The congregation of any church is fluid. New generations put a different face on the parish family, which is affected by economic swings and neighborhood ethnic patterns. The one constant is the denomination with its core values and faith practice.
No particular congregation should be able to lay claim to a church building and its land. It was founded for ages to come by people who expected that the building would remain an arm of the denomination that supported the then-fledgling congregation.
Carolyn Doolittle, Friendsville, Pa.
Without a doubt, a congregation should be free to elect to leave its denomination. Should the church also be able to keep church buildings and land? The answer should depend only on who is listed on the property deed as the owner. And if for some strange reason the deed isn't clear about the ownership, then a secular court of law should decide the matter as with any other similar legal dispute.
The bottom line is that just because a church is involved, this shouldn't change the legality of things.
Joseph Snyder, Alexandria
They should be allowed to keep the church building and the land only in the following circumstance:
1) The current church members paid, in full (with no money coming from the larger denomination), for the church and the land, and 2) all current church members approve of the split (no majority rule).
If past church members paid for some or all of the church, then it is unacceptable for the current members to be allowed to take the church and land. A church is purchased for current and future members. A church is purchased to ensure that the denomination is a part of the community, permanently.
Even if the current members paid for the church by themselves, it seems that the larger denomination should be paid for "goodwill." Certainly, the church attracted some people due to the good reputation of the denomination. The value of that goodwill might prohibit those who are splitting from the larger church from acquiring the church as their own. How about reconciling?
Bruce Johnston, Arlington
A college graduate tells his parents: "I won't obey your rules anymore. I declare myself free, autonomous, independent. Want to talk to me? I'll be living in your basement."
Such anemic declarations of independence also shame breakaway congregations. A splinter group should never keep its denomination's buildings or lands, but with one exception.
My dad, a retired auditor, favors the maxim: "Who pays controls." If a congregation raised its own money to purchase land and to construct buildings, then that fellowship should keep its harvest. A vulgar solution? Perhaps. Such vulgarity, though, often happens when democracy and theocracy clash.
Lawrence P. McGuire, Waldorf
There is a commonplace word often used to describe the decision of a local congregation to take its buildings and property and distance itself from its denomination rootage. The word is "autonomy." The logic goes that this is our congregation and we have the autonomous right to make the decision to leave.
There is only one problem with this proposition: It is dead wrong! No congregation is ever autonomous, never a "law unto itself." All congregations are answerable to a higher authority and power than that of the congregation itself. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, theologian or genius to figure out that that higher power is God.
God abhors disunity and denominational schism and wants for those of us in the faith community to maintain unity and build up the body of the church.
The Rev. Ronald J. Degges, Burbank, Calif.
Next month's question: Do you approve of gender-neutral translations of the Bible, such as translations that use the word "people" instead of "men" and "children" instead of "sons"? E-mail your answer (100 words or less) to voices@washpost.com. Include a daytime phone number.
