Church "by laws" and "convenants"

[praise_yeshua]

I was reading through a churches "by laws" recently and I couldn't keep myself from getting "sad"....

First let me say..... If the New Covenant isn't good enough for you...... Then all the various "church covenants" man has come up with aren't going to help you. By the way... The "New Covenant" is MORE than good enough.

I know most of these documents are written for legal purposes to provide a means of controlling a congregation/pastor/elders/members to some point.

What do you think of church "by laws" and "covenants"?

 

[Fresh Air]

I don't think I want my people personally liable if we get sued and they are a necessary accompaniment of incorporation. Incorporation is not permission from the govt to exist; it is a structure of legal protection. Scripture teaches us to be organized and prudent.

...ergo, I have no problem with constitution and bylaws.

 

[breslau]

Covenant membership where the elders decide if you can withdraw your membership.  It was in the news when a woman left her child porn watching husband because the elders said she needed to forgive her husband.


http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/why-covenant-membership/

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Covenant membership where the elders decide if you can withdraw your membership.  It was in the news when a woman left her child porn watching husband because the elders said she needed to forgive her husband.


http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/why-covenant-membership/

And it was mentioned where the church leadership apologized to her and she forgave them:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/matt-chandler-apologizes-for-village-churchs-decision-to-di.html

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't think I want my people personally liable if we get sued and they are a necessary accompaniment of incorporation. Incorporation is not permission from the govt to exist; it is a structure of legal protection. Scripture teaches us to be organized and prudent.

...ergo, I have no problem with constitution and bylaws.

I figured I'd get a response along this line of thinking.

So... "by laws and church covenants" are for legal purposes? I have to honestly believe this is more of a excuse than a real answer.

IF there were no "legal issues"..... then what would you believe?

Could you define a few legal issues that "by laws and church covenants" prevent?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Covenant membership where the elders decide if you can withdraw your membership.  It was in the news when a woman left her child porn watching husband because the elders said she needed to forgive her husband.


http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/why-covenant-membership/

I was read the "by laws" from a church that was almost "word for word" identical to this one. In fact, the website is almost identical. Both churches are over a thousand of miles apart and run different people. Looks like most of it came from a template.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Covenant membership where the elders decide if you can withdraw your membership.  It was in the news when a woman left her child porn watching husband because the elders said she needed to forgive her husband.


http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/why-covenant-membership/

And it was mentioned where the church leadership apologized to her and she forgave them:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/matt-chandler-apologizes-for-village-churchs-decision-to-di.html

Do you really need a church "by law" or "covenant" to fire someone for getting involved in child porn?

 

[Fresh Air]

I don't think I want my people personally liable if we get sued and they are a necessary accompaniment of incorporation. Incorporation is not permission from the govt to exist; it is a structure of legal protection. Scripture teaches us to be organized and prudent.

...ergo, I have no problem with constitution and bylaws.

I figured I'd get a response along this line of thinking.

So... "by laws and church covenants" are for legal purposes? I have to honestly believe this is more of a excuse than a real answer.

IF there were no "legal issues"..... then what would you believe?

Could you define a few legal issues that "by laws and church covenants" prevent?

Already did.

How is that an excuse vs. a reason?

...if there were no legal issues I would still want a constitution. It protects the church from an abusive pastor whose word alone is law and protects a pastor from an abusive church with a mob mentality. It clearly sets forth expectations and processes so that there can be no confusion. It protects from anarchy.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't think I want my people personally liable if we get sued and they are a necessary accompaniment of incorporation. Incorporation is not permission from the govt to exist; it is a structure of legal protection. Scripture teaches us to be organized and prudent.

...ergo, I have no problem with constitution and bylaws.

I figured I'd get a response along this line of thinking.

So... "by laws and church covenants" are for legal purposes? I have to honestly believe this is more of a excuse than a real answer.

IF there were no "legal issues"..... then what would you believe?

Could you define a few legal issues that "by laws and church covenants" prevent?

Already did.

How is that an excuse vs. a reason?

...if there were no legal issues I would still want a constitution. It protects the church from an abusive pastor whose word alone is law and protects a pastor from an abusive church with a mob mentality. It clearly sets forth expectations and processes so that there can be no confusion. It protects from anarchy.

What do you mean by "personal liability"?

While it might protect against the anarchy of the pastor, the local church has always been about the members. Some "by laws" and "covenants" protect the leadership.

 

[subllibrm]

As we have seen in the recent past, biblical truth alone will not hold up in court. Having written documentation of how an organization is operated, and policies that are aligned with said documentation, is helpful when the tares decide to sue the church over some issue or another.

Having documentation of why an organization is run in a particular manner is helpful when actions and decision are questioned. It also provides a framework for leadership to make decisions in a consistent manner.

And while I don't doubt that some parts of a churches bylaws may seem to be (or actually be) pragmatic over biblical, the documents should be aligned with scriptural principles that can be declared, defined and defended.

 

[subllibrm]

What do you mean by "personal liability"?

I can't speak for Tom but in our case, as an independent church that is "owned" by the congregation, corporate status separates the personal from the corporeal. So if the church were to get sued, the only assets available to the plaintiff would be those held in the name of the corporation. They may be able to bankrupt the church corporately but not all the of the members individually.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What do you mean by "personal liability"?

I can't speak for Tom but in our case, as an independent church that is "owned" by the congregation, corporate status separates the personal from the corporeal. So if the church were to get sued, the only assets available to the plaintiff would be those held in the name of the corporation. They may be able to bankrupt the church corporately but not all the of the members individually.

Why would someone sue the church? and do you have any legal reference where a "by law" or "covenant" prevented an individual from being "sued" in such a case?

I'm looking or real examples. Not something "hypothetical" that might apply regardless of "by law" and "covenant".

 

[Ransom]

I was reading through a churches "by laws" recently and I couldn't keep myself from getting "sad"....

You were already a little sad, so what's the difference?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I was reading through a churches "by laws" recently and I couldn't keep myself from getting "sad"....

You were already a little sad, so what's the difference?

Ha Ha. You're such a comic visionary!!!

 

[Ransom]

Ha Ha. You're such a comic visionary!!!

And you're just a boring contrarian. No "ha ha" necessary.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ha Ha. You're such a comic visionary!!!

And you're just a boring contrarian. No "ha ha" necessary.

You should be gracious in defeat. You've following in the foot steps of rsca.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What do you mean by "personal liability"?

I can't speak for Tom but in our case, as an independent church that is "owned" by the congregation, corporate status separates the personal from the corporeal. So if the church were to get sued, the only assets available to the plaintiff would be those held in the name of the corporation. They may be able to bankrupt the church corporately but not all the of the members individually.

Why would someone sue the church?

Pedophilia and child abuse would be examples. And for your side of the argument, it protects individuals who either allegedly committed the crime and the leaders who allegedly protected the criminal from civil suits and put the financial burden on the innocents throughout the church body.

 

[subllibrm]

What do you mean by "personal liability"?

I can't speak for Tom but in our case, as an independent church that is "owned" by the congregation, corporate status separates the personal from the corporeal. So if the church were to get sued, the only assets available to the plaintiff would be those held in the name of the corporation. They may be able to bankrupt the church corporately but not all the of the members individually.

Why would someone sue the church? and do you have any legal reference where a "by law" or "covenant" prevented an individual from being "sued" in such a case?

I'm looking or real examples. Not something "hypothetical" that might apply regardless of "by law" and "covenant".

Off the top of my head I would say that the lawsuit against John MacArthur would be an example. If the church were not incorporated the plaintiff could have named every member of the church as a defendant.

 

[Fresh Air]

Why would someone sue the church? ...

I don't think I can continue this conversation. The question alone indicates a staggering breadth of ignorance. I'm not trying to be unkind, but honestly?

<smh>

 

[bgwilkinson]

What do you mean by "personal liability"?

I can't speak for Tom but in our case, as an independent church that is "owned" by the congregation, corporate status separates the personal from the corporeal. So if the church were to get sued, the only assets available to the plaintiff would be those held in the name of the corporation. They may be able to bankrupt the church corporately but not all the of the members individually.

Why would someone sue the church? and do you have any legal reference where a "by law" or "covenant" prevented an individual from being "sued" in such a case?

I'm looking or real examples. Not something "hypothetical" that might apply regardless of "by law" and "covenant".

We just went through that because of a former employee.

When the congregation owns a not for profit they are protected individually from personal liability.

It is even more important in a smaller congregation where there are fewer members who would each bear a larger share of the burden.