Although the policy requires session to call a congregational meeting, Detroit Presbytery asserts that a congregation does not have the right to take a non-binding advisory vote on this subject because it is not enumerated in the Book of Order as business for a congregational meeting and since the congregation, according to the Detroit Presbytery, cannot take this vote, the presbytery then as the right to override both the Book of Order and Michigan state law, which detail that congregation’s bylaws determine quorum for congregational meetings.

A bumpy road might be the best descriptor for denominational realignment in Michigan. Grosse Pointe Woods Presbyterian Church (GPWPC), a 300-plus member church, split after not being allowed to vote on the question of dismissal from Detroit Presbytery. An elder involved in the process said, “We walked the dismissal process laid out by the presbytery until we could walk it no further. After that the option remaining was to vote with our feet.”

In Detroit Presbytery where scars linger from the formation of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in the 1980s and where the stated clerk called the attitude toward evangelical members “nasty,” the dismissal policy led GPWPC elders from both sides of the theological aisle to question powers of the presbytery in light of the changes in the Book of Order under the new Form of Government.

Revocation of individual church membership

In an early meeting, the Administrative Commission (AC) named by the presbytery to work with GPWPC informed the session that individual memberships could be revoked in order to secure a presbytery-desired outcome. They pointed to language in the Book of Order,G-1.0103 states “members of a congregation put themselves under the leadership of the session and the higher councils” for such authority. Elders on session report that though the AC never exercised that authority, the idea that they might caused elders to question the heart of a council that would threaten such. The session also pondered whether there is true unity in the midst of diversity within the PCUSA where there is tolerance for the ecclesiastically disobedient but no tolerance for those seeking to be obedient to the mutually agreed upon constitutional standards.

Selective original jurisdiction

A second concern expressed by elders was the AC’s repeated threat of asserting original jurisdiction selectively in order to ensure the presbytery’s desired process. In the AC’s interim report, they state “the session agreed to rescind its decision to hold a vote to seek dismissal on Sunday, April 22.” Elders point out what is missing from the report is that the AC informed the session that they could either voluntarily rescind their action or the AC would selectively assert original jurisdiction just in this instance to procure the meeting cancellation. The question was raised, “Is the assertion of selective original jurisdiction an option for presbytery ACs?”

Former GPWPC elder Peter Ruppe said, “The PCUSA through the presbytery intimidates teaching/ruling elders and confuses congregations with threats of original jurisdiction, enforcement of ownership of property/assets and unrealistic quorum requirements to prevent a graceful dismissal.

Read More

[Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced in this article is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]