Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So do I. But generally they are only on older church buildings which are of a design easily destroyed by earthquakes.I feel more connected to God through beautiful art and architecture. So... meh.
I do appreciate art and architecture aimed to glorify God in the same sense as I appreciate wonderful music glorifying God.I feel more connected to God through beautiful art and architecture. So... meh.
So do I - but if that building with beautiful art and architecture is empty , because there are no people to worship in it, the question is
what do you do with it ?
Is selling churches to developers acceptable? I know the Catholic Church has sold property during church consolidations, but apparently Anglicans do too. I'm guessing all of our church communions have at some point.
Swapping prophets for profits: Anglican Church selling houses of God to property developers - Mirror Online
Do you consider selling a sanctuary to be an "ok" practice? Even if it is to a housing developer?
Is selling churches to developers acceptable? I know the Catholic Church has sold property during church consolidations, but apparently Anglicans do too. I'm guessing all of our church communions have at some point.
Swapping prophets for profits: Anglican Church selling houses of God to property developers - Mirror Online
Do you consider selling a sanctuary to be an "ok" practice? Even if it is to a housing developer?
The part that makes me cringe is that, especially with the Episcopals but also with the PCUSA, is that these churches may be empty for reasons other than dwindling numbers. The fact that the diocese/presbytery owns the building means that, if a congregation wants to leave the denomination (for reasons like homosexual ordination and homosexual marriage), and anything less than 100% of all congregants agree to the move, the diocese or presbytery can say that the 1% who want to stay PCUSA/Episcopal are the true residents of the building. That 1% may no longer be a sustainable congregation, though, and while the 99% are ordered to vacate the premises, the building itself has to be sold anyway. Essentially, the loss of a whole congregation results in a net profit for the diocese/presbytery. Twisted. This is definitely something that has happened in the Episcopal Church USA, and friends of mine in the PCUSA are now facing the same reality.
Is this not also the case with the ELCA, or at least some of their parishes?
The part that makes me cringe is that, especially with the Episcopals but also with the PCUSA, is that these churches may be empty for reasons other than dwindling numbers. The fact that the diocese/presbytery owns the building means that, if a congregation wants to leave the denomination (for reasons like homosexual ordination and homosexual marriage), and anything less than 100% of all congregants agree to the move, the diocese or presbytery can say that the 1% who want to stay PCUSA/Episcopal are the true residents of the building. That 1% may no longer be a sustainable congregation, though, and while the 99% are ordered to vacate the premises, the building itself has to be sold anyway. Essentially, the loss of a whole congregation results in a net profit for the diocese/presbytery. Twisted. This is definitely something that has happened in the Episcopal Church USA, and friends of mine in the PCUSA are now facing the same reality.
This is something I've been concerned about for a while since my church was going to enter a period of discernment here soon to decide whether to leave the PCUSA or not. It's on hold for now because our pastor moved away and they need to address that need first, but when the time comes I'm nervous that the denomination might try to do some gymnastics to kick the church out.
The church is a landmark in town, one of the oldest church buildings here commissioned by and named after the town's founder. It's also one of the bigger churches in the PCUSA from what I understand.
I did do some research and found some city paperwork for historic building inventory and under the "ownership" part it listed the name of the church. Wouldn't it say "Presbyterian Church (USA)" if it were otherwise?
I think you would need a lawyer to find out - sometimes with older buildings it can be more complicated.
I don't necessarily have an issue with the fact that a denomination or diocese has a claim, it the structure of those churches, there is some sense to that. If there is still a viable congregation left, I can see why they might have more of a claim than those leaving the bishop.
But it is really these cases where they will no longer have a viable congregation, because most are leaving that it seems very very wrong. Especially if it is a church that they themselves contributed materially to building and maintaining.
It seems like demanding the building and going through legal channels in these cases is in bad faith, and shows a kind of gross spiritual illness.
It is a sad commentary on Christian growth (or the opposite in many denominations) that this issue is even relevant.
Our Lord is still in control.... AMEN
Of Gifts - On a legal side I see that very often land was 'gifted' for a purpose to serve God by allowing a Christian group utilise the land for a meeting place. Often the village/town founding fathers would do so. I know here that such a gift must never be abused ............ it should remain as gifted or the gifting document identifies what should happen to the land.
I wonder what those folk who gave such gifts would think of what was happening in this current society?
Hi, I was commenting on the issue of churches splitting (due to whatever reason) and folk having to argue over who gets to use/own the buildings .....I don't agree. It can actually be a wonderful testimony to the work of the church.......
The disregard, disrespect and altogether shunning of church buildings is a poor reflection on Christianity, because it exhibits how much of Christian culture has completely lost the concept of sacred space.
The disregard, disrespect and altogether shunning of church buildings is a poor reflection on Christianity, because it exhibits how much of Christian culture has completely lost the concept of sacred space.
Point received.... and certainly some validity there... but over the past 2000 years, there must be millions of buildings consecrated as churches that no longer are. The discontinuation of buildings for worship is nothing new. Sometimes the "life" of a building - even a parish - ends. I suspect MILLIONS have done so. Lots in each of the past 20 centuries. I'm not detracting from your point (I hope) simply noting the history, the reality here.
Blessings on your Holy Week....
- Josiah
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?