Rev Bill

Noel Anderson at Andersonspeak is posting answers to points that people are making about why churches should leave the Presbyterian Church (USA). The first point he answers is the one that we should leave because we are ticked off. The second he answers is the one that we should leave because we can. The third reason he answers is that we should leave because we are afraid. The fourth reason he answers is that Churches could attract new, younger people if they were not in the denomination. The fifth is Because every congregation is it’s own entity.

He now answers another reason he hears folks give: Because we want to protect our property.

To this, Anderson says:

… we PCUSA churches “drank the potion” of common property, knowing full well that there was a five-year window within which to withdraw. If you are a PCUSA congregation, it is either because you wholeheartedly agreed to the arrangement, or you just watched the time run out doing nothing. Either way, you are in, and in by your own choice. This is undeniable.

In other words, if a Church stayed in the denomination after the “five year window” from 1985 – 1990 when a Church could leave with their property, they made a decision that they need to adhere to.

What about the churches that elect to leave now?

Here’s what Anderson says:

Plenty of congregations have left since then; many of them followed the calling of God to depart the PCUSA on grounds of conscience and as they did so, left keys and property behind. To those churches, a respectful round of applause is due for their putting principle above property. These Christians stood by their convictions at a great price, and our hats are off to them—no one can accuse them of serving an idol of property. This is indeed a noble course of action, and it is clearly the only noble course denominational liberals expect conscientious evangelicals to follow.

In other words, taking a stand on convictions and being willing to leave the denomination — and leave your property — is a admirable stand to take.

The squabble over property makes the debate to stay in or leave the denomination look like spoiled children quarreling over “what’s mine” — which — as Anderson says — leads to “an abominable witness”.

Here’s Anderson’s vision of the best way to resolve the “property issue”:

The best scenario—and perhaps purely imaginary—would be one wherein congregation and presbytery actually outdo one another in showing honor. “No, you take it!” “No, you take it!” “No, we insist!” “But you know how to use it best.”

In my 25 years of ministry and over 20 years before that of membership in the Presbyterian church, I have seen churches — my home church being one — argue about who the property belongs to. It indeed makes the church look like a spoiled child, and witness is indeed abominable.

You can read Anderson’s post on the issue here.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.