
I'm doubtful this will catch on. The lack of applicability in other jurisdictions is one factor. The lack of consensus about what is just, fair, or right is another. I happen to agree with the Cutter quote - but many do not or won't admit it if they do.
Since they appeared to have asserted their exception to the trust clause in 1987, they would not have ceded their rights by failure to act. In this case, the 'good book' cannot be advising presbyteries to lie in court by failing to stipulate the facts. If it does (or if it is being interpreted as if it does), then 'good book' is an appalling misnomer.
Though they may have acted imcorrectly in the 2nd and 3rd areas mentioned.
Exactly right, Will. Thanks.
What First Baton Rouge has done would also apply to the thousands of PCUS churches that took the similar exemption in 1987.
Since the north/south reunion in 1983, the membership losses have mainly been in the north. Today, the former PCUS churches represent almost 50% of the PCUSA membership.
I'm a bit late in getting back to this - to all: time will tell.
The BoO is not the "Good Book". That's just not funny.
First Pres. Took the exemption in full in the propper time. And like most of the old PCUS churches understood it to mean total exemption. First BR actually wrote that into their incorporation papers - and the Napoleanic Codes back them up on it.
Gannet Girl is right to say it does not make it automatically applicable - but it should have appeal to all as a reasonable way to behave.
Post a Comment