Can someone explain this to me...?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

This is one of the worst news articles I've ever seen. It is so vague and purports pretty substantial fraud. I'm fairly sure I'd be correct in assuming that the article is wrong. I wouldn't expect one to, but I'd imagine a District Superintendent could sue for libel on something like this:

Church of the Nazarene shuts doors, tells members to "get out", and DS takes $25,000 to be put in "his account"
http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=7815832

Can someone clear it up? Or perhaps e-mail the district office to let them know that the media is publishing this? Barb B., I think you're on this district...?

[Kevin Rector]

Hmmm...

I'm guessing the district office has a --very-- good explanation that wasn't mentioned in the news article.

[Kevin Rector]

I contacted the district office to let them know about it.

Upon further reflection, the thing that bothers me is that it make our denomination look like very arbitrary things can happen from "the powers that be". My guess is that the pastor resigned or was removed or the church was declared to be in crisis or that the church was de-actived. I would bet my next two weeks salary (a figure of speech, I don't actually gamble) that everything (whatever it was) was actually done above board and according to the manual.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

This was most likely a church in crisis. The money would not have gone into the DS's account. It would have gone into the District's account. I think, things like this have to be done at times. It may become a newstart, later, and they will most likely worship somewhere else, for quite awhile, until the district can decide what seems best, and use the money to start again.

On the other hand, I can imagine, how the people feel. Some churches in Memphis, have been closed down, and later restarted as a black people's church. It sounded like elderly people, and they may not realized how out of line they were .

In one situation, that I won't name, the few old members, seemed to need to be relocated, in order to help the black congregation, that was out numbering the whites, to be able to have some control of the church.

I know one church, that the pastor, fired all of the board members. Don't ask me, how he got by with that? He had come from another sister denomination, He is with Jesus now. We found out quite soon, when two couples knocked on our door after a Wednesday night service, and reported what was happening. You know, that that says "Problems" immediately. The other church was within 25 miles of where Dwayne was pastoring, at the time.

Eventually, Dwayne was called to that church. We were at a church that had had a split, and ran the pastor off, and was without a pastor for nine months. Dwayne loved it so much, but after praying, he took the other chuch. I think, we must be peace makers.

But, whatever was done, as has been said, would have been legal. Concerning one of these churches, the DS ask Dwayne what he thought should be done about a certain church, and Dwayne told him to not send another pastor. Dwayne was one that did not get "run off," from there.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Because my husband is on the DAB and because he was involved in this situation and because this will end up in court most likely, I cannot tell you all I know about this situation and what has happened during this past week.

Let me tell you this:

1. The D.S. did everything by the Manual and the law and documented everything they did.
2. Yes, this church was declared a church in crisis and closed, declared "inactive" by the D.S. wiht approval of the General Supt.
3. The D.S. has had several meetings with this church in recent months to discuss its problems...always with a witness along.
4. Funds were placed in the district account, according to Manual directions and legal directions.
5. The district, including local pastors, helped the pastor and wife load up and move.
6. The church was given the day of the meeting to remove anything they wanted that they had given to the church and also given a contact person if they thought of other things they wanted later.
7. District office had no phone calls or messages left by this reporter...or by that TV station.
8. The lady quoted in the article has not attended that church in years.

Now, as a pastor's wife who has been on this district for 33 years and have pastored within an hour of that town twice, covering 15 years, I can tell you my observations.

This church has had 5 pastors in 7 years. 3 of them young men, 1 in his 40's and one in his 60's. They have all shared with John and me the problems in that church that have hindered their ministries and the church growth. When a church drives out pastors that fast, something is wrong.

3 District Superintendents in a row have discussed closing this church because of continuing problems. I have heard them say so with my own ears at district level meetings.

I can tell you that this article and this TV spot has several lies in it.

It is my opinion, according to what I have heard over the years and recently from pastors of other denominations in that town that this church has a very bad reputation in that town.

Barb

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Thanks, very much, Barb.

I figured the media found someone with an axe to grind, and served as the grindstone.

It's just too bad that "freedom of the press" doesn't translate into "the right of the public to the correct information."

[Jeremy D. Scott]

And God bless our DSs who deal with situations such as these.

[Greg Farra]

Well, I think this is why they tell us not to jump to conclusions. Often, the smoke needs to settle before we can figure out what's really going on. And I don't trust one press story on it's own.

[Jim Franklin]

Sometimes it seems that the press like some federal bureaucrats that if there is a way to mess up the facts or the purpose of their assignment they will find it someway or other.

[Anita F. Henck]

Sometimes it seems that the press like some federal bureaucrats that if there is a way to mess up the facts or the purpose of their assignment they will find it someway or other.

Jim--
I'm sure you didn't mean it as a cheap shot. But, it seems like one nonetheless. My husband is a federal employee of 30+ years experience. He has many good hardworking colleagues. I don't think they "mess up the facts or the purpose of their assignment". In fact, he's investigating Medicare fraud and has helped returned millions to the taxpayers.

No need to apologize; just take care in not maligning innocent people when you make such characterizations. Like public school teachers (who get a bad rap from some), many government workers are conscientious, and quite a few could be sitting in a pew next to you!
==anita==

[Jim Franklin]

Anita, I consciously and purposely chose the word "some" so that no one would take it as a blanket indictment. It is the press who generally picks up on the supposition that a federal employee has fallen short and publishes the situation but when the press falls short there is an effort by them to cover it up. I have a number of friends who are federal employees and I am certain they as well as your husband try always to do their best and I would never purposely malign any of them.

I hope you are coming to Nampa soon for an interview for the open administration position. It would be great to have two Nazarene colleges with lady presidents.

[Anita F. Henck]

Anita, I consciously and purposely chose the word "some" so that no one would take it as a blanket indictment. It is the press who generally picks up on the supposition that a federal employee has fallen short and publishes the situation but when the press falls short there is an effort by them to cover it up. I have a number of friends who are federal employees and I am certain they as well as your husband try always to do their best and I would never purposely malign any of them.

I hope you are coming to Nampa soon for an interview for the open administration position. It would be great to have two Nazarene colleges with lady presidents.


Jim--
If it is truly a FEW who mess up, then let's not perpetuate those stories by repeating them and hurt the (hopefully) majority who are conscientious.

As for the NNU position -- I have no idea why my name would come to mind. I'm not nominated, not applying, and not seeking an administrative post. I'm delighted to be teaching fulltime. Thanks for your kind thoughts but let's not start rumors, especially since there is no basis in fact. :)

Blessings,
==anita==

[Gina Stevenson]

As for the NNU position -- I have no idea why my name would come to mind. I'm not nominated, not applying, and not seeking an administrative post. I'm delighted to be teaching fulltime. Thanks for your kind thoughts but let's not start rumors, especially since there is no basis in fact. :)

Blessings,
==anita==

Yes, why would Anita want to leave southern California, for snowy Idaho, now that she's managed to get back to such an aesthetically pleasing clime once again!? ;)

[Jim Franklin]

To remind her of the joys she had in the snows of New England. Anita, I really meant to draw the disparity between how the federal employees are treated so much differently than the press folks by the press. I was just recalling that I had hoped she would apply for the opening at Trevecca two years ago and that Andrew had originally visited there as a possibility of attending Trevecca. I am always quite interested in the leadership of our church and its institutions whether it is a college administrative position, a district superintendency or a HQ position. I did not mean to get in trouble with the ladies.

Gina, I hope when Hans gets here he can take and post some pictures of our beautiful snowy mountains so you can see if not appreciate their aesthetic value. I am to meet him here tomorrow evening.

[Gina Stevenson]

I did not mean to get in trouble with the ladies.

Not in trouble ... yet. ;)

Gina, I hope when Hans gets here he can take and post some pictures of our beautiful snowy mountains so you can see if not appreciate their aesthetic value. I am to meet him here tomorrow evening.

Hey, I know what snow-covered mountains look like; remember, I used to live where there are mountains. However, I lived below them ... way below them ... where it didn't snow! :eek: I do miss "my" mountains ... but have never lived right in them ... only visited them, and lived where I could daily see them. Haven't seen a mountain in years now ........ :(

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I got this article today:
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/02/02092008_Church-will-not-suffer-little-children-to-play-ball-on-field.cfm

Here's good reporting - an unfortunate situation, but the reporter contacted all parties involved (including the DS), and gave everyone a chance to respond.

[Scott Sherwood]

Great quote from the D.S.

Hugh Smith, the district superintendent of the Washington Pacific District of the Church of the Nazarene in Edmonds, said he is familiar with the Pleasant View situation, if not the motivations of board.

"Churches are there to serve the community," Smith said. "This particular board put the brakes on it. I have no idea why. It's a disappointment to me personally.

"When I was a pastor," he said, "the attitude always was, if you're going to put a cross on a building and call it a church, you're there to serve the community. I don't know why the people at that church took such a hard-right position.

"What suffers is the image of Jesus in that community."

[Cindi Hammons]

The Columbian asked Knapp for a roster of board members or other contact information; Knapp said he twice consulted his superiors in the Nazarene church hierarchy and was told not to provide the information.

Help me here...isn't this supposed to be public information? Surely someone in the congregation agrees with the poor kids and will "crack" with the info! Sometimes church boards get so wrapped up in themselves and "rules" that they cannot see the results of their actions.

[Ryan Scott]

Yeah, that initial article from Missouri had some shoddy reporting, evidence by the fact that they didn't even get the name of the district correct. I wonder if the journalist had a connection to the congregation.

This matter will probably end up in court and the district may have some problems with this. If the congregation has supported themselves without district help, they may have a good case. I know of one court that found the Manual provision for District ownership of property to be unlawful if the congregation paid for the building and maintained it without district help.

It will be an interesting situation to follow.

[Dave McClung]

I got this article today:
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/02/02092008_Church-will-not-suffer-little-children-to-play-ball-on-field.cfm

Here's good reporting - an unfortunate situation, but the reporter contacted all parties involved (including the DS), and gave everyone a chance to respond.

I applaud my DS, Hugh Smith, for giving a statement that is critical of the church board. In my opinion, this is another example of a local church with a "one thousand talent" way of thinking.

Pastor Knapp talked to me about the situation (as a friend and not as an attorney). The primary concern expressed by the board members was "potential liability." It seems to me that the concern could easily be resolved with insurance coverage.

Pray for Pastor Knapp and his young family. Because of this situation, Mike is looking for a church assignment. In the past, he was an associate at Gig Harbor Church of the Nazarene.

[Barb Bouldrey]

It really tells you something when the pastor and the district superintendent will speak out against that local church board decision to a newspaper reporter!

How sad that the name of Christ and the Church of the Nazarene was embarassed by this situation in Washington. Just as the situation in Missouri hurts the name of Christ.

I do not think any pastor should give out the names of church board members to the press. If the press wants to know and contact them, the press can dig the information out from someone else. All they would need to do would be to call the church office and ask. Or just chat with anyone who attends.

Years ago I remember the same kind of battle in Oklahoma as we are facing on our district. I do not remember the outcome of that court battle over church property.

If we start allowing people to take over ownership of church property when a church is closed we are setting a precedent and any congregation can decided to go independent and take their property. I think that is why our denomination has the Manual guideline that all local church property belongs to the district.

Barb

[Dave McClung]

Yeah, that initial article from Missouri had some shoddy reporting, evidence by the fact that they didn't even get the name of the district correct. I wonder if the journalist had a connection to the congregation.

This matter will probably end up in court and the district may have some problems with this. If the congregation has supported themselves without district help, they may have a good case. I know of one court that found the Manual provision for District ownership of property to be unlawful if the congregation paid for the building and maintained it without district help.

It will be an interesting situation to follow.

Ryan
I am not familiar with the case you mentioned, but if you heard it correctly, the judge erred -- bad law.

If the District followed the Manual, it doesn't have a legal problem. The rule of law is that a court won't intervene in the internal affairs of a church unless the church doesn't follow its own rules. My guess is that the case you mentioned involved a situation where the Manual wasn't followed.

In this kind of situation, there are often threats of litigation. Actual litigation is rare because of practical issues -- the members who want to litigate have to fund the litigation from their own pockets and any recovery goes back to the local church, not to the members. The result is that the member's legal costs are not recoverable. For that reason, people go to the newspaper rather than to the courts.

[Ryan Scott]

I won't claim to be an expert even on the one case I mentioned. I think it hinged on the manual provision for a church in crisis, where the attendance or membership has to be below a certain level.

My guess is that the district tried to impose their will on a congregation that was still, by the manual, of self-determining size.

I assume you would be more privy to this information than I would be, so perhaps I'm mistaken somewhere. I, obviously, got it second hand and the way it was told to me was that a congregation sought to leave the denomination and went to court to keep the building because they had financed (and did some of the) construction themselves. The court sided with them.

There may have been extenuating circumstances of which I'm not aware, but I thought it might be important to bring it up. This situation in Missouri seems to be that of a "church in crisis" whereby the district has sole authority, so I doubt it will be too complicated to work out.

[Dave McClung]

I won't claim to be an expert even on the one case I mentioned. I think it hinged on the manual provision for a church in crisis, where the attendance or membership has to be below a certain level.

My guess is that the district tried to impose their will on a congregation that was still, by the manual, of self-determining size.

I assume you would be more privy to this information than I would be, so perhaps I'm mistaken somewhere. I, obviously, got it second hand and the way it was told to me was that a congregation sought to leave the denomination and went to court to keep the building because they had financed (and did some of the) construction themselves. The court sided with them.

There may have been extenuating circumstances of which I'm not aware, but I thought it might be important to bring it up. This situation in Missouri seems to be that of a "church in crisis" whereby the district has sole authority, so I doubt it will be too complicated to work out.

And trial courts don't always follow the law. That is why there are appellate courts.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Ryan,

In your last post you added a phrase that tells the story...."that congregation sought to leave the denomination and went to court to keep the building."

That is why that ruling is in our Manual...to prevent that from happening. It had nothing to do with their attendence. I am shocked that the court allowed them to have the property. Perhaps that Nazarene church was not incorporated, which does help protect things like this from happening.

OH, I do hope this situation will not be too complicated. But I am afraid that it is going to take a long time to solve.

The article in the weekly paper for that town came out Thursday and there are so many false statements in it made by the people who are fighting this. And they misquoted John, who was there as the liason for the DAB.

John and 6 other area pastors went there to clean out the trash, Nazarene literature, etc. to get the building ready to sell and take down the Church of the Nazarene sign. Shortly after they arrived a group of people came with several police cars and the reporter.

John took the other pastors to lunch to avoid the television crew that he found out was on its way and later they returned and helped that pastor load up his UHaul and get on the road and away from the tension.

The things that have happened in this one week break my heart. It hurts to see the name of Christ embarassed in that community.

Barb

[Dale Cozby]

here is my thoughts on this:

The church people have some serious truth issues, serious authority issues, and have some serious carnality issues from what I can tell.

If a DAB felt it had to close them down then I am sure they needed to be closed years ago. Most likely they got some very carnal people dug in like ticks on a hound and they think they own everything and can do as they please. From what I read on a local forum for that town, I think that is the case.

It is very sad when a church once known for its loving service to thier community becomes the source of shameful division and discord in the Body of Christ in a public forum. Think Paul said something about taking each other to court and the nature of the people who would do such a thing.

[Bruce Carriker]

If we start allowing people to take over ownership of church property when a church is closed we are setting a precedent and any congregation can decided to go independent and take their property. I think that is why our denomination has the Manual guideline that all local church property belongs to the district.

Barb

Although I'm sure it's been looked at by lawyers, the Manual is not a legal document. It's provisions can be overturned by a court any time the court takes a notion. Whether that's bad law or not, we've all seen activist judges get involved in things that had previously been considered 'out of bounds'.

I'm all for pastoral oversight and the functions our DS's and district headquarters perform. But honestly, if the local church raised the money, bought the land, built the building, what right does the district have to take it away? "Because the Manual says so," seems like pretty shaky legal ground.

This fight is currently taking place with a number of Episcopal churches that have severed ties with their dioceses (and in some cases, with the ECUSA). I think that eventually congregations that wish to leave, and that can prove that there were no diocese or ECUSA funds used in the purchase of land or the construction of the building; or who are willing to repay the diocese or the ECUSA; are going to prevail. Once that happens, every denomination that is structured this way will have to re-write their church rules.

I have long felt that the confiscatory property rules of the CoN and others who are structured the same way were solely for the purpose of having a club to hold over the heads of local congregations.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Every church needs to be incorporated, I think. That is what was done at some churches Dwayne pastored. But, if the correct procedure was followed, the district, it seems would have won in the courts

[Michael B. Ross]

The primary concern expressed by the board members was "potential liability." It seems to me that the concern could easily be resolved with insurance coverage.

I sense the "potential liability" defense is a smokescreen. Sadly, this sounds like an old-fashioned power struggle being fueled by another issue. Just a hunch.

[John Kennedy]

This question of who owns the property is one being dealt with in a number of denominations. Bruce has cited the Episcopal situation. It has certainly been an issue in the United Methodist Church.

In every UM case I've heard of (and I read a number of 'dissident United Methodist' web sites that keep tabs on the sitiuation) the matter has been resolved in favor of the denomination. In the Nazarene church the issue was much more pertinent about 50 years ago when the BMC left.

I only know of only one situation in which the denomination didn't retain control of the property. That was in a midwestern state where the pastor had literally 'built' and financed the church in the 30's. Because of the financing situation, the property had been in his name and, somehow, the district had neglected to take the legal steps to move title to the denomination.

[Barb Bouldrey]

John Kennedy hit on something that helps us understand our procedure of a district maintaining ownership of all local church properties.

In 1972, when the GA voted to allowed divorced people to become members of the Church of the Nazarene, we lost many people who went off and formed their own new denominiation...the Bible Missionary Church.

If all of those people were allowed to withdraw from the Church of the Nazarene and allowed to keep the property where they worshiped, we would have lost a lot of local congregations and a lot of property.

I believe the system we have now protects the unity of the district and prevents church bosses from taking over and breaking away from our denomination and doing their own thing.

When a church has been founded on holiness and as a Church of the Nazarene, it should stay a Church of the Nazarene. If that local congregation decided they have a doctrinal shift and not longer agree with our Articles of Faith, they should not be allowed it just withdraw from the denomination and keep all their property.

We have a black church in St. Louis that recently withdrew from the denomination. Their reasoning was very understandable and they offered to buy their building from the district. Everything was done decently and above board and there was no friction or trouble. And it was not a doctrinal issue. We miss having them as a part of our district.

There has to be safeguards from allowing Big Voices in Small Ponds from taking control.

And Dale, you hit the nail on the head.

Barb

[John Kennedy]

Barbara -

Couple of items:

The BMC was formed in '55. Divorce was NOT particularly an issue. It related more to a feeling of a number of VERY conservative Nazarenes that the denomination had drifted, primarily in terms of behavioral standards, too far to be reformed.

Divorce did not become an issue until about '56 or '57 when a Nazarene pastor, who had been divorced on Biblical grounds, joined. At that point one of the founders, who was a rigid 'no-grounder' led a group out of the BMC to form another church. By the early 70's the denomination had split yet again.

[DA Weaver]

It makes one wonder.... how many churches are on the verge of this same thing happening to them?

[David Parker]

I do have some sympathy for local UMC and Episcopal churches where the parent denomination (or at least it's leaders) have left Bible orthodoxy in favor of Gay ordination and marriage and who now question the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.

It's a shame for local churches to have to lose what they have built and maintained for years because those above them have left the faith. Obviously not the same thing for the CoN....

[Barb Bouldrey]

Thanks John K.

I guess I confused the BMC with the group that left in 1972...after the GA voted on divorced people joining the church. I just remember a lot of people leaving over that issue and I thought they started their own holiness churhc.

David, you would have to know the details to understand why this issue of property is so important but i cannot share them on the internet.

I do understand the Episopcal situation. It is different.

Barb

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Here's another great story about a grace-full response of a Nazarene church that was presented with an unfortunate situation:
http://www.timesonline.com/articles/2008/02/25/news/doc47c37a43c5e6b895139741.txt