Church "by laws" and "convenants"

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tom Brennan]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.
[/quote]

Interesting...

...both of these examples would be a non-issue with multiple elders leading the church.

 

[rsc2a]

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".

"If you don't let me use your facilities for my gay wedding, I'll sue you."

 

[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".

"If you don't let me use your facilities for my gay wedding, I'll sue you."

Answer, " we don't do weddings you'll have to go to the county courthouse."

 

[rsc2a]

One way to handle it. I was just answering CU's question about why someone might sue a church

 

[Ransom]

You should be gracious in defeat.

You should be less boring or contrarian.

 

[Ransom]

Why would someone sue the church?

Assuming in both cases for the sake of argument that the allegations are accurate:

Because they've been disciplined and don't want to take responsibility for their own sins: Woman Sues Church Elders on Punishment

Because they have been sinned against by church officers and have a legitimate legal grievance: Megachurch subject of sexual harassment suit

Just doing the homework praise_yeezus is too lazy to do . . .

 

[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".

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.

Do you credit your "by laws" or "covenant" with protecting you?

 

[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".

"If you don't let me use your facilities for my gay wedding, I'll sue you."

This is private property. We do not lease or rent out this building for public purposes. Again. I don't see a need for a "by law" or "covenant".

 

[praise_yeshua]

Why would someone sue the church?

Assuming in both cases for the sake of argument that the allegations are accurate:

Because they've been disciplined and don't want to take responsibility for their own sins: Woman Sues Church Elders on Punishment

Because they have been sinned against by church officers and have a legitimate legal grievance: Megachurch subject of sexual harassment suit

Just doing the homework praise_yeezus is too lazy to do . . .

I read both articles and I don't see where a "church covenant" or "by laws" would have prevented the lawsuits or been the bases for a dismissal of the lawsuit. Feel free to correct my observation if you have evidence to the contrary. You little "contrarian" you.

 

[Ransom]

I read both articles and I don't see where a "church covenant" or "by laws" would have prevented the lawsuits or been the bases for a dismissal of the lawsuit.

So?

First, you asked why someone would sue a church. Two examples given. Asked and answered. Stop trying to move the goalposts, yeezus.

Second, no one has said that church by-laws prevent lawsuits. Learn to read.

 

[rsc2a]

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".

"If you don't let me use your facilities for my gay wedding, I'll sue you."

This is private property. We do not lease or rent out this building for public purposes. Again. I don't see a need for a "by law" or "covenant".

You don't know anything about our legal system, do you?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sure I do. Show me where I am wrong?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I read both articles and I don't see where a "church covenant" or "by laws" would have prevented the lawsuits or been the bases for a dismissal of the lawsuit.

So?

First, you asked why someone would sue a church. Two examples given. Asked and answered. Stop trying to move the goalposts, yeezus.

Second, no one has said that church by-laws prevent lawsuits. Learn to read.

Sure they did. She post #2.

 

[bgwilkinson]

FBCH has been defending against suits for decades.
In the past it was not uncommon to be defending 20 to 30 at any one time.
One of the first questions that was asked in the Adams Chapel was are there any new ones?

 

[praise_yeshua]

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>

My question wasn't an indication that I believe that no one will sue a church. I simply ask for reasons. You're the one that said...

I don't think I want my people personally liable if we get sued

The OP was about the necessity of "by laws" and "church covenants".

 

[praise_yeshua]

FBCH has been defending against suits for decades.
In the past it was not uncommon to be defending 20 to 30 at any one time.
One of the first questions that was asked in the Adams Chapel was are there any new ones?

So... their "by laws" and "covenants" didn't prevent a lawsuit?!!! I think that is rather obvious they didn't.

Was their "by laws" and "covenants" ever referenced as a reason for a dismissal of either a criminal or civil lawsuit?

 

[subllibrm]

PY has a new hobby horse. His enthusiasm for his new toy is adorable. 

Okay, I might as well just  tell you so you can sleep tonight. We all have bylaws and covenants because Calvin told us to.

 

[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".

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.

Which lawsuit. Be specific.

One lawsuit was targeted specifically at the staff and would have never been targeted at the "members".

Either way, you can't sue members if there are no "members". Even then, the actions of one person aren't applicable to all regardless of "incorporation".

 

[praise_yeshua]

PY has a new hobby horse. His enthusiasm for his new toy is adorable. 

Okay, I might as well just  tell you so you can sleep tonight. We all have bylaws and covenants because Calvin told us to.

"Disclaimer"...... This is NOT about John Calvin or any of his teachings.

 

[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".

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.

Which lawsuit. Be specific.

One lawsuit was targeted specifically at the staff and would have never been targeted at the "members".

Either way, you can't sue members if there are no "members". Even then, the actions of one person aren't applicable to all regardless of "incorporation".

They always go for the deepest pocket.