Mega-Church Loses Property to Denomination
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, September 18, 2008
- Viewed 38
- (14) comments so far
More from the article:
Kirk of the Hills, which is now a part of the more conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church, paid for the property over the last four decades, according to the church’s statement. But the PC(USA) has maintained that all property of Presbyterian churches is held in trust for the denomination, citing its constitution.
“The court affirmed the concept that individuals may leave the church, but they cannot take the church property with them,” said Craig Hoster, attorney for the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery, according to Tulsa World. “We will now begin the orderly transition of the church property to the Presbytery.”
What do you think? Do you think we’ll see more and more of these types of fights between denominations and local churches?
A Tulsa mega-church lost a two-year property battle in court recently when the county district judge ruled in favor of the church's former denomination, the PCUSA. According to an article in the Christian Post, "Judge Jefferson Sellers ruled that the the Kirk of the Hills church property belongs to the PC(USA) and the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery, a regional body of the denomination, and not the local congregation. The 2,400-member Kirk of the Hills congregation, which was the second largest church in the regional presbytery, has been in legal battle over the property since it split from the PC(USA) in August 2006. After an overwhelming vote to leave the denomination, citing concerns that the denomination is drifting from its biblical base, the local church sued both the PC(USA) and the regional presbytery to retain ownership of the more than 100,000-square-foot building...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Evan Blackerby on Thu, September 18, 2008
This seems to be semi-common in the PC(USA)...??
Will on Thu, September 18, 2008
Unfortunately Todd, there are a lot of denominations that have the same type of clause in their constitutions. The Assemblies of God has the same thing. I have mixed feelings about it really. It is good in one way in the fact that some goofy pastor can’t come in and get 51% of the vote and abscond with the building and property. But I also feel that if 90% of the church wishes to leave the denomination they are in, they are the ones who paid for the property and buildings anyway, so they should be the ones to remain in the building if a parting of the ways happens. There will be more of these types of actions happen as the waters get hotter and controversies abound.
Justin Keller on Thu, September 18, 2008
Unfortunately, I am aware of a situation with an RCA church in which a scenario similar to what Will described actually happened. The only solution I can see that protects both sides of the argument is to drop the “property in trust” requirement of the denomination and require a supermajority vote to leave the denomination. I will pray for Kirk of the Hills to make wise decisions in regard to future property and where to meet for worship.
jim_l on Fri, September 19, 2008
Currently the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery representatives are employing a strong armed bullying tactic to try to prevent the appeal. They are saying buy the property (and drop the appeal) or move out during the appeal. This is about as mean spirited as it gets. They do not want to allow due process.
Tom D on Mon, September 22, 2008
“the local church sued both the PC(USA) and the regional presbytery to retain ownership of the more than 100,000-square-foot building”
Glad to see that Kirk is not drifting from their “biblical base.” Of course, Paul did not mean that this was to apply to church property. I mean, for heaven sakes, church property is God’s greatest asset in the kingdom and worth defeat and shame! How very, very sad.
1Cor 6:5-7, <i>
5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother goes to law against another–and this in front of unbelievers! 7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
Jesse on Mon, September 22, 2008
Tom D, I couldn’t have said it better myself. They really did get defeated when they made a move like this and sued. Easier said than done, but they should have just moved, that would be the biblical way. Money won the day here as the thing that both sides seemed to care about most.
Will on Mon, September 22, 2008
I pose a question to Tom D and Jesse. If your church that you had attended all your life, your family has been in for generations, decided that what was best for the church congregation, by overwhelming majority or unanimously, was to remove themselves from the denomination they were currently in; those people there are the ones that gave, sacrificed, poured their blood, sweat, and tears into. What right does a denomination have to say, well you did all the work built up the church body and facilities, but you can’t keep the facilities? Why wouldn’t they want to and deserve to fight for what they have built for the kingdom of God, however that fight had to happen?
For the record, I am part of a denomination that does/will do the same thing if a church pulls out to join another fellowship, and I am a Pastor in said denomination. I can’t say that I wouldn’t do the same thing.
Forrest on Mon, September 22, 2008
PCUSA congregations hold their property in trust not only to God but to previous generations who helped build the church. It is irresponsible for one generation to think that they can negate the faithful stewardship or previous generations. The leadership of this particular church took vows to uphold the constitution of the PCUSA, this includes abiding by its form of government. Leadership is a privilege not a right. By withdrawing and renouncing the jurisdiction of the PCUSA they were willingly violating their vows.
Tom D on Mon, September 22, 2008
Hi Will,
Thank you for your comment and question. I have actually been near the very circumstance you raise. I was an elder of a church with a 45-50 million dollar facility. We discussed leaving the denomination due to their general liberal moving leadership. The subject of the facilities and ownership came up. In our by-laws the facilities belonged to the denomination. Suing the denomination was not on the table. To leave the denomination, it was understood, that we left our facilities.
Too often have I heard someone in that church’s leadership state that our greatest asset was our facilities. Brother, our greatest asset is the Holy Spirit working in obedient children, not facilities or property!
Just listen to your words, “...those people there are the ones that gave, sacrificed, poured their blood, sweat, and tears into… [the ministry] and therefore deserve the property?
The Bible is clear, “One man plants, another man waters, but God makes it grow!” Or have we forgotten that it is God who brings growth, and now we claim our church’s growth base on our own “sacrifice, blood, sweat and tears!” My God forgive our pride! I see now that we serve a broke and powerless God, who depends on us preserving his kingdom by our own efforts.
The church has been defeated in this instance on so many levels. For example, my dentist is a very active and devout believer. He made a mistake in my dental care, causing me to have a crown where a simple filling would otherwise be necessary. Knowing that he was negligent, I told him that I should not have to pay for the crown. He disagreed. I then offered to take the issue before the elders of his choosing for a ruling on the matter, and whatever they decided, I would agree to. He refused, and said, “this is business, not a church matter.” He actually wanted me to take him to court! I told him that a brother never takes a brother to court and I would not do so. Eventually he consulted with an attorney and then took the cost of the crown. I am still his patient. We still are friends. He demonstrated however that he is not of the kingdom in all matters, but rather in the world in this matter. The church, in the same way, is secular for all practical purposes in such matters when it takes its internal matters to secular courts.
Brothers do not take brothers to secular court…period. We should rather be wronged. Not even a 50 million dollar property is worth the violating of God’s kingdom. This is a testimony that we no longer trust God, but in our own programs and efforts—regardless of how we put our own spin on the matter.
jim L on Tue, September 23, 2008
Tom D, Forrest, Jesse -
I have learned some very valuable lessons lately regarding what I do and do not know. I have found that even though I think I know the facts and motivations, I can be tragically wrong. Please think about that before you assign judgements. This article does not delve into all the details of our (the Kirk’s) case, so it may be difficult to comprehend why the church did what it did. I am not going to go into a detailed explanation of the situation here. Jesse mentioned money. I would like to take that a step further and mention stewardship. There is no personal profit for either side on this case and both sides believe that the actions they have taken represent good stewardship of what God has entrusted to them. Unfortunately we are all a broken sinful people and we will not always agree on everything - the church property in this case. To close, I would encourage people on both sides not to demonize people on the opposing side. I have been guilty of this in the past (ref. above comment by me) and I am sorry. Just as God took me from my wretched state of where I was 27 years ago and made a new creation, God can do the same for both sides regardless of how this plays out.
Leonard on Tue, September 23, 2008
I found this to be interesting since it was the first time I heard the story told from the PCUSA side. I would still think the property should go with the church not the denomination but it was still enlightening.
If my denomination changed from the stance of biblical sexuality to pro-homosexuality. I would remove my church. A denominations primary role is to guard truth not define it. PCUSA failed in this role. They are handing a new set of truths to their churches rather than protecting those truths for their churches.
This in my mind makes them not entitled to the property.
Garrett on Thu, October 30, 2008
Actually, my brother Will may be a bit misinfomed. The A/G 1) is not (officially) a denomination and 2) does not do the same thing with property. One caveat: some churches OPT to revert all property back to the District or AG HQ if they disband or leave the fellowship, but it’s not in the Constitution and By Laws of the AG (see http://ag.org/top/About/constitution_bylaws.cfm). We just discussed this recently here in our church. Blessings,
Will on Thu, October 30, 2008
Garrett every Assembly of God church property is deeded to the church if it is a set in order, Incorporated, General Council affiliated church. BUT, in the case of a decision to no longer exist as an Assembly of God Church, the property reverts to the District Council in which it resides and is governed by it C & B. Every deed to every Assembly of God church is done that way. It cannot be owned by any individual including and especially the pastor. That is paraphrased directly from the C & B from Oklahoma.
Denomination, Fellowship it really is just semantics to me, it’s wording.
Dubai accommodation on Thu, July 30, 2009
nice post and good comments from the readers ....
Page 1 of 1 pages
Post a Comment