Kirk of the Hills case

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean


By joining, the Kirk propety was then given to the national church to be held in trust.  

Now, the national trust and the Kirk are divided over certain issues, and the Kirk sought to get its property back.  

Therein lies the problem, the Kirk had already given away its property.  

Its not like the Kirk was trying to get something that it never owned, it simply made a poor choice when it deeded property to the national church.

Poor choice or not, the property belongs to the parent church organization, not the local residents.  It is much the same with any local church, regardless of denomination.  If the members have issues with the church doctrine, then break away, form your own church, whatever.  These kinds of issues are exactly why I have such a distaste for any form of organized religion.  It all seems to be a battle over money and material property.  Shame on both sides.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean


By joining, the Kirk propety was then given to the national church to be held in trust.  

Now, the national trust and the Kirk are divided over certain issues, and the Kirk sought to get its property back.  

Therein lies the problem, the Kirk had already given away its property.  

Its not like the Kirk was trying to get something that it never owned, it simply made a poor choice when it deeded property to the national church.

Poor choice or not, the property belongs to the parent church organization, not the local residents.  It is much the same with any local church, regardless of denomination.  If the members have issues with the church doctrine, then break away, form your own church, whatever.  These kinds of issues are exactly why I have such a distaste for any form of organized religion.  It all seems to be a battle over money and material property.  Shame on both sides.

If I were KOTH I would use this as an opportunity to move on to greener pastures where people need their help instead of trying to keep the ivory tower.

[Gold]

nm

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Steve


Poor choice or not, the property belongs to the parent church organization, not the local residents.  It is much the same with any local church, regardless of denomination.  

It is not the same with any local church. Baptist, Unitarian, United Church of Christ, Church of Christ -- any congregationally-governed church -- the congregation owns its property, and its participation in regional or national organizations is at the church's discretion.

In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), a conservative offshoot of the mainline Presbyterian churches, congregational ownership of property is enshrined in the denominational constitution.

For Episcopal and Catholic churches, it's my understanding that the title for parish property is in the bishop's name.

A Wikipedia article (I know, I know) about the UPCUSA -- the old northern Presbyterian church -- says that the defection of conservative congregations to the PCA and the then new Evangelical Presbyterian Church led to the 1981 amendment to the Book of Church Order that required the presbytery's permission for a congregation to take its property to another denomination.

There was a brief window after northern-southern reunion in 1983 when churches from the southern branch (PCUS) could leave and take property with them, but that would not have applied to the Kirk, since it was part of the northern branch (UPCUSA).

Whatever the legal resolution, the just and moral settlement would be for EOP to let the Kirk go in peace, with the property that the Kirk's members paid for. I suspect that EOP contributed next to nothing financially or organizationally to the Kirk compared to the Kirk's contributions to EOP over the years.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

Originally posted by Steve



Whatever the legal resolution, the just and moral settlement would be for EOP to let the Kirk go in peace, with the property that the Kirk's members paid for. I suspect that EOP contributed next to nothing financially or organizationally to the Kirk compared to the Kirk's contributions to EOP over the years.

That's not accurate.  The EOP (or what became the EOP) gave money to Kirk early on to help start the church.  They have a financial interest in it.  Beyond that, there is a pretty big financial hit from attorney fees at this point and that will surely affect settlement negotiations.  And let's not forget the toll certain members of EOP have taken for just doing their job, all the while members of the Kirk and sympathizers are out spreading rumors and legally inaccurate statements (not a cost, per se, but a reason this whole thing might not settle).

I suggest you ask around  with any higher-ups you might know at the Kirk as to where negotiations stand.  There is a big difference between taking the high road and making a terrible decision for your congregation.

[tim huntzinger]

Do you mean EPC?

[Gold]

Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery.

PCUSA owns all Presbyterian Church property.

It's in their By-Laws.  SOP.

It discourages congregations from going "rogue", like Kirk of the Hills tried to do.

So, the congregation can split off.  They just don't own the church property, and would presumably have to move to another forum.

[Gold]

I'm well aware of that.  The reality is a bit more nuanced, but hey, A for effort on your part and you managed not to mention the Lortons.  Good work!!!

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

I'm well aware of that.  The reality is a bit more nuanced, but hey, A for effort on your part and you managed not to mention the Lortons.  Good work!!!

I didn't know the Lorton's were Presbyterians.

In fact, I didn't know they believe in God.

I thought they just believed in Money.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I didn't know the Lorton's were Presbyterians.

In fact, I didn't know they believe in God.

I thought they just believed in Money.

They aren't. And it is no business of yours.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I didn't know the Lorton's were Presbyterians.

In fact, I didn't know they believe in God.

I thought they just believed in Money.

They aren't. And it is no business of yours.

Their God is MONEY.

Matthew 19:24:  "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Gold

I'm well aware of that.  The reality is a bit more nuanced, but hey, A for effort on your part and you managed not to mention the Lortons.  Good work!!!

I didn't know the Lorton's were Presbyterians.

In fact, I didn't know they believe in God.

I thought they just believed in Money.