1. PurposeStructureContent Pros and Cons

2.   Policy and plan of action, adopted by a presbytery, to define its intended manner of handling requests for congregational dismissal  Generally an attempt to avoid civil legal battles over property  Some hope that, by defining a “gracious” process, congregational return may be possible Purpose – What is a GDP?

3.   MUST abide by Book of Order and pertinent interpretations thereof  Once adopted, will be seen as binding upon the presbytery by congregations and by civil and ecclesiastical courts* * except where in violation of state law or PC(USA) Constitution Requirements

4.   Dismissal is a decision made by PRESBYTERY ONLY (G- 3.0301a)  It violates the church’s Constitution to hold a congregational meeting to vote to seek dismissal (G-1.0503)  Presbytery has the power to “counsel with a session concerning reported difficulties within a congregation” (G- 3.0303).  Presbytery has the power to form an Administrative Commission to inquire into and settle differences in congregations reported to be affected with disorder (G- 3.0109b5) Things to Remember

5.   Preamble  Theological rationale with biblical or Confessional citations  Values or commitments on the part of presbytery  Discernment Procedure  Usually informal; COM or special teams;  Dissolution Process  Process for creating dismissal agreement; May use ACs  Property  Membership and Teaching Elders  Presbytery vote Structure Most common elements

6.   Biblical Citations  POSA – Eph 4:1-3 (unity of church)  NCP – John 17:-20-21 (unity); 1 Cor 6:7 (avoiding courts)  Confessional Citations  POSA – Nicene; Westminster 6.146-7, C’67 9.34 (unity)  NCP – 2 nd Helv. 5.133 (disagreement within church)  Book of Order citations  POSA – F-1.0301 (Church as community of love)  NCP – F-1.0302a (unity of the Church), footnote to G-2.0105 (self-conduct in times of disagreement) Preamble

7.   Generally a place to state overarching themes or principles that guide the policy  See NCP – list of principles  Statement of presbytery’s mission  See NewCov – facilitate worship and mission  Commitments  See POSA, Section I:  Unity of church  Constitution of PC(USA)  Reconciliation through pastoral process  See NCP, pp. 1-2 Preamble, cont’d

8.   How and when does presbytery become involved?  Is the initial engagement accomplished through presbytery staff, COM, or through an established committee, task force, or administrative commission?  What responsibilities does this person or group have?  Meeting with session, pastors  Meeting with congregation for information, Q&A  Determination of possibility of reconciliation Discernment Key Questions

9.   How and when will presbytery form an administrative commission?  What powers will be included in the AC’s charge?  Investigative powers (See POSA, p.5)  Administrative powers (See POSA, pp.5-6)  Consultative powers (See POSA, p.6)  What provisions made for teaching elders, CCEs, and members of the congregation, either staying or leaving? Dismissal Key Questions

10.   Process for reporting settlement agreement  Provision for amendment  Disposition of signed agreements with church, new Reformed body, and presbytery, as well as any civil court agencies involved. Presbytery Vote

11.   G-3.0109b5 - authority to “inquire into and settle difficulties”  G-3.0303d – “counsel with a session concerning reported difficulties”: subparagraphs 1-3 in ascending stringency  G-3.0303e – assuming original jurisdiction  G-2.0904 – presbytery may dissolve pastoral relationships Administrative Commissions

12.   Some presbyteries are reluctant to use ACs because they are perceived as tools of the presbytery to “take the property.”  Predominant legal strategy is to seek civil court injunction against the presbytery from creating or inserting an AC Administrative Commissions

13.  Charge to Commission MUST contain ALL powers of the Commission A commission cannot act beyond its charge See POSA policy for list of potential powers Administrative Commissions

14.   Wilbur Tom, et. al. v San Francisco Presbytery (Rem. Case 221-03, 2012): “Under the fiduciary obligations inherent in the Trust Clause, a presbytery must take into consideration the PC(U.S.A.)’s use and benefit of the property in every decision concerning its disposition. To comply with the Trust Clause, the presbytery must consider the interest of PC(U.S.A.) as a beneficiary of the property. Payments for per capita or mission obligations are not satisfactory substitutes for valuations of the property held in trust. (G-4.0203). … “Due diligence, of necessity, will include not only the spiritual needs of the congregation and its circumstances, but an examination of the congregation's financial position and the value of the property at stake.” Property/Financial Settlements

15.   Sundquist v. Heartland Presbytery (Rem. Case 219-03, 2008): “Withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not a matter that can be considered absent the participation of the presbytery. [G-1.0503 limits the business of congregational meetings and does not include seeking dismissal from the PC(USA). … Consultations between a congregation and a presbytery about dismissal are for the benefit of facilitating reconciliation and informing the presbytery as it considers a request for dismissal, but are not meetings at which any business of the congregation may be conducted.” Congregational Meetings

16.  GDPS  Pros  Clarifies process for seeking dismissal  MAY avoid civil litigation  May be palliative to congregations nervous about presbytery’s “power”  Cons Do they invite or encourage departure? Do they “give away the farm” by promising no litigation? Do they avoid using the church’s administrative and disciplinary process? Do they undermine the unity of the Body of Christ?