Constitution and Bylaws

ugh.

Hate these things. In churches, particularly.

I've had the task of helping write and rewrite them several times and they are always fraught with compromise and what seems to be non-biblical choices. They seem like a necessary evil to accommodate the lifestyle of the modern church to the demands of the secular government and the culture, especially in areas having to do with taxation and ownership of property.

I mean.. when in the New Testament do we have instances of the church (local or universal) owning property (real or personal)? If they had property, it was typically cash, and even that as a custodian for a short time only, until it was distributed to the poor.

When did this all get started? I'd kind of like to know when the church began to own buildings and lands. Was it.. in Constantine's day, when the Church and the State first became intimate bed partners?

And when did the first church become a legal corporation? When was the 501c3 tax-exempt status first granted, so that contributions by individuals were tax-deductible? (Has to be after 1913, since there was no income tax in the USA prior to that..)

I have long been peeved at the modern church for accommodating itself to the culture in this regard in order to facilitate getting more revenue and owning more property. I know it's not just the modern church, as property was owned by the Church prior to the Reformation, certainly.. but the modern church seems to be more culpable somehow, more willing to be affected by doing what's necessary to compete for funds and property these days.

So, why the rant?

EnCompass Church unveiled its Constitution and Bylaws on Sunday. But it still seems to be one of the least "financially motivated" or growth-oriented churches I have ever seen. They talked about it as if it were a necessary evil, too. And they came up with something pretty clever, I think, to separate the legal requirements of being a non-profit corporation from the life of the church community & its goal of growing people into disciples of Jesus.

They have a two-classification system of affiliation. There is an affiliation called "church member" which is pretty loosely defined as to requirements, not too rigorous. This status is what's needed for voting on leaders, rules and property, and can be held indefinitely. Then they have a thing called "ministry partner" which is much more focused on personal committment to ministry and community. This status is what's needed for leadership, etc., and is a yearly renewable contract.

Hm. Maybe this serves the purpose of "rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Oh, and speaking of Constitution and Bylaws.. I think the Catholic Church has something similar. I believe they call it Canon Law? Maybe? Except its focus is not on complying with a particular government's legal requirements (which I'm not sure they care all that much about, really..) it's more the rules and regulations of how things are to be done in the faith community - who can do what tasks or hold what office, how disputes are resolved, etc.

Again, I *think* so. And I suppose, over two millennia, some of these situations have been repeated enough that you could write it down and save each successive generation from reinventing the wheel.

It's more the little Evangelical churches which tend to come and go, form and dissolve, and do so independent of an Ecclesial governance in many areas. They need the documentation and forms and structure much more. The problem comes when regulations drive the structure and conduct of ministry, which I've seen happen far too often. :(

I think, somehow, EnCompass has figured out a way to avoid this. :) Hope so.