I saw this release on the lastest over the Free Church and Free Church Continuing property dispute. Does anyone know what the disposition of property rights in the FC was prior to the split? Does each congregation own the property? Or the denomination?

--- In presbyterians-opc@yahoogroups.com, christianobserver@... wrote:

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (Continuing)
Press Office

Press Release - 27th March 2006

Free Church (Continuing) to stand firm

The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) have reacted with astonishment
and disappointment to the terms of the "One Church Solution" proposed to

end the dispute between the two bodies.The Free Church (Continuing)
decided on 7th March to drop its appeal against the judgement of Lady
Paton on the assurance that if they did so their former brethren would
be
prepared to give serious consideration to any formal proposals they
might
bring forward for resolution of the dispute.

The larger body, however, appear to have ignored the Proposals for
Settlement document drafted by the FCC but have suggested that the most
appropriate solution is for officebearers and members of the FCC to
apply
for "re-admission" on the basis of repentance for the alleged sin of
divisiveness or, alternatively, that if the FCC wish to continue to
exist
as a separate body they must surrender the buildings they currently
occupy
and co-operate in releasing currently frozen bank accounts.

The Free Church (Continuing) see this as just another attempt by the
oppressive majority in the Free Church to deprive them of their civil as

well as their ecclesiastical rights. They insist that no secular
tribunal
or civil court in Europe would be allowed to behave in the manner in
which
the majority in the Free Church have acted and that the Church of Christ

ought to be expected to show even better standards of conduct. They say

that the actions of the minority have been founded entirely upon the
conviction that the majority have abandoned constitutional principles of

the Free Church of Scotland. The Free Church Continuing are determined
to
defend these principles, whatever hardships they may have to endure in
the
process.

While the FCC proposals for settlement are still on the table and the
FCC
are willing to talk with their separated brethren at any time, it is
unlikely that there will be further movement until after their General
Assembly meets in May of this year.

The Free Church Continuing Legal Committee are firm that existing
buildings and assets held by the minority will be held by them in
perpetuity.

- ends -


27th March 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
Principal Clerk of Assembly
and Press Officer: Rev. John MacLeod
Portmahomack, TAIN, Ross-shire IV20 1YL
Phone and Fax: 0845 1297055
Skype: revjohnmacleod
Email: PrincipalClerk@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Rev. Graeme Craig
Free Church Manse
Ardelve
by KYLE IV40 8DY

Tel: 01599 555372
E-mail: graemecraig@...

--- End forwarded message ---

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: Samuel Miller gives a succinct statement of this principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference.”

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

Be sure to check www.freechurch.org for their perspective on this.

As I recall from earlier traffic on these web sites, the standard there (not sure if it is British or Scottish) differs from the US. If the splitting group can show that they hold to the original doctrine and practice and the other part had departed, the splitting group has a valid claim on the property. It may be that even if the congregational property belongs to the congregation, it is also at risk because the congregation did not split and by extension departed from the founding principles.

To draw a parallel, it would be as if the PCA sued the PCUS back in 1974 for their property, If they satisfied the courts that the PCUS had departed from the theology and practice held in the founding of the PCUS/PCCS in 1861, the while PCA maintained it, the PCA would have gained all the PCUS property.

__________________
Soli Deo Gloria

John Schultz
Member, Riveroaks Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Germantown, TN

"The reason why we worship God in a slight way is because we do not see God in His glory"
Jeremiah Burroughs

Thanks John. Wasn't the point of the civil suit, to establish if indeed the FCC was in effect the faithful body? And if so, since the court ruled against them, doesn't that sort of settle the question?

That would be the postion of the Free Church. The nagging question is whether (particularly in today's secular culture) a civil court is fit to make such a determination. This would probably break down to matters easily shown such as whether the main group maintained EP or not, but could not make a judgement on infra vs supra lapsarian positions.

Thanks. As I recall the original FC walked away from their properties at the disruption. Of course they were walking away from the established church so there would not have been any question as to any rights to the property I guess.