# Churches - who should own what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/churches-who-should-own-what/610759 "2012-01-26T18:42:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/churches-who-should-own-what/610759/1 "2012-01-26T18:42:34Z")
[A judge in Virginia recently ruled that breakaway factions of the Episcopalian Church won’t get to keep their church buildings](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-judge-rules-against-conservative-churches-in-property-case/2012/01/11/gIQAIX2dqP_story.html). > [@](#): > > A Virginia judge has ruled against seven conservative congregations that broke away from the Episcopal Church in 2006, rejecting their argument that they should be able to keep some $40 million in church real estate that the national denomination also claims. > > The case has drawn worldwide attention because it involves a cluster of large, prominent churches with well-known conservative pastors and because the issues at hand — particularly the Episcopal Church’s acceptance of same-sex relationships as equal to heterosexual ones — are roiling much of organized religion. > > \ > > The congregations were among more than a dozen that voted in 2006 and 2007 to separate from the Episcopal Church, which is the official wing of the Anglican Communion in the United States. Members believe they — not the Episcopal Church — represent true Anglicanism, and switched their affiliation to the Anglican Church of Nigeria. > > If they decide not to appeal, the congregations would have to vacate their churches, which include the historic The Falls Church and Truro Church in Northern Virginia. > > \ > > [The judge] was charged in this phase of the case with deciding whether the diocese or the congregants owned the property under Virginia real estate law. Evidence included questions about who paid for the property, who maintained it and whose names were on the deeds. Now, on paper, this appears to be a fairly simple matter. The deeds are in the name of the parent organization. I certainly have no sympathy for the breakaway faction, given the nature of their disagreement with the larger organization. However, it seems likely that some portion of the churches’ property was bequeathed, tithed or donated with the express intent that it should belong to the local church. Bequests, for example, often come with written conditions about how they should be used - to fund a Sunday school, or whatever. Fundraisers might be for the express purpose of building a new roof or annex for the local church. So, should the national church have to pay restitution for whatever portion of the property belongs to the locals? Should the locals have thought of that before they decided to affiliate with a larger church? ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/churches-who-should-own-what/610759/2 "2012-01-26T19:47:51Z")
First, a couple of nitpicks: 1. It’s the _Episcopal_ Church. Members of which are referred to as _Episcopalians_. 2. “More than a dozen that voted [to leave TEC]” is an enormous understatement, unless the article meant to only include parishes in Virginia. Several whole _dioceses_ left. As to the heart of the matter, as an Episcopalian myself I’m pretty torn. I disagree with the parishes’ decision to split, but I don’t think the property issues are as cut and dry as the court has made it. I also think the Episcopal Church has been unnecessarily hardnosed about potential solutions, especially since many of these congregations voted by 85% or more to leave TEC. The Episcopal Church has a policy of refusing even to sell these properties back to the congregations after favorable court decisions. The TEC would rather have a big, expensive, empty church instead of offering it for market value to the people who built and maintained it over generations. Anyway, it’s a very complicated issue, not just in VA but across the country. The courts have almost always ruled in favor of the denomination. Again, I think leaving the denomination is kind of dumb, but the TEC has been exceedingly ungracious. Frankly it’s been ugly on both sides. ETA – Full disclosure: I was a deputy to the most recent Episcopal Church General Convention in '09 and will be again in '12, so when I criticize the church I’m doing it as someone who is part of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/churches-who-should-own-what/610759/3 "2012-01-26T19:54:08Z")
I don’t think the Episcopal Church is under any moral obligation to sell off their lands to those who actively oppose their teachings, and I can see them wanting to establish new congregations in the same area using those same buildings. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/churches-who-should-own-what/610759/4 "2012-01-26T20:17:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t think the Episcopal Church is under any moral obligation to sell off their lands to those who actively oppose their teachings, and I can see them wanting to establish new congregations in the same area using those same buildings. I see that argument, but the denomination (in most cases) did not build, pay for, maintain, and attend those churches for two hundred and fifty years either. I’m trying to figure out how I would feel if they had left because they wanted to be more accepting of homosexuality and the denomination refused; the standards should be the same. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/churches-who-should-own-what/610759/5 "2012-01-26T20:44:33Z")
Sorry about the naming error. We didn’t have Episcopalians where I come from (well, we did, but they were called Anglicans). There was nothing forcing the local congregation to accept the bylaws that say, “by the way, we own your building”. On the other hand, probably nobody in the current version of the local congregation ever voted to agree to those bylaws, either. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/churches-who-should-own-what/610759/6 "2012-01-26T20:51:57Z")
There is, actually. The Episcopal Church canons say that all property owned by local congregations is held in trust for the national denomination. And all parish bylaws have stipulations acceding to the the canons of their diocese and the national church. The catch is, that national canon was not passed until the 1970s. And, although it may not have been true in this particular case, the Episcopal Church has taken posession of seceding churches even when the Deed made no mention of the property belonging to the denomination at all. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/churches-who-should-own-what/610759/7 "2012-01-26T20:53:43Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I see that argument, but the denomination (in most cases) did not build, pay for, maintain, and attend those churches for two hundred and fifty years either. I’m trying to figure out how I would feel if they had left because they wanted to be more accepting of homosexuality and the denomination refused; the standards should be the same. If you give your money to the Episcopal Church, then the Episcopal Church gets to keep your money. I can’t really see a problem with that. If the Congregation wants to maintain control over the building, then presumably they need to have started their own group and then put the chuch in that groups name. Or put another way, if no schism had happened, but the Episcopalians simply decided to sell a given church building because it was no longer attracting enough congregants to make it worthwhile, would you contest their ability to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/churches-who-should-own-what/610759/8 "2012-01-26T21:30:29Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > If you give your money to the Episcopal Church, then the Episcopal Church gets to keep your money. Were they giving their money to the Episcopal Church? When you tithe on Sunday morning you write your check to “St. Swithin’s Church.” The St. Swithin’s vestry sets aside a portion of their budget to go to the local diocese, and the diocese has a line item in their budget for the Episcopal Church. > [@](#): > > I can’t really see a problem with that. If the Congregation wants to maintain control over the building, then presumably they need to have started their own group and then put the chuch in that groups name. Again, I don’t know exactly the situation in Virginia, but in in a lot of cases the property _was_ in the congragation’s name, but the courts gave the property to TEC. > [@](#): > > Or put another way, if no schism had happened, but the Episcopalians simply decided to sell a given church building because it was no longer attracting enough congregants to make it worthwhile, would you contest their ability to do so? Maybe. Put in this way: in order to buy or sell property, a parish needs approval from the diocese but not the national church. I can’t think of an example where the national church tried to sell the property of a healthy self-sustaining parish. Let me say once again that I am playing devil’s advocate here. My church split over these issues eight years ago and I stayed with TEC.