Posted on 07/25/2007 3:58:21 AM PDT by monomaniac
Judge Upholds Decision of Church to Leave Denomination Over Homosexual "Marriage"
By Elizabeth O'Brien
HUNTINGTON, July 23, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An Indiana judge upheld the decision of a church congregation to leave the United Church of Christ (UCC) because of the denomination's official recognition of gay "marriage."
St. Peter's First United Church of Christ has been part of the UCC for 50 years, the Indianapolis Star reports. The congregation was concerned, however, when the UCC voiced its official support for homosexual "marriage" in 2005.
At its 25th General Synod the UCC declared that the 1.3-million organization officially supported same-sex "marriage". According to the declaration the UCC, "affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the State should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized marriage."
The concerned congregation of St. Peter's held some open forum discussion and then decided to hold a vote in September of 2005. The results were 115 to 92 in favor of leaving the UCC. Joanna Kline, Administrative Secretary of St. Peter's First Church, told LifeSiteNews.com that a couple of church members who wanted to remain UCC then sued the local church council president, Brian Royer, and all his designees, but they did not sue the church itself.
The UCC refused to recognize St. Peter's decision to leave and joined in the suit. "They had not released St. Peter's from being one of their congregations," said Kline. This Friday, however, Special Judge David L. Hanselman Sr. removed the two-year restraining order, allowing St. Peter's to become independent. Kline added that because the decision is so recent, they haven't heard back yet from the UCC. She is confident, however, that the organization will respect the court decision.
Kline also told LifeSiteNews.com that since St. Peter's decision to leave, "We have not dropped in the average attendance." In fact, she continued, "We have had some new people come in. And the people who have stuck it through have grown so much in spirit and faith. It's like they've been through the 'refiner's fire'. We've got real good Bible teaching going on now that's just been wonderful."
Kline explained the church's reasons for leaving, saying, "We really felt the UCC crossed a line that we couldn't cross with them. They were endorsing something that God has stated is a sin as something that is no longer a sin. For us, it's not loving someone to tell them that their sin isn't a sin. The Church is a hospital for sinners, but we don't tell anyone their sin isn't a sin."
At present, St. Peters will continue running in much the same way as before. Even under the UCC, stated Kline, each church is its own entity and has its own rules. Although the council may look into re-affiliating with someone in future, the church will remain independent for a time.
Read related LifeSiteNews coverage:
US United Church of Christ Sanctions Gay "Marriage"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05070501.html
United Church of Canada Petitions MPs in Support of Same-Sex Marriage http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05012408.html
Am I correct that the UCC would have owned the real estate and the building that the congregation uses? Do they do that?
Freedom of religion (faith in this case) in action and condoned by a judge. Wow! Martin Luther is all smiles in his grave.
It’s sad that this sort of thing requires a court order. For whatever reason a congregation wishes to separate from an organization, it should be handled among Christians.
Immaterial. This should not have come to a civil suit. There are prohibitions in the bible against bringing this kind of matter to the civil authorities. However, as it was UCC and the losers in the vote who did that, I have no doubt that they are in the wrong, just on that score. What are they trying to do? Force people into a faith position? That never works very well.
The Congregational Christian churches clearly own their own property and assest, as there was no national body to hold anything (just a council of equals that got together occasionally). The E&R did have a national body that could hold assets, but mostly the regional synods would have had that power. The UCC Constitution clearly provides that churches have the right to withdraw and to keep their assets (unlike the Episcopal Church).
If the church that withdrew was a former Congo church, there would be no issue at all EXCEPT for the fact that the local church bylaws had a provision that if there were a split in the church, the one remaining with the UCC got the assets. That might have been a holdover from an E&R congregation's old bylaws or something new; I don't know.
This was clearly the correct decision, both as a matter of corporate law (churches are usually nonprofit corporations) and as a matter of UCC church polity. It is astonishing that the UCC hierarchy joined the lawsuit, but, then, the exceptionally left-wing leadership in Cleveland is remarkably heavy-handed and ham-fisted.
PS, given the name is “St. Peters” this was almost certainly an E&R congregation before the merger - Congregational Christian Churches were never (almost never?) named for saints, and the term “saint” was hardly ever used in a Congo church except to refer to all believers in the older literature. A Congo church would have been “First Congregation Church of X” (or 2nd or 3rd etc. or “[a place location] Congregational Church” or perhaps something like “Plymouth Church”.
The Bible? As an authority in a liberal, feel-good church? You are kidding, right?
Optimistic of me, admittedly. Still, just because people think the “two-edged sword” is blunt, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use it... :@
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.