[gieriscm]

Can a local congregation remove itself from the larger church body AND take its property with it?

I'm not familiar with how churches own and hold property, but wouldn't it depend on who (local congregation versus the larger "church") initially purchased the property and holds the deed? I'd need more background and info before deciding whether this bill should be supported or not.

I do agree with your point that Bishop Kammerer may be abusing resources to lobby the General Assembly on behalf of the church it hasn't been put before the Conference.

[Onelifetogive]

but wouldn't it depend on who (local congregation versus the larger "church") initially purchased the property and holds the deed?

Makes sense to me...

[detsaoT]

I think the Methodist church (and the Episcopal, for that matter) hold the deed to the property in trust for the congregation. In most cases, from what I understand, the land & buildings are purchased and built by the larger church diocese (synod?) for the congregation, so in a sense this arrangement makes sense.

A much more important question for we Virginian Methodists is how we keep promoting these secularists to extremely high positions in the church? I'm an ex-Methodist as a direct result of the vast drift to the socialist left that the church as a whole has taken. I sure wish someone'd lead the Methodist church back to God's teachings...

[mbarker12474]

The trustees of the local church hold the deed in trust for the denomination. By UMC law (via our Book of Discipline), the deed contains a "trust clause" stating that title to the physical property remains with the United Methodist demonination in perpetuity, and with the Conference should the local congregation disband.

Virginia law (rightly) conflicts with the big church's claim on property.

Local congregations have successfully argued that the big church has abandoned principles of the faith, removed themselves from the UMC, and held on to their property.

Mike B.