Court Determines Church Must Shut Down

I am not familiar with the C&MA;, but if the denomination is consuming its members in this way, then it is not unlike a starving animal that has burned its fat reserves and is now burning its muscle. Pretty soon it will be too weak to go on the hunt.

He suspects many congregations will review the relationship they have with their denomination after hearing about his plight in Paramus.

Control the real estate and you control most people. Most denominations have learned this principle.

If this article is correct, I don’t see how anyone could see this as anything but objectively evil.

Reading this article, I once again had some uneasiness about the future path of those parishes that are acquiring or building property.

I trust that all new ACNA parishes properly incorporated, and hard wired into their articles or charter (a recorded document) clear language repudiating any implied or express trust of church property created outside such documents.  I trust that the parishes will never execute a deed or mortgage with any reference to an entity other than the local corporation.

What bothers me is what happens 20 or 30 years down the road, after memory dims of the recent unpleasantness, and the current set of lay and clerical leaders are off the stage. How can we structure local parish governance to ensure that lay leadership never again succumbs to the pressure to extend a trust or other ownership interest to a national denomination? How do we empower lay leadership to ensure the right clergy are called?  How do we reconcile this with the ecclesiastical authority given our Diocese/Bishops under Episcopal polity? Where is the line drawn between congregational and Episcopal governance?

This may be clear to everyone else on this board, but in my discussions with ACNA members I hear confusion on the fundamental issues of organization and governance.  The AMIA situation should be cause for further examination.

This is sad, but the Church knowingly signed away its property rights.

“He was a nice, old World War II vet, who wanted to make sure our congregation wasn’t being taken advantage of,” Smaha tells WND.

“The district told him, ‘that clause will never, ever be invoked’ except in an extreme case such as a congregational split, false teaching, or if the church just closed its doors one day,” Smaha said.

Whenever someone says not to worry about a clause in a legal document, “because it will never be used”, not only don’t sign but run for the hills.

Anybody belong to an ECUSA congregation where the vestry expressed the need to perfect the local parish title to the property and leave ECUSA as soon as the Dennis canon was passed?  Of any of these, did anyone actually leave ECUSA over this?  I bet not, but I also bet they wish they had.

Schori and her minions better hope that there are no Catholic-like pedophilia scandals lurking about in places where the national church has “perfected” their title to all property.  Using the doctrine of suing the deepest pocket available, they could end up losing it all.

#4- I think that TEC has sealed its own fate with the Dennis Canon, and the C&MA; has likewise sealed theirs.  In the temporal sense, who will ever, in the future, donate large sums of money to build a new TEC church, so that the bishop and national church can have ownership?  Who is going to drop a million $$ on a Tiffany stained glass window in memorial to their parents, knowing that the bishop might pull it out in 30 years and sell it off?
Right now, I think the ACNA canons make plain that parishes control their own property (subject to “grandfathering” the old TEC dioceses, REC canons, etc.).  To date, so far as I know, ACNA bishops have followed this policy.  Right now, in the former TEC dioceses, there is a problem simply because the courts will not allow any transfer of property until the TEC lawsuits have worked through the system.  This is impacting, I believe, a parish in Fort Worth that has petitioned Bp. Iker to be allowed to join the Ordinariate.  In the long run, I am a bit concerned that ACNA may go overboard in the other direction, and give parishes so much liberty that some will bounce from one diocese to another with every new bishop, or jump in and out of the denomination whenever they are on the losing side of a convention resolution.

7.  You’re right with your concerns about parishes possibly leaving the ACNA if they don’t get their own way, and these concerns are going to have to be addressed soon by the College of Bishops.  Some method should be found to limit their choice to leave, but not in the manner of a “Dennis Canon.”  Yes, there’s freedom, but perhaps a bit too much freedom.  Perhaps “personal persuasion on the part of the bishop(s)” might be the answer to this.

Don’t believe everything you read.  There were serious “accounting” issues (or so I am told) and the source for the story is less than credible.  One of the local elders was apparently trying to steer the property to a relative for an entirely sectarian use and the denomination moved to stop the diversion.

#7 & #8,
Congregations should be free to leave with their property for whatever reason they choose.  ACNA’s canons explicitly state that the buildings belong to the congregations.  No congregations having to battle TEC for their property would be likely to join the ACNA if it were otherwise.

RalphM

#9 - Please provide link(s) to support your asserttions (1) that WND is less than credible and (2) that the local elder was seeking to divert the property to a relative.  If link is not available, please send contact information for source.  If we have posted something that is inaccurate, we owe it to our readers and ourselves to correct.

I agree with Ralph M. that congregations should be able to leave in accordance with the decision making process set out in their Articles or Charter. That doesnt mean parishes should leave with their property for whatever reason, however. 

ACNA’s constitution states that no trust or claim is made on property.  However, this is a less meaningful statement if other provisions effectively make it impossible for the congregation to assert such control. Most of the new Diocisian canons I have seen give the Diocisian authorities (Bishop) ultimate control over clergy selection and other issues, and require a parish to formally assent to the Diocisian Canons in order to join the Diocese. I have yet to see a Diocisian provision that provides or acknowledges and exit process for a parish. They may exist, I just havent seen such a process in the canons I have viewed.

The time to develop a clearer understanding of the division of responsibilities and authority between a congregation and the Diocese is before the emergence of doctrinal or other conflict.

The Christian and Missionary Alliance is an orthodox denomination that has produced some spiritual giants such as pastor and author A.W. Tozer and philanthropist R.G. LeTourneau.  Billy Graham preached in C&MA; churches in his early years.  Ravi Zacharias used to teach in their seminary in Nyack, NY.  Todd Beamer, the United Airlines Flight 93 passenger (“Let’s roll!”) was C&MA;.  They have done some phenomenal missionary work over the years.  But, if this article is correct, they have fallen victim to the same greed as some of the mainline denominations.  I have yet to see one instance where denominational claims to a congregation’s property produced anything good.  But if anyone, such as Dave G. (#9), can provide a link to some sources, I am open to correction.

RE: “You’re right with your concerns about parishes possibly leaving the ACNA if they don’t get their own way, and these concerns are going to have to be addressed soon by the College of Bishops.  Some method should be found to limit their choice to leave . . . “

I heartily disagree.

Parishes should be allowed to leave if they don’t like the color of the cope and miter chosen by the bishop, much less if the theology of the new bishop is not to their liking.  Such abilities keeps the whole game—and yeh, it’s a game—honest in the selection of bishops and such.  If people are uneasily aware that certain parishes will be leaving if decisions are made, then everybody can be crystal clear about consequences.  And if parishes *do* choose to leave over colors of copes and miters than it’s an excellent way to weed out shallow vacuous parishes who need to run off and go inflict themselves on other hapless denominations.

It’s just such fascism that has utterly riven our denomination, TEC, while maintaining the structural facade.  It is death because parishes which do not share the same values do not work together.  You don’t want such an attitude in your nice fresh new denomination, believe me.

Interesting comments. The one thing that would make it all clear to me is if the canons would plainly state that bishops were responsible soley for the spiritual oversight of congregations and pastors/ministry groups but the sole responsibility for budgeting and other temporal management, including ownership of property, is vested soley in the congregations or a group of trustees.

That IS the way it used to work in some denominations - and it did work. It is also biblical - God does not want His leaders dividing their time with waiting tables and other temporal duties.

Sarah, no parish should leave for light and transient reasons, as so often stated in a priest’s admonishment to a couple being united in holy matrimony.  Yes, it’s true that ACNA parishes have the right to leave, but such leaving should only take place if they feel that they have no other choice, and only after consulting with their bishop.  Therein lies the difference between us and TEC.

Spot on Sarah in #14.

Who has the right to hire or fire the Rector? Who appoints—rather than confirms—the appointment of a interim Rector or Priest in Charge?

Do the Diocisian canons provide a path for seperation? If the answer is something like “the Canons don’t acknowledge the right to leave but it would not be a problem”, then you should re-read what is reported to have happened to this church.

In my experience, diocisian canons are usually written from the perspective of those most interested in preserving the rights and authority of the diocese, and they are not often critically viewed by congregations that may join.

I agree with Sarah’s comment. The right of every congregation to leave for any reason, good or bad, faithful or unfaithful, is important for the long-term health of the denomination. It should be addressed more directly.

RE: “Sarah, no parish should leave for light and transient reasons . . . “

Sure, but it’s not for the denomination to say, and seeing as how the parishes *own* their own property, it won’t be either.

There’s nothing that a denomination can actually do to force a congregation to stay as long as that congregation has power over its property—thankfully.

The material in the WND article is factual and based on the Christian & Missionary Alliance Church violating the Scriptures 1 Cor. 6:1-11 and taking Christians to court to gain property that is not theirs. The court documents show no church board member, trustee or chairman ever signed the property over to the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church in a dated official document that the Metroploitan District of the Christian and Missionary Alliance can produce to be seen. 

The pastor’s kicked out of the parsonages ith their families and no income, even some with pregnant wifes, or seriously ill family members, with no where to go, have seen the church padlocked and congregations dismantled can all in one giant chorus say: This is what the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church has done. The criticisms of those in the denomination concerning this article are trying to shoot the messenger and refuse to talk to the pastors directly involved and just take the property right down to taking the pastor’s glasses left on the desk. Yes, all church content NOW belongs to the Christian and Missionary Alliace Church denomination.  One church taken is now a bar in Philadephia and another church in Scanton, PA is a dance studio. 

The denomination used court briefs filled by the ECUSA to convince the judge they had a right to the church property. Along with citing the denomination constitution in court documents.  The denomination’s lawyers clained this church is hierarchal even when they do not have a single bishop.

From my study of the ACNA model diocesan constitution and canons and conversations with ACNA members involved in the drafting of the governing documents of their respective judicatories in the ACNA is that the ACNA governance task force appears to be promoting a particular shape to the governance of ACNA dioceses. This includes encouraging dioceses to relinquish more powers to the province than the provincial constitutions and canons require them to and discouraging them from adopting provisions which the provincial governing documents do not prohbit them from adopting. Representatives of the governance task force have advised at least two drafting committees or constitutional conventions finalizing the governing documents for their juidicatories that the Provincial Council would not approve their governing documents if they included certain provisions in them even though the provincial constitution and canons did not prohibit the inclusion of these provisions. With the model diocesan constitution and canons the governance task force is actually modifying the governance of the province without introducing legislation to introduce such modifications.

While I have almost all of the governing documents of the ACNA dioceses in my files, I have not looked at them for trends related to the withdrawal of congregations from the diocese or the expulsion of congregations from the diocese. I have done some work in the area of trends related to property ownership. Some of these documents do permit the diocese to take property into trust with the consent of the congregation, a practice that the ACNA canons do not prohibit. They only prohibit the province from taking property into trust. Some congregations in the ACNA would find it easier to withdraw from their diocese than others.

RE: “Representatives of the governance task force have advised at least two drafting committees or constitutional conventions finalizing the governing documents for their juidicatories that the Provincial Council would not approve their governing documents if they included certain provisions in them even though the provincial constitution and canons did not prohibit the inclusion of these provisions.”

I’d be interested to see a lit of what those “certain provisions” were . . .

Yes congregations should be allowed to leave with their property but then you should stop calling yourself anglican or episcopal.  the lambeth quadrennial declared that the leadership of the churgh rests with the bishops, you know as in apostolic sucession and all that.  You know as in “one holy catholic and apostolic church.”  those who advocate congregational control of the property and the congregational right to hire/fire the pastor should also stop reciting the Nicene Creed.  Its not like your bad Christians, but you are not properly called Anglican or Episcopal.

[link spam deleted]
 
.

23.  If we did all of that, Ordinary, then we’d have to call ourselves Catholics or Orthodox, wouldn’t we?  I happen to agree with the Quadrilateral and am in sympathy with the Thirty-nine Articles.  I’m also not in favor of parishes leaving, and until we find another way of finding priests for our parishes, we’ll continue with hiring and firing….which is the vestries’ job, after all.  And you must know, of course, that a priest’s appointment as a rector must have the bishop’s approval.

And AA’s articles about us are about what I’ve come to expect from him….seeing that he’s always been anti-ACNA.  But that’s his problem, and he’s free to think as he wishes.  I believe he’s ultra-Low Church….and that’s OK.

RE: “the lambeth quadrennial declared that the leadership of the churgh rests with the bishops, you know as in apostolic sucession and all that.  You know as in “one holy catholic and apostolic church.”  those who advocate congregational control of the property and the congregational right to hire/fire the pastor should also stop reciting the Nicene Creed. . . . “

What an odd—very odd and capitalistic—notion about episcopal leadership.  One may be perfectly able to believe in bishops, apostolic succession, and one holy catholic and apostolic church without titling over all one’s property to the bishop.

Just bizarre, Ordinary.  Where on earth did you get the notion that in order for a church to be led episcopally and also conciliarly that titles of property should be made out to bishops?

In fact, ownership of congregational property has absolutely nothing to do with episcopal authority—other than for those bishops who are anxious about whether their authority will be accepted and instead are inclined towards wielding power through property . . . you know . . . kind of like our Presiding Bishop.

If all this is true, then I am sorry for C&MA; because they were a great organization and very orthodox and very congregational.  They were an “alliance.”  This may be just a local spat or have another side, but it also may just be an example of how the disease is spreading among formly good denominations.  Oh well, the debil, he don’t play fair.  Grabbing and greed and power is from the fountain of Satan as in the Garden.  Power and wealth corrupts.  And don’t forget we all can be tempted.  But don’t join the Roach Hotel Denomination.  You can check in but you can’t check out!

Hi AA—I asked a simple question, which was what provisions the Provincial Council of ACNA would not approve in the draft governing documents of dioceses in formation. 

The simple answer is that the Provincial Council would not approve limitations to the terms of office of bishop in the Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic and the Diocese of Mid-Atlantic.

You could well have simply stated “oh, that’s really too complicated for me to describe here.”  That would have been false, but still you could have simply refused to answer the question rather than answer the question with the simple sentence above.

Instead, you link-spammed your two immensely long articles about the fact that ACNA is 1) contemptuous of and limiting of the involvement of laity and emphasizes central planning from the archbishop and bishops [I agree with that heartily and it’s been endlessly pointed out on this blog] and 2) cleverly forcing new dioceses in formation to mold their own constitution and canons to yield further authority to the central provincial structures than is actually required by ACNA’s Constitution and Canons through “model” diocesan governing documents.  Inserted into the midst of those two immensely long articles were a very few sentences that actually answered my question.

As everyone knows, I’ve been open about the set-up of ACNA being in a number of ways utterly disastrous—and it also won’t be “reformed” either, I should add.  It’s set in concrete, and the folks who are in ACNA are either ignorant of these facts, or happy with them.  I suspect it’s a little of both and the former are those who unfortunately never learned anything from their “time served” in ECUSA.  Those considering joining ACNA will either 1) do their homework and make decisions with knowledge or 2) remain firmly in blissful ignorance and look merely for a desperate escape from whatever painful situation they are in.

But we won’t be allowing link-spamming into the midst of commenting on *a non-Anglican denomination’s actions*—not even under the guise of “answering a question”—so those links will be deleted.

Please don’t do that again.

Thanks.

I think we’re in a comfortable situation here in our diocese….even if we are in the middle of a lawsuit.  After all, we’ve established several new missions, and more are on the way.

And I completely agree with you about the link-spamming, Sarah.

The C& MA are interesting on a number of fronts. Apropos this piece: early in their history the Alliance lost a number of congregations to the new Pentecostal movement and adjusted their polity to prevent the loss of further properties subsequently. They don’t have bishops but their structure is hierarchical with superintendents being the equivalent of bishops. Property belongs to the district, not the local congregation, even though the local congregation pays for the expenses. On the other hand, the denomination looks after its pastors and missionaries well.

It does seem the was a time in the middle, and later,1900’s when there was a consolidation of authority and power amongst protestant bodies..Methodists, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, this denomination, etc… It might be interesting to see if the National Council, and World Council, of Churches were connected…

#23 FWLIW most parish churches in the Church of England are not owned by Vestries (or their English equivalent), congregations, Rectors, dioceses, Bishops or by the Church of England as a whole. Rectors and church wardens have certain vestigial property rights but in simple terms no one owns most Church of England parishes. Parish churches are, in effect, buildings held in trust for the whole parish.

Of course this means that congregations can’t “leave” the COE with “their” buildings since they don’t own the parish church anyway. However neither may bishops or dioceses claim to exercise property rights, since they don’t have any either.

In other words, one may find a variety of patterns of ownership of churches around the Communion reflecting history, culture and legal framework.

My first experience with a CMA church was during my first ordained duty in Salem, OR.  The congregation there expanded in influence and size fairly quickly, and caused some envy among mainlines there.  They billed themselves on the original calling to be an evangelistic, missionary society (back in the later 1800’s with the Presby pastor AB Simpson), rather than a stuck in the mud denominational church.  The House Church movement, and Church without Walls are more recent incarnations of the same kind of fervor.
Meanwhile, back in Salem, the local CMA began looking more and more like a congregation with the usual trappings rather than a missionary society.  It eventually plateaued a bit after the youth minister turned senior pastor retired.  In any case, that transition was no mistake.  Somewhere in the 1970’s, CMA decided to formally change from missionary societies meeting in “tabernacles”, to a full-fledged denomination, with all the trappings.  And there had to be a “buy-in” period (sounds like the Dennis Canon but without buy-in by local congregations).  There’s your “hierarchical” foundings.
Besides that, CMA, as noted above, is a fairly fervent, evagelistic, missionary force.  We can’t automatically paint this problem with the same brush strokes as with TEC or PCA, etc.  Unless it might be the reverse situation.  Still, there is more to see in this one.
One thing is sure, call it a congregation, or call it a missionary society outpost, it will still look and smell like sanctified flesh; sometimes more like the divine, and more often like the ways of this world in need of mercy and grace.

As an aside, my favorite CMA (or CMA associated) writer is Tozer, especially his all-night train ride book write re: the glory of God.

#5 and #6 - I’ve written of it before, but when 1976 and women priests rolled in, I overheard several women talking at our church questioning whether our church should leave, too.  I remember hearing, Oh, no, we don’t have to worry about that here.  I heard that phrase multiple times over the years by priests, some now bishops and one up for bishop. 

The problem is once a lesson is learned, it is soon forgotten.  We see all this and what have we done about it?  Has anyone brought forth presentment charges against Spong for abandoning the Faith?  Schori?  No.  Why?  Look what happened to Righter.  I wonder what the fallout from that was.

A. W. Tozer must either be turning over in his grave or composing one more of his pithy, penetrating sermons.

“Because lawlessness has increased, the love of many will grow cold.”

Here is a link to the C&MA; organizational documents that relate to property ownership and reversion of the same.
Article 11 contains the relevant provisions.
http://www.cmalliance.org/resources/publications/manual-cma.pdf

There is a CMA church I attended with my father-in-law in Windham ME, that is on the ropes after a protracted interim ministry period with with no pastor.  The denominational officials are in Foxboro MA, a long way away, and did little to assist them during the transition.  They ruled out some initial candidates from consideration. During this time, the church lost members and financial strength and now cannot easily call anybody.

Thanks to driver8 for his informative #33.

It’s always helpful when people with experience across the Pond in the CoE chime in and help us ignorant Americans learn how different the mother church can be in so many ways from what we’re used to here.  Much appreciated.

David Handy+

Here is a link to the recent criminal case where this church’s bookkeeper pled guilty to embezzlement.  The church claimed she stole almost $70,000.
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a4487-09.opn.html

Here is a link to the pleadings in the action brought by the District agasint the Church.  In 2009, at a meeting with the pastor, he acknowledged that the parsonage had been sold to him and his wife, that no elders had been elected in years, the church was insolvent and there was average weekly attendance of 12-20 people.
http://www.perfectpeaceplan.com/post/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/01bruceterpstracmapropertyseize.pdf

ACNA’s documents about church ownership were gone over with several levels of magnification before our parish elected to become part of it!  THERE WAS AND IS NO WAY, after losing our hard come by beautiful building to TEC we would sign on with ANY organization that said ownership of the property was other than ours!!!!  Once burned, twice careful.  Leadership does not imply ownership!  How many churches did St. Peter “own”?

The C&Cs; of the ACNA state it quite clearly:  Parishes own their own properties, and no bishop or other entity can claim any interest in them.

42—I join you in being grateful for the strong property language in the ACNA documents. However, I still wish there was more understanding regarding ACNA governance.  I know I am confused.

One of the articles linked above cites financial misconduct at this church. If there was financial misconduct involving a clergy member at your church, who has the right to discipline, the Vestry or Bishop? If both, what if they disagree? Who has the right to appoint a Priest in charge in the event of a suspension or firing, and what powers does he have? To answer these questions you have to weigh your church governing documents, Diocisian Canons and state and federal law.  Vagueness or confusion can be tolerated when things are good, but problematic when conflict arises. One benefit of public discussion about what happened at this church, the AMIA and elsewhere is that it should prompt us to make a deeper inquiry as to our own practices.

I will withdraw from this thread because I am pushing it off course, but I hope at some point there is a forum to discuss some of these issues.

Generally, when a priest’s employment as rector is terminated, the bishop is notified and told of the reason(s) for the termination, upon which notification he sends in a locum tenens until such time as the parish concerned hires a new rector.  That locum tenens, or acting rector, is in charge until the new rector arrives.

Firstly, thanks for publishing this article. It is important that as many people possible be informed about these things.

Public opinion matters in law: judges as a whole are influenced to some degree by the groundswell of public belief. This effect is so imperceptible that most people (lawyers included) are not aware of it. But it does make a difference. I don’t know what the rights and wrongs of this story are, but if it is another case of orthodox believers being oppressed through property rights, then it is important that this become known.  Sooner or later there is going to be a public backlash against the behaviour of groups like 815.

Secondly, thanks for the info from posters about C&MA;. LeTourneau’s story is amazing: He was one of the men who made America great - his whole life devoted to achieving REAL improvements in productivity in earth-moving. His millions didn’t come from investing in bubble products.

Yet he adopted the attitude that he only needed a certain amount to live on (and he seems to have lived quite modestly) and his huge personal earnings above and beyond that amount were given to the Lord’s work.

As someone who writes and edits IT contracts, I always put a “30-day out” clause in every agreement.  As the customer, I can cancel the agreement without cause by giving the vendor 30-days notice and receive a pro-rata refund of annual maintenance or other pre-paid fees.

I highly recommend that the same type of clause be part of any constitution or canons of the church - that a parish can leave a diocese and denomination, or a diocese can leave a denomination for any reason by giving the appropriate leadership 30-days written notice, and that the denomination has NO RIGHTS to property or anything else belonging to the parish, and the parish or denomination would receive a pro-rata refund of any pre-paid fees.

Then you have it in black and white.

Sarah # 28,
I didn’t think. My apologies.

For #39 This woman felon signed the papers the C&MA; District is using in court to claim the property! 
Jeremiah 17:11 (AMPLIFIED BIBLE)
11Like the partridge that gathers a brood which she did not hatch and sits on eggs which she has not laid, so is he who gets riches by unjust means and not by right. He will leave them, or they will leave him, in the midst of his days, and at his end he will be a fool.

Something does not seem right in this situation at all. Based on the legal documents linked by DaveG #41, the Paramus Community Church doesn’t seem to have gotten much of anything out of its affiliation with the CMA, except the theft of its property. The timeline crafted by the CMA district shows important problems:

1) The church in question has owned this property since 1929.
2) On January 24, 1996, it joined the CMA as an “accredited church” (basically meaning a mature CMA church and it must have met the qualifications for accreditation at that time). It amends its corporate docs to note their affiliation with CMA.
3) September 16, 2009, Pastor Smaha informs the district that the church’s treasurer embezzled the church’s money.
4) On September 28, 2009, district officials meet with church leaders and apparently learn for the first time that the church had financial and membership problems and that the church had not had church elders for sometime.
5) October 14, 2009, district officals met with the pastor who told them that the church had been in decline for 20 years. At that time, it only had 12 to 20 in average weekly attendance.

So, this church joins the CMA in 1996 during a period of decline, and it takes the CMA 13 YEARS for it to realize that there are problems!!! Wait a minute. Did district officials ever visit this church before they found out that the treasurer embezzled money??? What has the CMA ever actually done to help this church which apparently is under its authority and care???

6) On or about November 10, 2009, the CMA district demoted the church’s status from “accredited” to “development status” apparently because of its financial and membership deficiencies. That same day, the very same day, the district decides to close the church!

So, the district demotes this church’s status to a developing church, but never tries to help the church develop. There is not indication from the district’s own timeline that they had more than a superficial involvement with this church. The same day the district demotes it to developing status it also decided to close the church.

#31 “On the other hand, the denomination looks after its pastors and missionaries well.”

This has not been what I’ve seen in the C&MA; here in Pennsylvania.  I’ve heard from more than one source that pastors are paid poorly and are not well-supported.  One of my seminary (Gordon-Conwell) class-mates wound up leaving the C&MA; for the United Methodists because of such issues.

For #51.  This is the salary of a Christian & Missionary Alliance Pastor college and seminary educated. One quarter of all yearly offerings that came into church went to C&MA; headquarters for the Great Commission Fund for missions work and administration.  Plus special offerings were taken for missions three times a year.  The pastor had no control over where money was given or spent. Want to work for the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church in a local congregation?

#1 Full TIME PASTOR
PARSONAGE PROVIDED
$75 a week before taxes 1981 Baltimore MD
ALL Ministry Expenses paid by pastor NO reinbursement or benefits
#2 Pastorate 1982 Salary increased to $175 a week DELAWARE PARSONAGE PROVIDED
ALL Ministry Expenses paid by pastor NO reinbursement or benefits
#3 Pastorate 1985 to 2010 PHILADELPHIA AREA
SALARY $200 a week 1985
Salary Increase $265 a week 1986-2010 PARSONAGE PROVIDED
ALL Ministry Expenses paid by pastor NO reinbursement or benefits.
Was told repeatedly: Pastor You must learn to trust God!

45—do the canons of your diocese accept the right of a Vestry to unilaterally dismiss its Rector?

47—A 30 or 60 day “without cause” exit clause would be a good improvement.

This is all very surprising to me. I have been privileged to go on medical missions with the Christian Medical and Dental Association, and many of the professional staff and volunteers I met in that organization were CMA.  All of the CMA members I met appeared to be sincere and enthusiastic Christians. Many of them have given their lives to missionary work, or have sacrificed heavily from their personal interests to advance corporal and spiritual works of mercy.  I am very sorry that some aspects of the leadership of their denomination do not appear worthy of these brothers and sisters in Christ.

I grew up in the C&MA; and passed this story on to my relatives when it first came across the wire.  The C&MA; just sent out the following email in response:

Over the past few weeks, numerous stories have surfaced through both printed and Internet media channels regarding the closing of the Community Church of Paramus (NJ). However, many of the statements published are simply untrue. One story that appeared in WND online gave significant voice to those disgruntled with the The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA;) and the Metropolitan District and slanted the story in a way that seemed to justify the angry, unfounded accusations of these individuals. The WND story has been reposted to Facebook and other social media outlets, causing some alarm within the C&MA; and the greater body of Christ. The purpose of this release is to clarify the facts surrounding the closure of the Community Church of Paramus.

According to Bruce Terpstra, superintendent of the Metropolitan District, the District Executive Committee made a decision to close the Community Church of Paramus more than two years ago. The events precipitating the closure included (1) the embezzlement of church funds; (2) the absence of constitutional leadership; (3) deficient spiritual and administrative oversight; and (4) the assessment of the District leadership team that the church was no longer viable based on the church’s own bylaws.

The Community Church of Paramus had been affiliated with The Christian and Missionary Alliance since the mid-1960s. In 1996 the church voted unanimously to become an accredited church in The Alliance. In the years that followed, the church enjoyed a fruitful relationship with the Metropolitan District and the C&MA;. By 2009, however, the church had suffered a significant decline in attendance and was experiencing financial difficulties. Over a two-month observation period, church attendance ranged from 10 to 16, including the pastor and his family. The financial desperation of the church was causing its leaders to make decisions that would encumber both the church and the District, forcing the District to close the church and thus invoke the reversion clause in accordance with constitutional procedures and regulations.

The district had offered to allow the few remaining members of the church body to continue meeting in the building as an associated church (with no direct oversight by the District) while a growing new congregation would take responsibility for the building and its cost of operations.  The church refused, attempted to revise its articles to remove the reversion clause, and voted to leave The Alliance. It retained legal counsel, which advised the church’s leadership to cut all communications with The Alliance.  The District also attempted to resolve the dispute by seeking binding arbitration with Christian conciliators. The church again refused. The District, still liable for the ministry and the property, had no choice but to turn to the legal system to resolve this conflict.

It is sad that the remnant of the congregation has sought to malign brothers and sisters in Christ in hopes of winning public sympathy. The truth is that the Community Church of Paramus made a conscious decision to become an accredited C&MA; church, to adopt the reversion clause, to agree to the governing documents of the C&MA;, and to reap the benefits of denominational community, accountability, and resourcing.  When the time came that the church was no longer viable, the remnant decided it did not want to honor the previous commitment. It is even more regrettable that others have chosen to exploit this situation to make disparaging accusations against the C&MA; and the Metropolitan District with neither full knowledge of the facts nor evidence to support their claims.

The Metropolitan District of the C&MA; is a growing church movement that has started more than 60 churches over the past 10 years.  Its mission is to make fully-devoted disciples of Christ in the metropolitan areas of New York and New Jersey, in the United States, and around the world. When a church within the district must close, its remaining resources are used for that mission alone.

The Christian and Missionary Alliance in the United States is part of a worldwide family of Christians mobilized to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18–20) by living out the fullness of Jesus Christ in personal experience, building His Church, and carrying His light to the darkest parts of our neighborhoods and the nations (Acts 1:8).

Check http://www.wnd.com 1/05/2012 for the rebutal of this post by the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church by investigative reporter Dave Tomber for World Net Daily.

Daniel [6] But there is a pedophile lurking in the background.  His name is Bede Parry.  We don’t know if he has assaulted anyone since coming into TEC, but we do know that KJS knew that he was a confessed sex offender, and she still let him in.  We know that the HOB is aware of this and, to this date, has remained silent.  This is the one that we know about.  How many others are there? 
You are correct.  Because TEC has asserted ownership over all property, real and personal, in TEC, every church is at risk, every bank account it at risk, every church owned chalice, alb, cassock, chasuble, and stole is at risk. 
Churches that make all parish property an asset of the diocese put every parish property at risk.

Check http://www.wnd.com for the rebutal of this post by the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church by investigative reporter Dave Tomber for World Net Daily.
This article is on the front page in flash article box.

Josip:

That is a very interesting follow up article and thanks for bringing it to our attention.  It can be accessed directly using this link.

It’s all worth reading but two points really stood out:

There also remain questions about why the church would be shut down with 15, 20, or 50 participants when there were only 13 members when the conference agreed in 1996 to accept the congregation.

. . .

Smaha said the embezzlement suggests much, but it was the church that discovered a treasurer over time allegedly had taken money from the church account to pay her debts.

“We wanted to handle her in a God-honoring way and not involve courts or police, so we called the district for biblical advice. They told us we needed to ‘pursue charges’ against her, which we were reluctant to do,” he said.

Smaha told WND that it was in a meeting at the church regarding how to biblically handle this congregant that the district discovered how nice the church building was.

“They hadn’t set foot in our building for years,” he said. “Now that we fixed the roof and remodeled it, they see a value.”

This Episcopalian says, “Hmmm!”

Josip, that is an interesting article. It’s amazing that two groups (the congregation and the district) both claiming to be Christian can have such different versions of the story. Someone is not being truthful in this whole thing.

If the District and national church were desirous of taking over the property and selling it, why is it that there is another congregation about to enter the church and commence worship and outreach from there?  The facility is once again to be used for the purpose for which it was acqured - worship, ministry, outreach.  The rest is slander.

57.  Yep, and that means everything….including the kids’ Sunday School crayons!  Talk about mean!