Among the ‘benefits’ (of being in the PCUSA) listed by Greater Atlanta Presbytery are:
(1) “Their association with the largest mainstream Presbyterian denomination in this country,” (2) “Having been provided with PCUSA trained clergy”, (3) “Having been able to attract members because of the church’s membership in the PCUSA” and (4) “Having been able to use the national denominational symbol recognized the world over.”

Just four days after trustees of the Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church filed an amicus curiae brief with the Georgia Supreme Court, lawyers for the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta scrambled to get their response into the high court’s hopper.

Reid Memorial Trustees had filed their brief in support of the Timberridge Evangelical Presbyterian Church, whose property was confiscated by the presbytery after Timberridge left the Presbyterian Church (USA). The legitimacy of that property takeover, affirmed by the trial court but overturned on appeal, is now before the Georgia Supreme Court.

In the brief’s opening salvo, the presbytery questioned the standing of Reid Memorial trustees and their relevance to the Timberridge case. It said that the trustees represent a different entity from the Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church, and that they filed their amicus brief without consulting or gaining authorization from the congregation or its session.

But nowhere in the Reid trustee’s amicus did the trustees claim to be the local church or its governing body. Rather, they represented themselves as trustees of a trust that owns property which is being used by the church, property that they believe could be imperiled by the denomination’s imposition of a purported trust

Just a ‘rehash’
The presbytery dismissed arguments made by the Reid trustees as a mere “rehash” of assertions made earlier by the Timberridge church. One of those arguments was that when former Southern churches (PCUS) elected to exercise an “opt out” provision in the denomination’s constitution, they effectively exempted themselves from the property clause because the “opt out” provision gave the local church complete control over the disposition of its property. Greater Atlanta’s brief contested that assertion, arguing that the “opt out” clause merely meant that the church did not have to seek presbytery approval before buying, selling or encumbering church property.

Read More

[Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced in this article is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]