My Own Conclusions: Property and Faith
What a spirited (and enlightening!) discussion we have had on the issue of property and church denominational affiliation! Thanks to all who contributed for a thought-provoking and helpful debate.
I think that I am ready to give you some of the preliminary conclusions that I have reached from reading all of the arguments and evaluating the principles involved. Feel free to disagree or debate! Here goes...
1. Churches who wish to depart from the denomination should attempt to do so by engaging in conversation with their presbytery. You've been in this group this long, so why not make the attempt to make your case before your fellow presbyters? And so what if they 'preempt' you and take you to court? Would you rather be the victim or the aggressor? (See the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.)
2. IF the presbytery is clearly not willing to be amicable or discuss the issues without threats of retaliation or if they try to file a complaint in the local court, then you are now free to end the discussion with the presbytery. Their actions will prove whether or not they want to use the Jesus playbook or the Mammon playbook. IF they choose the Mammon route, then you are free to do all that you can to protect the assets of the church from marauders.
3. If you owe money or have recent debts to the denomination from subsidized loans or grants, then you clearly owe something to the denomination.
4. Assuming #3, you could pay that amount by a lump sum or a payment schedule of some sort. Let the finance people figure out a settlement that both sides can live with.
5. If #3 is not an issue and you own the property free and clear and have not taken denominational money in 10 years or so, then you should proceed to work out a payment schedule to the presbytery ALONE for mission giving while they adjust their budget for the loss of your congregation. GA should not be a part of these payments.
6. KEEP THE LAWYERS OUT!
7. DON'T THREATEN EACH OTHER!
8. For both the presbytery AND congregations: Be willing to be wronged. Jesus was willing to go that far...how can we do less?
9. The presbyteries must also admit that summary secular legal actions and threats will revoke their spiritual authority over the congregation. You can't serve two masters. Either make a commitment to be the church and love like Jesus, or just admit that you are a financial entity.
10. Show each other grace and love. This should go without saying, but we all know that all too often it doesn't. Shame on us.
Posts
7 remonstrances:
You wrote:
6. KEEP THE LAWYERS OUT!
I think this point can be greatly improved upon. Instead of saying what shouldn't be done, a positive approach can be taken. There are popular approaches that can be taken, and, from a Christian viewpoint, I believe, should be followed. These approaches are mediation and arbitration.
A good resource for these Christian based approaches can be found at http://www.peacemaker.net.
I would like to see #6 rewritten but don't think I could come up with something good. Maybe another blogger can come up with a good statement?
Number 1 and 2 certainly agree with Paul's instructions on how we are to deal with disagreements between each other. 3, 4 and 5 are reasonable and fair to both sides.
6 is tough. I think you mean the secular approach of lawyers that is so often, fairly or unfairly, denigrated as cold hearted and blood sucking? How about, instead of "Keep the lawyers out", "law of the land will be followed in the light of God's laws".
7,8 and 9, yes yes and yes. and 10 always.
Toby,
Number one - unfortunately - get your lawyer in first. Now that we have that out of the way let's talk.
I generally agree with your conclusions.
Interesting that others have picked up on your sixth point. People choose lawyers to
represent their own viewpoint.
If a presbytery is interested in conciliation, communication and a pastoral, Biblical approach to congregations considering withdrawal, it will ask lawyers to help guide that approach within the bounds of church and secular law. If the presbytery is more concerned with obtaining control of church property and "making an example" of withdrawing congregations, it will bring in lawyers to do that.
The Withdrawal process recently adopted by the General Council of New Covenant presbytery emphasizes a pastoral rather than an adversarial approach to churches considering withdrawing from the denomination. It was drafted by 3 Presbyterian lawyers (my husband, a prominent trial lawyer and myself) along with our stated clerk (not a lawyer). There are no provisions for pre-emptive seizures of church property in this document and every effort is made to preserve the trust between the presbytery and these churches and avoid litigation.
Once a dispute lands in the secular courts, both sides are going to choose trial lawyers who will agressively represent their interests. We do need to keep the lawyers and the secular courts out of these disputes if at all possible. There are lawyers who can help anticipate these situations and guide both sides away from destructive litigation if that is their choice.
Toby,
You've said exactly what I was thinking. I wish I could have put it so clearly.
Toby - I think you've done an excellent job here.
As for #6 - I believe you intend not having an adversarial approach, relying on secular laws as a sole guide to behavior -- similar to the approach advocated in the memoranda. (e.g. just because something is legal does not make it right, and certainly does not make it Christian)?
Bottom line, though, I believe if people (on all sides) would follow an approach like you've outlined here, there would be fewer churches running for the exits and there would be fewer people harmed by the bad reflection on Christ that vitriolic court battles among churches will inevitably bring.
Your 10th point is the key to all of this. Without grace and love, we are little more than any other secular organization.
Post a Comment