Affiliated vs. Non-Affiliated

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

I meant "had to leave" on the basis of affiliation. It is symantics really. Yes he chose to leave and a bulk of the congregation chose to go with him to start another church.

Again, if the church would have not been affiliated, he could have lost his license and continue to pastor in that same location with a majority of the congregation....

But they didn't know the binding agreement of affiliation and therefore, when the district took his license he had to go find another building...

BTW, if a man is being investigated or has charges up against him...he cannot move to disaffiliate until the charges are settled and he is again in good standing...LOL...

So some of these affiliated folks had better hurry up if they are realy spouting about leaving or they just might be in the market for some new property....

As I understand from reading the Manual, any church can vote to disaffiliate at any announced business meeting. The qualifier is that they have to allow the DS or his rep speak at the meeting, so the org gets one last sales pitch, so to speak.

The language does give a founding pastor more authority and control than a later pastor would have. But still, the "new" guy could "take over" a church and persuade the majority to disaffiliate - or even to affiliate an unaffiliated church as well.

I guess the way you look at it depends upon your local or District political situation. I've seen a couple of churches around here be taken out of the org by "new pastors" who it appears were simply trying to get away from the org. So they move to a new district, take a church and disaffiliate leaving the UPC without a church in an area where it had invested a lot of time and even contributed funds in building.

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by pelathais

As I understand from reading the Manual, any church can vote to disaffiliate at any announced business meeting. The qualifier is that they have to allow the DS or his rep speak at the meeting, so the org gets one last sales pitch, so to speak.

The language does give a founding pastor more authority and control than a later pastor would have. But still, the "new" guy could "take over" a church and persuade the majority to disaffiliate - or even to affiliate an unaffiliated church as well.

I guess the way you look at it depends upon your local or District political situation. I've seen a couple of churches around here be taken out of the org by "new pastors" who it appears were simply trying to get away from the org. So they move to a new district, take a church and disaffiliate leaving the UPC without a church in an area where it had invested a lot of time and even contributed funds in building.

I did not meant to imply that it had to be a "disaffiliation only" business meeting...only that the church and the district had to be informed that disaffliliation would be on the agenda...

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by FRINGE_NUTTER

Thanks, T1, for your explanations....Can you please expand on what you mean here about the "founding pastor"?? So, if he is the "founding pastor" would he have the right to disaffiliate and own the property himself?

I didn't post that but the idea of 'founding pastor" is one that the UPC will not allow a "founding pastor" to be voted out of the church by disgruntled people...

If the church is INCORPORATED it protects the property from being owned by any on individual including the pastor...that is a state law thing not a denominational thing...

Basically, I believe that every church should incorporate with the state as a non-profit...then the property is protected under state law as being owned by the incorporation...and if the church goes bust...no one in that church will profit...another non-profit will receive all assets left...