1. Free As Sons
   
2. Does "Go Ye" Mean "Go Me?"
   
3. Are We Really Born Again?
   
4. The Sacrifices of Cain and Abel
   
5. Silence Says Something
   
6. Body Language
   
7. Repentance Before Faith
   
8. I Wonder
   
9. Can I Know?
   
10. Ultimate Logical Conclusions
    
11. Errors in Peter's Sermon
    
12. Did Timothy Need Admonition?
    
13. Jesus' Youth Sermon For Adults
    
14. Why Didn't Paul Reform?
    
15. Christmas
    
16. Let The Unmarried Marry
    
17. A Dialect of Division
    
18. Our Traditions
    
19. Adding Our Safeguards
    
20. According To The Pattern
    
21. A Creed In The Deed
    
22. Samuel Did Not Know The Lord!
    
23. Response From Our Readers
    
24. Cries Of A Troubled Church
    
25. Sharing Without Fellowship
    
26. I Joined A Church
    
27. Open Membership
    
28. Another Last Will And Testament
    
29. Sad Thoughts About Church Growth
    
30. My Four Retirement Homes
    
31. Hook's Points: A Potpourri
    

A CREED IN THE DEED

Although lawsuits are proliferating in these times, we are dismayed that churches are becoming defendants in quite a number of them. Formerly, a person would have been ashamed to sue a church, but greed has overcome the sense of shame.

Some of our congregations have been in court, however, before the time of this generation. As Restoration churches went through the torture of division over the use of instrumental music in worship, there were bitter contests as to which group would retain possession of the church property. Some of them resorted to the civil courts to decide the matter.

In reaction to that unpleasant circumstance, congregations began to put restrictive clauses in the deeds to their property. By such a procedure, we non­instrumentalists could claim the property legally, in case there was a dispute about it. Then, as a further safeguard, some congregations added restrictions to the deed concerning other matters of teaching and practice. Even though most of the members might not have known that the restrictions existed, these actually became statements of a binding creed written in the deed. Ironically, as we preachers have denounced creeds and denied having one, some of us were doing so in a building that had a creed in the deed.

It would be very interesting to know how many of our deeds still have those restrictive clauses. If a congregation has owned the same property for a great number of years, there is likelihood that the restrictive clause is there. You may want to check this out just to satisfy your curiosity.

Only about fifteen years ago, property was bought for a new congregation near here. I had nothing to do with the transaction, but it was carried out by dear, sincere people whom I have no desire to offend. A restrictive statement was put in the deed. I was given a copy of it. It is an astounding document and is, perhaps, much more inclusive than most of its kind. Because our people need to be aware that such deeds are still in effect and they need to know about the nature of them, I print it here:

"To have and to hold the aforementioned real estate with all the appurtenances and hereditaments "hereunto belonging or any wise appertaining unto the said trustees for the (Name) Church of Christ, its heirs and assigns in fee simple forever.

"Included in the deed and expressly made a part of the conveyance are the purpose and limitations for which the lot hereinbefore described was purposed, to wit: to be used by the said (Name) Church of Christ for as long as the following practices of worship and work by the said (Name) Church of Christ are maintained.

1. The Holy Scriptures shall be taught and accepted as the final, all-sufficient revelation from God to man, and regarded as an infallible rule of faith and practice.
2. Mechanical instruments of music shall never be permitted to be brought on to the premises, for the purpose of being used in worship, or for any other purpose, use or design.
3. No teacher or preacher shall be allowed use of the building, its premises, and grounds for the purpose of advocating any doctrine or practice which conflicts with the teaching and practice of the (Name) Church of Christ as taught in the Bible and as currently held by the elders, trustees, or members responsible for the execution of this deed. Expressly excluded from such use are any and all teachers, preachers and others who hold to any form of liberalism, modernism, or premillennialism, along with all hobby-riders, factionists and divisive persons, who advocate any doctrine or practice in conflict with the teaching and practice now current in said (Name) Church of Christ.

"After such a time the property shall be held in trust for such members only which remain faithful to the purposes for which this conveyance is made, and for no others; and, when there are no others, the property shall revert to the (Neighboring) Church of Christ, now meeting at (address)."

In a church which denounces human creeds, here is a current creed in the deed, to be enforced by civil courts!

Other than seeking to secure the property, this is an effort to make the beliefs and practices of the contracting elders, trustees, and members the unchangeable standard for future generations who may want to use the property. Their successors can change nothing; they can only move out. It would set current teaching and practice in concrete, even though all of the teachings and practices are no defined, and even though there are differing opinions on these matters among the initial contractors. No new concept will be tolerated, for the present group has arrived at the ultimate interpretation and practice!

It is unbelievable that a lawyer would allow such an insertion into a deed. And I cannot conceive of a judge permitting a case based upon such a flimsy legal document being brought into his court.

There are many interesting questions which the court could be called upon to decide. Is an a capella tape played at a wedding instrumental music? Since instruments of music are not to be brought on the premises for any purpose, use or design, must all car radios and cassette players be removed from the automobiles, or is simply turning them off as they enter the grounds sufficient? Could the janitor be ejected for listening to his radio while cleaning the building?

Is a jury capable of determining if a group is following the Bible as the infallible word of God, or if it is true to the creed in the deed? "Your Honor, we want you to throw these liberals out!" Who are the liberals? Those who eat sandwiches in the building? Those ladies who wear slacks to church? Those who approve of women teachers? Those who support children's homes? Those who use individual communion cups? And will someone define modernism to the jury and identify those unsavory modernists?

And those hobby­riders! Could a court take this seriously? Is the hobby­rider one who emphasizes (more than I like) giving, unity, evangelism, baptism, the second coming of Jesus, marriage and divorce problems, or attendance?

Who is factional and divisive? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this man has most of the congregation believing like he does. They are factional and divisive! They must not be allowed to use the building."

Inasmuch as the original trustees, elders, and members held differing views, which ones will this creed perpetuate? Restrictive clauses are just another effort to bind beliefs and practices on future generations. They express a lack of confidence on the part of those in charge that their teaching will be effective in keeping the next generation on course.

About twenty­five years ago, the group that I worked with was in the process of purchasing new property. The elders wanted to put a restriction in the deed concerning the use of instrumental music. They delegated me to inform the lawyer of their desires. I learned a valuable lesson about the Lord's church from that Methodist lawyer. He refused to include such a restriction. He explained that the church is a living thing, and that living things change. He contended that the identity and character of a church is determined by those who compose it, rather than the identity and character of its former members.

To illustrate the validity of the lawyer's contention, we will suppose that the entire congregation becomes liberal, premillennial, or hobby-riders, or comes to favor the use of instruments. They could continue to claim and use the property, for there would be no element in the church to contest it. The living entity changed. In this changed character, the group could continue to use the property unchallenged, or take legal steps to clear the restriction from the deed.

Many other facets of this matter could be commented upon, but I think that you are able to see the ridiculous nature of such a document without further comment from me.

In concluding, let me state that I offer no objection to the formulation of a general statement of belief by a group. It is not a sin to state our beliefs, but it is definitely out of order to demand conformity to those beliefs by all other disciples. The creed in the deed is a device by which a congregation seeks to protect its property and by which conformity is intended to be reinforced by civil law.