This is why congregations should own their own property
PCA does just that.
Amen to that. It is one thing if the parent church pays for and provides the building; quite another if the local congregation raises the money and builds.
No, this is why congregations should RENT. I've lost track of the number of cases I've read, where Leftists invade and take over a congregation for the purpose of seizing the assets. If the property is either rented, or heavily mortgaged, so that the only thing keeping it afloat is the weekly contributions of the congregation, then there is nothing for Leftists to covet.
The original reasons for denominations owning property were good reasons. (1) It prevented takeover specialists from flooding churches with their own people and essentially stealing the property by getting into voting positions and voting it to themselves. (2) It prevented easy departure for piddling reasons.
As always, the problem with any hierarchy is that it, too, must remain faithful. If the leadership is lost, then the church will be steered in a sinful direction.
The problem for the future is that these churches will now have to vest the property in their own trustees, and these can become corrupt over time also.
I think the best answer might be for churches to rent properties rather than own them.