In the summer of 2006, two documents which were annotated as “privileged and confidential attorney work documents’ were selectively released within the PCUSA to provide advise to Presbyteries dealing with churches who wanted to withdraw from the PCUSA

One document concerned church property disputes. The other dealt with recommended processes that presbyteries could use in responding to various actions that might be taken by congregations seeking to leave the PCUSA.

Following are extracts with key points of both papers, many of which have been put to use in the years since these papers were released:

Points made in ‘Processes’
“The Office of the General Assembly recognizes that currently there are deep and profound differences of conviction on a variety of topics in the church. When it comes to voicing those differences, we have previously drawn a clear distinction between dissent, which is always constitutionally protected; and defiance, which is never, ever protected.” Page 2

“There are also times when an individual finds it impossible to go along with the majority.” If that individual finds his conscience will allow him neither to “actively concur with or passively submit to” a decision, he [she] … shall peacefully withdraw from our communion without attempting to make any schism.”

“If schism is likely, use an administrative commission.” Page 3

“[T]he presbytery should be clear that the commission may assume jurisdiction of the session upon some triggering event or action of the session.” Page 7

“The presbytery can often identify an action that would further steps toward schism and direct the minister not to do them.” When a minister “persists in a work disapproved by” the presbytery, the presbytery “may assume the minister has rejounced the jurisdiction of this church.” Page 8

“If a minister has already engaged in an active advocacy of schism … then the presbytery must proceed to appoint an investigating committee” to consider disciplinary action. Page 9

“If there is a schism within the membership of a particular church and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church …” Page 12

Points made in ‘Church Property Disputes’

“The majority vote of a congregation is presumed to control, except in a hierarchical church the majority may be overcome where the church charter or denominational constitution has established a property trust or other means to decide the issue.” Page 2

“[I]f your state follows a basic hierarchical deference rule, then it will be most important to demonstrate the PCUSA as a hierarchical church and show the court the central authority of the presbytery in making church property decisions. If your state applies the neutral principles doctrine, then it will be important to note all hierarchical references in the deeds, the local church charter and especially emphasize the church property trust … If your state applies the third option [majority] rule, it is an uphill battle.” Pages 2-3

“When a schismatic faction has failed to appeal the rulings of the presbytery, point this out to the court.” By not exercising their right to appeal rulings, local congregations fail to exhaust available agency and administrative remedies. “Because this is a common concept in the civil law, judges should understand this is a reason to dismiss the case as against the schismatics because they failed to exhaust their remedies …” Page 4

“Certainly, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA) does not refer to itself as a hierarchical church. When speaking to a civil court, however, it is important to use the language the court uses. … Firmly present the PCUSA to the court as a hierarchical church.” Page 5

These extracts are from The Layman in August of 2006: http://www.layman.org/Home/Property_issues/The_Louisville_papers.aspx