Ownership of church buildings

elaine · 10-14-09 8:50 pm

The church I attend is in a "building program" and has purchased a church needing more than $100k renovation. There was sufficient fund in the building fund to purchase the building that had accumulated for a number of years. For more than 20 years, a rental church was used that was most satisfactory, but now we have outgrown that church building. As long as the church rented, we all contributed to the monthly rent. Question: Why does a church pay all the costs for a building in which to worship, and the conference always hold the title? Would anyone finish paying for their home and then turn over the title to the former owner or bank? Not only in the SDA church but in Lutheran and Episcopalian denominations, there have been recent splits and dissension about ownership of the church building. Some of these were the disputes about gay clergy. This happened in the town where I live. About 25 years ago, the largest SDA church split 3 ways and the two separating congregations had to find places for worship. Although the members leaving had participated in buying the former building, they had no legal interest in the building. There are also congregations that have grown too large for their present building. When I received the fund-raising pledge letter, I asked a number of questions about ownership, stating that if they were answered satisfactorily I would consider a pledge. Even though this is the practice in other denominations, no one I know would be willing to turn over ownership to something he has bought. Only if enough members object to this practice will there be changes.

don · 10-15-09 7:12 am

Even though this is the practice in other denominations, no one I know would be willing to turn over ownership to something he has bought. Conference ownership is how (my) church organization manages. When I help purchase the local church, I am helping (my) church (on all levels) increase. "My" church is a world church. I "own" hospitals, schools, churches, etc. I "own" Loma Linda University, for example. The same is true for the payment of clergy. If we think conference "ownership" causes payment concerns, consider how local payment would compound problems. I had weekly Bible studies with a member of a different denomination. They told me of a Christmas when the pastor, and good frined, of their church came to visit them. He broke down and cried because the church members needed their money for family expenditures (Christmas presents, etc.) and were "unable" to support him that month. The conference model is not so bad. The congregational model and the regional (conference) model are really not that different. One Canadian conference has the same number of members as one church on one of our college campuses. All the churches of the region (conference) comprise (my) church. The difference is that the "church" board gets elected at a business meeting comprised of people who live some distant from each other and don't worship in the same building. If SDA churches routinely break up and "divorce" from each other, it would be wise for the church (conference) to develop a "divorce" procedure. Would anyone finish paying for their home and then turn over the title to the former owner or bank? I think this question sheds light on perspective. The next level in (my) church's government is the regional (conference) level. The conference is not the former owner nor the bank. It is (my) church's ownership level. The next level (conference) of church administration is not the enemy. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> Local ownership opens the door for some really messy unprofessional conflicts. In the multilevel church administrations I have observed, the conference and union levels have improved in their professional protocols, many local levels (churches) have not. i.e. The smaller churches often have a "back woods" mentality based on who has the money and influence among the other members. Even our larger city and university churches have local "power brokers" who "unfairly" rule. A local conference is somewhat removed from local "politics". I rather like that. It helps the organization standardize and remain more objective. .

elaine · 10-15-09 1:39 pm

"I "own" hospitals, schools, churches, etc. I "own" Loma Linda University, for example. Well, I must say that's a very novel perception! Just don't try taking it to the bank. If all the denomination's assets in buildings and physical property were added, there would a lot of wealth that they own. This enables the church to use it for collateral, just as a home owner would. However, if a local church wished to have "collateral" that would not apply, would it? Is that equitable? If the local church paid of the mortgage, why couldn't they get something similar to a home equity line of credit that might allow them to help cover other expenses when necessary? Why couldn't the local church own its building, and relinquish its ownership in case it dissolves? But, as long as the congregation has the building paid for, why not rent it to Sunday worship churches which might help defray costs?

bob_2 · 10-15-09 5:35 pm

Some have rented to Sunday worshippers, eh, Don, remember College Park renting to a group of Pentecostals???

elaine · 10-15-09 5:46 pm

My church has rented a lovely Lutheran facility for approximately 10 years. Fine arrangement: they use it on Sundays, we use it Saturdays, and when possible, have the use of the very large fellowship hall and all their classrooms. Maybe the "new" church now being renovated, could be rented on Sundays to some new congregations that are almost constanly being formed.

bob_2 · 10-16-09 9:10 am

Elaine, what if instead of renting out to Sunday worshippers, we had people that were SDAs, like me, that may find worshipping on Sunday is more convenient or a community of believers believe as I do the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ?? Some have left our fold because of making the day a god.

elaine · 10-16-09 2:50 pm

Bob, there are many, like me, who aren't dedicated to worshiping on a particular day of the week that are regular attendees. Many of them are no longer members of the SDA church. However, everyone who wishes to worship is welcomed. Even the pastor's wife on facebook said that "Hope Lutheran Church" was the church she attended. Partly right, but she didn't say she was speaking of the building!

hansen · 12-21-09 12:47 am

David Larson has repeatedly pointed out that most church properties are owned by local conference associations. If there ever was a "split," legally, it would be indisputable who owns the property--the denomination, not the local congregation. He believes this to be great insurance against a split but understands there may be splinterings or offshots. SDAs may look forward to gay pastors, lesbian elders, perhaps crossdressing deacons, and so forth. None of these people will believe in the inspiration or authority of Scripture, literal creation, the Edenic narrative, the Flood. Actually, they may not be Christians in any sense of the word, as historically understood; however, they will be cultural Adventists, born and bred withing Adventism, attendees or graduates of its schools, and so forth. Good luck

bob_2 · 12-21-09 9:40 pm

Your point???

don · 12-22-09 3:06 am

Hi Glenn, I have been wondering how you are doing. Good to see your post. .

hansen · 12-25-09 9:15 pm

My point is that the SDA denomination is comprised of a clerical class which holds all the property and a laity which holds nothing. Or it so appears.

bob_2 · 12-26-09 2:38 am

The church is the priesthood of believers. The clergy do not own the property, the corporation of the SDA church does, which is non-profit. That makes sense to me not individuals owning anything.

hansen · 12-26-09 5:10 am

You are right, Bob. Pointless discussion What the Adventist denomination does with its property is not my concern. (Message edited by Hansen on December 26, 2009) (Message edited by Hansen on December 26, 2009)

don · 12-26-09 1:58 pm

I think it would be interesting to see how people think the Christian Church should manage property. .

bob_2 · 12-26-09 2:58 pm

I think if people are appointed to positions of authority in the church to deal with the property, I think there usually are rule for SDA, Methodists, and Presbyterians, probably given to them by accountants and sanctioned by the IRS that grants them their 501c3 status, eh.

hansen · 12-26-09 7:56 pm

Don Sands, Yes, I have returned. I see that you are now an "Advanced member." I'm only a "New member." Actually, the church property business is not my concern. I meet with a group of people each week for Bible reading. We meet in a private room in a restaurant. No problems whatsoever. The ICOC did a great job moving around each week, meeting in theatres, hotels, exhibition halls, parks, wherever. In many respects, holding church property is a useless expense. The building is only used a few hours a week and sits empty the rest of the time. But it is, for me, a pointless discussion. If people want to build a church, go ahead. I won't contribute, but others will. I was down in Yunnan, not far from an old Flying Tigers observation post. The Chinese Patriotic Church has a facility there. Although they did not have any modern Bibles in English and Chinese, they had an architectural rendering of their proposed new headquarters building. For them, a building seemed important. (Message edited by Hansen on December 26, 2009)

admin · 12-26-09 8:37 pm

I figure if a group wants a nice church, go ahead and build it. But I agree with you, Glenn. It seems the return on the investment is a bit low considering how much the building is actually used throughout the week. Furthermore, I find it strange that churches are willing to go in debt, it seems, just to build an addition. I like your idea of meeting in restaurants. I hope the food is good. Here in Taipei we meet in the Adventist hospital. I don't know if we as a group actually rent it, but it has worked out well. We have the use of an auditorium and several side rooms, and there don't seem to be any problems except for people not paying for the parking. (Message edited by admin on December 27, 2009)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 10-14-09 8:50 pm

Ownership of church buildings

#2 10-15-09 7:12 am

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#3 10-15-09 1:39 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#4 10-15-09 5:35 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#5 10-15-09 5:46 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#6 10-16-09 9:10 am

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#7 10-16-09 2:50 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#8 12-21-09 12:47 am

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#9 12-21-09 9:40 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#10 12-22-09 3:06 am

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#11 12-25-09 9:15 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#12 12-26-09 2:38 am

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#13 12-26-09 5:10 am

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#14 12-26-09 1:58 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#15 12-26-09 2:58 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#16 12-26-09 7:56 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

#17 12-26-09 8:37 pm

Re: Ownership of church buildings

Board footer