A different perspective on church property conflicts
Higher judicatories in the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches have been locked in conflict – and sometimes in court – over the property and other assets of congregations trying to leave their authority. Judicatory officials explain this as protecting the interest of the larger church in the property of particular congregations. But this shows an unsettling attitude about the relationship between the congregations and the larger church.
It’s an attitude I saw many years ago, when an associate Presbytery executive explained the presbytery was only going to fund new church developments that were likely to grow quickly to 100 people attending services. It wasn’t practical for the presbytery to fund smaller congregations because they wouldn’t produce enough mission giving for the presbytery to get its money back.
This guideline has a kind of managerial wisdom to it. It’s important to invest money in enterprises that will produce a good return. That’s clear at an individual level: if I invest money in a CD or money market fund, it’s important to invest in one that will produce an adequate return.
But there are other expenses that aren’t measured by the income they produce. Buying a pair of pants or a dozen apples is not like buying a Certificate of Deposit. I expect the CD to produce an income stream, or at least to produce a satisfactory profit on the initial expense when I cash it in. But for the pair of pants, just having something to wear is enough. For the apples, just having something to eat is enough. I don’t expect to make a profit on selling them some day.
Further, the expenses are primary; the investments are secondary. Investments do not exist for themselves, they exist to provide income to fund expenses. Investments are the means to the end of providing for expenses. In terms of the examples, I buy CDs so I’ll have money for apples, but I don’t buy apples so I’ll have strength to buy CDs.
Church governing bodies have investment and expense items as well. There are things they legitimately need to show some kind of profit or return. Pension fund and endowment assets, for example. But there are other things they don’t expect to produce a return. For example, when a North American Presbytery sends mission support to Ekwendeni Hospital in Malawi, there’s no expectation of ongoing income. Just knowing it’s a place where people are finding healing and care is enough.
Presently, the Ekwendeni Hospital is a ministry of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian. But if circumstances change and, say, the Roman Catholic church would have to take over running the hospital, the North American Presbyteries that supported the hospital wouldn’t require a payment or other settlement as a return on their investment in the mission. The years of faithful ministry there would be return enough.
Which is the proper relation between the Diocese of the Presbytery and the congregation? Is the congregation like the endowment funds, useful so long as it produces an income stream for the judicatory? Or is it like the mission projects, sufficiently useful because people find opportunities for worship and praise there?
Are congregations a means to an end, useful for the mission giving they send to higher judicatories? Or are these worshipping communities ends in themselves, the purpose for which the higher judicatories exist?
When a congregation leaves the sphere of a judicatory, the response is usually to seek some kind of payment or other property settlement. The rationale is usually something like to protect the interests of the larger denomination and the future work of the church. But what if the judicatory were to respond “the interests of the denomination were well served in the years this has been a vibrant worshipping community”?
To me, the latter sounds like a more fruitful attitude.
