Posted on 11/16/2007, 10:36:00 PM by Zakeet
MINEOLA, N.Y. — The Biblical Gospel of Matthew famously admonishes Christians not to try to serve both God and wealth. But a pastor's estranged wife says he has blended the two so thoroughly that his church should be counted as an asset in their divorce.
A judge agreed in a decision published this week to hear arguments on the claim, and he ordered a financial appraisal of the church. Lawyers involved in the case said it could represent the first time anyone in New York state has tried to treat a religious institution as a marital asset.
The wife argues that her husband of 31 years used his Brooklyn church as a "personal piggy bank," setting his own income, spending the congregation's tithes as he pleased and running a catering business from the building, according to an account of the claims in state Supreme Court Judge Arthur M. Diamond's decision. The couple's names were redacted from the decision.
The wife said $50,000 of the couple's money went into starting the church, and she should share in value.
"That church is no different than any other business he might have opened," said the wife's lawyer, Robert Pollack.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-oh, boy. What a messy can of worms.
The article doesn’t name the preacher or the church.
In Robert Duvall’s excellent film The Apostle, in his divorce with his wife a pastor loses control of his church to her. Gutwrenching.
What about the “separation of church and state” argument?
Is what she described legal? If not, is she guilty too?
This may do more than reason ever thought.
If she provided some of the money and it was invested in the Church, then she should at least get her share of the investment back with interest. He treated it like his own personal business/fiefdom, and so her lawyer is looking at it the same way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.