Ownership of Church Buildings

[Eoghan]

I'm not sure of all the inner workings, either, but one of the issues in Canada is whether the departing churches can retain their buildings...

...Around 1937 many Bible Presbyterians (as well as Orthodox Presbyterians) had to walk away from churches that they had built up over many years at great personal sacrifice and start all over again from scratch. It was difficult, but the Lord did not fail to bless.

(From the JI Packer thread)

I was interested in reading "9 marks of a healthy church" (I think?) That the ownership of the building was a point focused on (after many more important issues). In our own SBU the summer mission work was assisted last year by the closure of two churches and the denomination "cashing in" their assets. It was presented as God's provision!

The actual ownership of the building and manse, should I believe, remain in the hands of the local church (speaking as a Baptist). Churches are too often tied not with the bonds of fellowship but financial and property ties too.

Here in Scotland the Free Church Continuing had a similar issue regarding Church buildings etc... This is not an edifying sight and perhaps asserting ownership by the local congregation would prevent the unedifying spectacle of court action.

Am I wrong? What have I overlooked as benificial in the denomination itself owning the buildings?

 

[raekwon]

In the United States, I'm fairly certain that denominational ownership was once the norm in order to prevent buildings and assets from staying with congregations that apostatize. In other words, if a church is found to be denying the Virgin Birth or some other foundational doctrine, for instance, the denomination could essentially kick that congregation out of the building and re-plant with an orthodox minister.

The problem with that now, of course, is that entire denominations are apostate, and when an orthodox congregation within one of those denominations wants to separate, the denomination still owns the property.

 

[jaybird0827]

Often the denomination has a financial stake in the property, and that adds to the complication.

 

[DMcFadden]

When my judicatory withdrew from our mainline denomination in the U.S., there were (and continue to be) lots of conversations about property. Historically, non-connectional groups (e.g., baptists) are most immune to the argument of parent ownership of local congregational properties. However, as jaybird has noted, it can become complicated as the denomination may have invested mission funds in helping get the church started or in subsidizing it during its infancy.

Some of our small minority of liberal folks who did not go with the conservatives in the withdrawal have been making noises about legal action to "reclaim" the camps and other properties owned outright by the judicatory. Their logic is that the judicatory purchased the properties with the money form people loyal to the denomination over a period of several decades. If we want to be disloyal to the denomination now, we should be ethical enough to walk away from all assets. This might have more force in a connectional denominational strucutre, but seems strained in a baptist setting. Besides, the legal delegates of all of the churches were the ones who voted to disaffiliate with the mainline group. And, in the strange polity of American Baptists, each of the 36 judicatories are separate corporations, only linked together by a freely entered into covenant of relationships which permits withdrawal for any reason.

When I posted some background comments on the controversy between my judicatory and the denomination last fall in a baptist forum, attorneys for the denomination contacted attorneys for my judicatory to complain. Evidently my exercise of free speech ended up costing my group some billable attorney's fees.

So, yes, Eoghan, the whole property issue is a mess even in the non-connectional denominations. As orthodox groups withdraw from heretical and apostate parent bodies, expect more controversy to come.

 

[Pilgrim]

In some cases where we have seen large congregations leaving mainline churches with their property, they have been released because the Presbytery or other overseeing body could not possibly afford to pay the mortgage on the property if they were to keep it. It has also been reported that some churches have taken out large mortgages on their property for this purpose.

 

[Zenas]

Hmm. I know that the PCUSA owns their church buildings because a church recently left the PCUSA for the ARP and my pastor had to be the one who officiated the switch. The PCUSA amazingly relenquished the building. I'm not sure if ARP churches own their buildings. For some reason I think they do.

 

[Pilgrim]

Hmm. I know that the PCUSA owns their church buildings because a church recently left the PCUSA for the ARP and my pastor had to be the one who officiated the switch. The PCUSA amazingly relenquished the building. I'm not sure if ARP churches own their buildings. For some reason I think they do.

I have no idea since the ARP is very old comparatively speaking and never was part of the mainline, although they were very close to the old PCUS in the 20th century.

In the PCA, OPC and EPC the churches own their own property no doubt due to wanting to avoid the types of situations that occurred when they left the mainline church. As John Dyck pointed out yesterday, many OPC churches as well as BPC (some of which eventually became PCA) walked away from their property in 1936. I don't know how many if any PCA churches lost property when they left the old Southern church (PCUS) in 1973 and afterwards. Many of the churches that joined the EPC in the early 80's did so with their property due to a clause in the PCUSA/PCUS merger that gave a limited period of time for congregations to leave with their property. I think 2nd Pres in Memphis was one church that went into the EPC at that time.

 

[Zenas]

You are correct sir. 2nd Pres. is EPC and used to be PCUS I believe.

 

[jaybird0827]

These denominations are known to relinquish property to the local church when it is in their best interests to do so.

Classic case: Coral Ridge. The Session went to their Presbytery to announce their withdrawal. This was around 1978, about 5 years before the reunion that formed the PC(USA).

The Session was all set to turn the Coral Ridge property over to the Presbytery and hand them the keys. As they were about to do so, they also informed the Presbytery that the cost of maintaining that property was $4,000 per day. The Presbytery knew they had nowhere near the finances to undertake such a venture, so they declined the Session's offer.

 

[Kevin]

Hmm. I know that the PCUSA owns their church buildings because a church recently left the PCUSA for the ARP and my pastor had to be the one who officiated the switch. The PCUSA amazingly relenquished the building. I'm not sure if ARP churches own their buildings. For some reason I think they do.

All of the churches in the Canadian presbytry do, at least.

 

[Stephen]

All of the churches that are members of NAPARC do own their buildings. The congregation owns its properties and buildings unlike the Anglican, PCUSA, and PCC.