CLOSE relationships with other religious groups require a great deal of diplomacy. IiVe do, however, find ways of "agreeing to disagree," and as a matter of convenience we find it possible and frequently profitable to enter into business arrangements of mutual advantage with other churches. One of the most common of such arrangements is the rental of the church building from another group, or to another group.
Knowing that a little controversy exists concerning the propriety of such rentals—at least, when we are the renter—I want to emphasize that this is not written in an attempt to resolve that controversy. For the purposes.of this discussion I wish to assume that all such arrangements are perfectly ethical so long as they are entered into with a view to benefiting both the lessor and the lessee. It is true that at times we find it necessary to ask for the privilege of renting other churches, and as a consequence it is perfectly reasonable that we should return the same courtesy to others. It would seem only logical to suggest, however, that such agreements should bring blessing to both parties.
However, a situation presently exists with regard to one particular denomination and requires some heart searching; at least, this is my opinion. It would seem to me that something is ethically wrong with a nationwide pattern of rental arrangements on the part of an entire denomination that relieves that denomination of most of the responsibility and of all necessity to provide permanent houses of worship for its congregations, or for those congregations to provide such facilities for themselves.
Though there may be occasional exceptions, it is generally the intention of Seventh-day Adventists to provide a house of worship for themselves. It may be necessary for a small or new church to enter into some rental arrangement with another denomination for a while, until the funds necessary for the purchase or construction of a suitable church are raised. But it would seem to be generally accepted as a principle among us that we should not think in terms of making such rental arrangements permanent. Sooner or later the honor, the joy, and the security of dedicating a place of worship to God for our own use becomes possible. It would seem only reasonable that this would be a matter of pride for any church group. Therefore, the church that rents from other churches with no intention of eventually providing its own facilities brings into question its right to existence, and its right to the respect of the community. And even more so when this appears to be a widespread policy within this denomination and takes on nationwide proportions!
It may not always be so, but in cases that I have had personal experience with, the congregation of this denomination in the community where they desired to use our facilities was approximately the same in number as our own. This would imply that their resources and ours would be approximately the same. It seems strange to me that our people should sacrifice to provide facilities for themselves at an investment of thousands of dollars so that others could promote a faith that is foreign to our own for a few dollars a week! Thus, with only a paltry investment of money they have the same base from which to promote their activities that we have achieved at great sacrifice. This would be of only local and temporary significance if it were merely a local and temporary situation. But this seems to be the accepted pattern of operation, tending to permanency, and over a wide area, for the denomination of which I speak.
Seventh-day Adventist churches in many communities are entering into agreements with the local members of this denomination. I am not suggesting that these agreements be terminated, but I am urging that our people take a long look at them.
In one community where this rental arrangement had been carried on for about seven years—with no signs of ending—the Adventist church actually became known as the local church of this other denomination! The residents in the vicinity of the church thought that services were held on Saturday only because the congregation had a large number of weddings!
It is worth some notice, too, that our denominational name has within it one word that is the same as theirs, and otherwise has certain syllabic similarities which make it easy for others to confuse the two. It would only be natural that when we have the same house of worship in addition to a name with these similarities, local citizens would complete the identification of Seventh-day Adventists with the other denomination in their thinking. From this the cause of truth in any community is doomed to suffer greatly.
I am convinced that temporary rental of church facilities, when this is convenient, can be a great financial boon to a congregation; and if at the same time we are assisting another struggling group to improve its situation, then we are doubly blessed. But I am equally convinced that there is no blessing in making such arrangements permanent. When this happens, the congregation may relax its own commitment to the upkeep of the Lord's house. With money coming in regularly and over a long period of time, our own congregations tend gradually to adjust to the relief from the pressure of financially sustaining the local work. This is not to our profit! The spiritual loss is incalculable.
Rental arrangements that result in profit and blessing for both parties are possible. But at the same time we must recognize that there can be some arrangements which bring a curse to both parties. I write here in the interest of promoting only those situations that are of profit, both financially and spiritually, to the cause of God. It would seem to me that we would also be doing the greatest favor to our friends of other denominations if we encouraged them to know the satisfaction of having their own house of worship.