In which our regular writers toss around
subjects a little more volatile than usual.
You’d
think this issue would be put to bed speedily by even the most cursory glance at Matthew 5:25-26 or 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. But no,
believers are keeping their lawyers on speed-dial in
significant numbers. It used to be the primary reason was child abuse, but last year it
was something new: property rights.
Tom: Here I thought we’d all be meeting in cell
groups in homes sooner than later as a result of lawfare trial balloons from
the transgender, feminist or gay lobbies. But no, this is even stranger: we’re
doing it to ourselves, Immanuel Can; not just as individuals, but whole
congregations. And most of it involves issues related to church buildings.
Who Is “We”?
Immanuel
Can: I’m not sure “we” are doing anything,
actually. If the example in the article is typical, what it looks like is that disputes
are breaking out over who owns the religious buildings when a local church
breaks away from some central authority structure, or when a local church is
dissolved and the property becomes vacant to sell. Am I reading that correctly?
Or are there different kinds of contentious property issues?
Tom: Fair enough. I’m using “we” to describe evangelicals generally, but
maybe that’s not reasonable. I agree, it’s not a problem for non-denominational
groups that have no central organizational structure that draws on them
financially and imposes rules upon them.
Ugh. You may have dramatically shortened
this post. Thanks.
IC: Well, it may not be “us”, but we may have to learn a few things
from the example. At the very least, we can say that putatively “Christian”
organizations are descending into litigation over whether the local
congregation or the central synod has the real investment in the local church.
That’s interesting.
Tom: Thanks. We may still get something out of this, so feel free to
point me in the right direction.
Political Polarization Leads to Denominational Fractures
One thing that interests me is this statement: “Most
property cases ‘seem to arise from factional disputes between conservative and
progressive wings of congregations.’ ” That sounds like a familiar tale. Left/Right disagreements are currently uglifying our political landscape; finding similar tensions within denominations should not surprise us.
IC: Yes, the political polarization that is so typical of our age can all-too-easily sneak into our churches. Partisanship splits congregations. That’s a general concern, and
we could talk about that.
Or we could talk about a more specific
problem, the property issue which, it seems to me, looks like this: a local
church wants to do something that is considered too far Left or Right for the
general denomination and its central governing body. The issue then becomes
what authority the departing local congregation has to retain a property that
was originally claimed in the name of the parent denomination.
Your pleasure, sir?
It IS Straightforward, Isn’t It?
Tom: I haven’t yet had the pleasure of experiencing a political church split, though
I’d be interested in hearing from those who have. The internal disagreements
I’ve run into in local churches have been more personal.
IC: I think that’s just called, “dealing with human beings.”
Tom: Yup. As to the property issue, though, I’d be very interested to see how a
synod or other form of denominational oversight would use their
Bibles to justify taking action against a local congregation, or vice versa.
That seems perplexing to me. The scriptures on the subject, as I’ve
pointed out, are well known and quite straightforward.
IC: Before we go on (and just so people know what you’re talking about)
which scriptural principles did you have in mind?
Tom: Matthew 5, where the
Lord says, “Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going
with him to court,” the context of which is a “brother” who has something
against you. He’s talking about a fellow Jew there, I think, rather than a
Christian brother, but that only makes the application stronger for Christians:
basically, we are to solve our problems outside of the legal system, not inside.
The other one is Paul’s instructions in
1 Corinthians, which definitely apply in the church: “When one of you has
a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the
unrighteous instead of the saints?” His upshot is that we are better off
losing our shirts voluntarily outside of the system than taking our fellow
Christians to the cleaners or vice versa.
Neither passage is vague, cultural or
terribly complex.
Complicating the Simple
IC: Certainly true. But once we’ve already conceded in the past that our
local church will have a denominational name, an allegiance to a particular
theological package instead of whatever the Word may teach us, a religious
building and property, a clergy, and a central office to preside over all this
(all things that we know are really just made up by the “common sense” of human
beings, because they’re never entertained in scripture), it’s hard to imagine
what rules would apply to the disassembling of an institution created with
these features.
Other than knowing we’re not supposed to be
suing one another, which you’ve already pointed out, what guidance can we find
for the disengaging of a local assembly from the denomination or central
governing body?
Tom: I can’t think of much, to be honest. We are given principles for
resolving interpersonal conflicts, but I can’t think of any that address institutional
conflicts.
But that’s understandable: when we create
extra-scriptural (or outright anti-scriptural) situations for ourselves, it’s
hardly reasonable to complain that scripture doesn’t directly address them and
provide us with clear answers. God can scarcely be expected to provide
solutions for situations he never ordained in the first place.
Do you have any bright ideas?
You Made This Mess, You Fix It
IC: I agree with you that all the answers address the moral conduct of
individuals, on the one hand, and the conduct of the local church itself, on
the other. Biblically, there’s no mediation procedure for conflicts between
local churches and a central office, no org. chart locating clergy, and no
deeds and titles for property and building ownership. God simply hasn’t answered
the question, “What do we do when a local group breaks away from the collective
or the denominational hierarchy?” These things are outside of any conception of
church he gave.
In other words, we’ve created the problem;
but there may very well be no answer to the question, and no way at all to fix
the mess we’ve made. If so, that reflects neither on the Lord nor on any
insufficiency in the plan he gave us … it just means we weren’t following
instructions in the first place.
Tom: Agreed. I’m thinking back to the theological polarization issue we
talked about earlier. The two recent court rulings mentioned in the CT article
both have to do with local churches breaking away from their former
denominations. Now, a very conservative church electing to part ways with a
very liberal denomination is certainly one possibility, but I suspect given the
current cultural trends that the general tendency may be the other way round. The
resulting lawsuits, I think we agree, are a shoddy business that doesn’t honor
the Lord. But consider the alternative to parting ways. I’m not sure the Church
as a whole is well-served by local congregations forced into lock-step with a denomination
in areas where the local congregants have markedly different convictions.
The Eternal Thing
What are your thoughts? Where testimony is
concerned, would you rather see an outward show of phony unity, or an honest
admission of serious differences?
IC: If a local
congregation does not believe something the central synod insists is essential,
it’s hard to see what value there would be in forcing the local church to
conform. You cannot compel belief. As the old saying goes, “A man compelled
against his will / Remains an unbeliever still.”
The
issue, I think, is more the practical question of whether the local congregation
has the right to the property and building of which they have current tenancy,
or whether the denominational headquarters or the central synod rightfully owns
it. Worse still, how does one decide if some of the congregants stay
with the denomination on the key issue(s), and some go another
way … not an uncommon happening, I suspect, in such situations.
Tom: Well, whatever
issues need to be worked out between the various parties, we can be sure of one
thing: the place for them is not the secular court system. As Paul puts it, “To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a
defeat for you.” In the end, a building is only property.
IC: Good point. After
all, what is the eternal thing: winning the point, seizing property deed, or
the public reputation of the Lord of Glory?
No comments :
Post a comment