A former Presbyterian Church in Pennsylvania is now home to a Hindu temple.
The remaining members of Petersburg Presbyterian Church in Scranton merged with Hickory Street United Presbyterian Church in 1994. That merger left the Petersburg building unoccupied. Instead of a campaign of robust evangelism to reach the new immigrants, many from India who were moving into the area, the Lackawanna Presbytery sold the building to Springwood Management Group, Inc.
The property on Prescott Avenue in Scranton has changed hands at least twice since then, with the latest transaction leading to the formation of another shrine for Hinduism.
Following the sale by the presbytery, the property was sold to Lackawanna Institute in January 2007 for $250,000 before Shree Swaminarayan Agyna Upasana Satsang Mandal USA, Inc., finalized a deal to buy it for $142,500 in February 2012.
Carmen Fowler LaBerge, president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, laments that progression.
“This is a building that was dedicated to Christ and His Church. The PCUSA wants to put long-term reversionary clauses into the deeds of churches seeking to go to other Christian denominations but obviously no such reverter exists on this property,” she said. “The primary offense here is that a building once consecrated to Christ is now being used for pagan worship, but the secondary offense is to those Presbyterians who gave the funds in good faith build it in the first place.”
A similar issue occurred in Binghamton, N.Y., when the Diocese of Central New York refused to let the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd pay to keep its property five years ago following a lawsuit that was decided in favor of the diocese. Instead of allowing the congregation to purchase the property, the diocese chose instead to sell the building for $50,000 (a third of what the congregation offered) to a Muslim group to house the Islamic Awareness Center.
The Shree Swaminarayan Mandir is the second place of worship for practicing Hindus in Scranton, located in Lackawanna County in northeast Pennsylvania. The first temple opened in 2007.
A story in The Times Tribune showed that the establishment of two Hindu temples in a city of approximately 75,000 people marks the continued growth of the Indian population in the region.
U.S. Census data from 2000 to 2010 showed that Scranton’s Indian population increased four-fold, and that population in Lackawanna County nearly tripled.
The temple at the former Presbyterian church got its start in 2012 and formally opened following its murti-pratishtha mahotsav on June 21 and 22, 2014. It is a ceremony by which a deity is infused or brought to inhabit a murti or icon of the deity, part of the ritual of spirituality and faith invoking a god in a murti for the inauguration of a new mandir – the Hindu term for a place of worship or prayer.
LaBerge protests, “This is a building that was already consecrated for worship – and not to a pantheon of idols. This was a church, consecrated to the Holy God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is a mockery of God and an act that seeks to strip the Bride of Christ, the Church, of her dignity.”
According to orthodox Hinduism after this rite of inauguration of a new mandir is performed, worship can properly be offered to the murti. Hindus believe that after a murti pratishtha, divinity enters murti, and it is viewed not simply as just an image but rather a living form of a god.
In acknowledging the new temple, Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, president of the Universal Society of Hinduism, noted the need to pass on Hindu spirituality, concepts and traditions to coming generations amidst so many distractions in the consumerist society and hoped that the newest temple in Scranton would focus on such a direction.
Hinduism, the oldest and third largest religion of the world, has about one billion adherents. There are about three million Hindus in the United States.
Laberge commented, “As Americans we welcome them as neighbors and new immigrants to a nation where they are free to exercise their faith. As Christians we are called to share with them the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through a prayer, care, share lifestyle of evangelism. To allow a Christian church building to be ‘reconsecrated’ for expressly pagan worship ought to outrage us. But sadly, it does not. Many will read this and not understand why I’m upset. Their hearts will not be broken that Christians, specifically Presbyterians, in this neighborhood abandoned the first great end of the church – which is the proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of humankind. Instead they embrace the pluralistic idea that all religions are equal and equally true. That’s a lie – and people are living it – that grieves me.”
34 Comments. Leave new
Hinduism is a demonic religion. We all should upset at this, however given the leadership in louisville, this is just a taste of things to come.
Not too odd at all:
PCUSA/Hinduism: polytheistic grab bag of theologies, confessions, and standards-check
Cafeteria, menu options of choices, behaviors, deities to fit the mood: check again
Autonomzed, individualized, custom fit gods/goddess to fit every move, sexual
identity, choice, and whatever strikes your fancy at the moment- check again
God of Abraham, Jesus of Nazareth nice guys, but sufficient, nor kid, vegan, or animal
friendly
Reincarnation? Sure why not-check
Marsala and tofu at the after worship fellowship: what a coincidence.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Just one of many embarrassments in a clueless PC(USA) with many more to come. When a church leaves the PC(USA) with its property, the presbytery has a hair trigger sensitivity about the future use of the building. The presbytery demands a reversionary clause in the deed that the property reverts back to the presbytery if the congregation decides in the future to become non-denominational or part of a denomination not deemed “Reformed.” No problem if the building becomes a Hindu temple but a non-denominational Christian church is a horror which has to be accounted for. Similarly Mr. Parsons and Ms. Valentine routinely call for peace and justice in troubled places around the world in the name of Christ without ever seeming able to speak out against the unjust, un-Christlike way some of their own presbyteries are treating churches leaving the PC(USA). Everyone recognizes that this is a difficult time for the PC(USA) as it shrinks to a shell of its former self. But is it really asking too much for good, honorable people to show a little dignity?
It’s appears the folks’ in louisville are taking their ques from the episcopal church who’s bishop said she would rather see a church turn into a bar, than go with the congregation that built it. The people in louisville are bitter and twisted in their thinking, it’s time for the great divorce to begin in the PCUSA, the sooner the better.
THe former Presbyterian church in Berlin, N.J. is or was a Hindu temple the last time that i checked on it in 1995. the cross and crown were still on the steeple although hidden by the new facade
I think you all are barking up the wrong tree. Church buildings are sold or repurposed frequently with no thought at all given to it. Sometimes, congregations even, gasp, outgrow their original buildings and move to larger ones, leaving their old facilities–paid for by previous congregants–behind.
I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but where is it written that once a building is used to serve Christ, it must forevermore so be used? That in itself sounds paganistic to me. What are we worshipping, anyway–Christ or the building?
That maybe true if it’s a cheap building or does not look like a church. Since Presbyterian churches tend to look well, like churches, and usually cost more to build, I think the point here is to sell the building to another Christian church.
Of course you’re right, Bob, that church buildings transition over time for lots of different reasons – congregation demise, congregations merging, outgrowing older buildings, etc. But there’s something dreadfully wrong when presbyteries deem transition to a non-denominational Christian church as a travesty to be prevented at all costs but have no issue with the building becoming a Hindu temple or Muslim mosque which has happened with former buildings of both the PC(USA) and Episcopalians. That kind of cluelessness doesn’t reflect well on the PC(USA) and people need to get their heads together and come up with a more balanced, even handed way of dealing with buildings that Christians built with the Lord’s money.
“Bitter and twisted” — sounds like your outlook on life, James H.
We’re not in Kansas anymore Toto.
This really encapsulates the matter of the property in “trust” clause of the PCUSA. In any context or understanding was it the intent, or wishing, or desire of the former Presbyterian occupants of the said structure to desire the building at any time or condition for it to become a pagan house of worship, or an art gallery for that matter. . Of course not.
It is like a person writing a will or estate plan wishing that his/her heirs get X, but the hand of the overarching authority, in this case the PCUSA, stepping in post-death, saying that the wishes or intent of the former occupants are irrelevant and unlawful. They alone will determine the outcome. So they give the proceeds to whomever offers them the best deal for a quick cash settlement and infusion. Godless and pagan.
Much like the biblical son who sells his birthright for a scrap or bowl of food to fill his belly, so the PCUSA, at least in terms of its property cares only of cash on the barrel and whoever is first to line their pockets. Godless and pagan. Guess what, Lackawanna is hungry again to pay their staff and pay the rent?
Anybody out there have anything to sell them this go around? Godless and pagan. Maybe some good PCUSA folks have some old estate jewelry lying around they can mail to Scranton. I am sure there is cash for gold outlet in some strip mall close by.
I’ve been a Presbyterian all of my 61 years. I know what it takes to keep the doors of a church open. Do we pay the electric bill or pay to have the building security lights repaired. Could we raise some much needed money by selling some of our unused furniture. It’s painful to see a church close it’s doors. Especially when that building was built with the money and “Sweat Equity” of my parents and grandparents. In Pittsburgh, we’ve seen churches turned into restaurants, apartment buildings, mosques and yes, temples. It’s sad, but what we lost was a building, not our faith. We merged congregations and became stronger groups of believers. God never promised that it would be easy.
Hi, Would you please clarify something for me? Were you implying that the confessions in our Book of Confessions are polytheistic? Or were you trying to say something else? Our confessions are Trinitarian Christian and not polytheistic. While some Presbyterian denominations only use the Westminster standards, the Dutch Reformed use the Heidelberg Catechism effectively, and the Hungarian Reformed Church uses the Second Helvetic still today. The Scots Confession served our forebearers in Scotland very well for many years. I am just curious as to why you put the word “confessions” alongside the other two – theologies and standards. Thank you.
Bob,
i am not worshipping the facility, but i am appalled that a facility that at some point in its life was proclaiming the Gospel message is now turned into “a synagogue of Satan.”
Ooh, what a brilliant response Jim Bowie: “I know you are, but what am I?” Brilliant for a 10 year old.
Maybe I’m missing something, but it doesn’t look to me like the Presbytery sold it to become a Hindu temple. Rather it was sold to another group, and then changed hands again before it was sold to the Hindu community. All of us know, how a property is used after it is sold, especially a second time, is beyond a person or group’s control. If I sell my house to another family, then a few years later they sell it to someone who turns it into a bar, or a house of ill repute, I have no control over that. I am be upset by it but unless what’s going on is illegal, I have no control over it.
While it is sad that the local Presbytery apparently did nothing to try to form a new congregation for that building (surely the unchurched outnumber those belonging to a church in that region as well), the bottom line is that a church building itself should not be venerated or made an idol of any kind. Even such mighty cathedrals as St. Peter’s are only buildings without the invited, indwelling presence of God. The church is the body of Christ, not a collection of buildings.
The early church prospered and grew without any church buildings at all. It’s natural to bemoan the loss of a church body but the sorrow should be focused on those who no longer attend and participate – not on the building which may no longer be needed. I’m in a situation where my wife & I will be leaving a wonderful congregation that worships in a beautiful facility. It has lovely décor, a great pipe organ and beautiful stained-glass windows. But, staying there means that our witness to the world & ministries will be compromised by its being a PC (USA) church body. The PC (Associate Reformed) church we’ll be joining has a much more modest facility but its belief in the Bible is unwavering and its stances on political & social matters are based on Biblical precepts, not opinion polls or popular culture.
Must you be faux-angry about everything? Occupants of this building merged with another congregation a mile and a half away 20 years ago. It would seem clear to the casual observer that this would be a far better use of resources than spending a large amount of money to maintain two buildings, two staff, two ministries in close proximity in an area of declining population. Good for them to realize that, and of course the presbytery would sell the property.
John and southeast may be missing the point here. When a church leaves the PC(USA) with its property, the presbytery routinely insists on a reversionary clause (maybe even recording a provision which legally attaches to the property) providing that the building reverts to the presbytery if the congregation decides in the future to become non-denominational or joins a denomination not deemed “Reformed.” A presbytery can easily record the same type of provision with the deed when disposing of any building preventing the building from ever being used for a religious purpose which is not Christian. What is unexplainable is why presbyteries have no issue with the building ending up a Hindu temple or Muslim mosque but they deem transition to a non-denominational Christian church to be a travesty which must be prevented at all costs.
Not missing the point at all. When another “reformed denomination” receives a property from the PCUSA at a bargain price that is a small fraction of it actual value, of course the presbytery has a right and responsibility to place stipulations. Otherwise, the presbytery would have been much more financially responsible to just sell the property and use the proceeds for other efforts. And once the property is sold at market value, why would anyone want to stand in the way of a Muslim mosque or a Hindu temple?
Several things wrong with your analysis, Southeast:
1. When a church leaves the PC(USA) with its property, another reformed denomination doesn’t get the property at a bargain price. The congregation which built and paid for the building in the first place gets the building it built and paid for. That’s the reason trust law jurisprudence in half the states refuses to recognize trust clause claims of denominations like the PC(USA) and the Episcopalians and in those states congregations are awarded the property without any payment to the denomination.
2. When a presbytery disposes of a church building regardless of the price, it’s not unreasonable to provide that a building Christians built with the Lord’s money not be converted to a religious purpose which isn’t Christian. But if a presbytery is willing to treat non-denominational Christians, Hindus and Muslims the same, I’m happy to call the issue moot.
Nothing wrong with my analysis.
1. The Book of Order is pretty clear. My congregation the same as all others has tacitly agreed that “All property held by or for a congregation…is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” If a presbytery agrees to release a property at a tiny fraction of market value, the recipient can either take the stipulations along with the generosity or walk away.
2. Seeing no instance in which a presbytery is treating Muslims or Hindus more favorably than non-denominational Christians, I hope that from this point you will indeed consider the issue moot.
wow, from out of the chaos a rare voice inspired by the Holy Spirit
Commenting on your views, Southeast, which appear after this comment:
1. Of course I’m familiar with the PC(USA) property trust clause, Southeast. But unfortunately for the PC(USA), trust law jurisprudence in half the states deems such claims unjust and congregations in those states are awarded their properties without payment to the denomination. The Louisiana Presbytery forced the parties to spend $200,000 in legal fees trying to take the property of a 22-member church, a case which was decided in favor of the congregation. The judge was so outraged by the presbytery’s behavior in the case that she ordered the presbytery to pay the church’s legal fees, an extremely rare sanction in civil litigation reserved for the most egregious behavior. Thankfully for congregations the behavior of the PC(USA) and the Episcopalians during this period of realignment marks the death knell of this kind of church polity. Never again are churches going to wake up and discover that they don’t own their own property.
2. When a presbytery manages its property issues in such a way that a building can end up a Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque but not a non-denominational Christian church, it is favoring Hindus and Muslims over non-denominational Christians.
Re the latest comments by Jim Caraher:
1. The scenario you describe involves a congregation refusing to abide by the Book of Order to which it has agreed to abide, just because technically/legally in some jurisdictions they can since that jurisdiction does not view the Book of Order as a legally binding document (legally binding and morally binding not being the same thing). If that it how it chooses to behave, that is a different question separate from how the presbytery should treat the sale of a property held in trust for the PCUSA.
2. And once again, seeing no instance in which a presbytery “manages its property issues in such a way that a building can end up a Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque but not a non-denominational Christian church” that would also seem to be a moot point. A property reverting back to presbytery after a congregation failed to honor its agreement might at that point be sold at market value to the highest bidder, or perhaps even at some other higher-than previous but still reduced price to Muslims and/or Hindus who agree to maintain the property as a place of worship
Southeast, I think we’ve exhausted this subject and I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. But at least we managed a civil discussion unlike some of the intemperate, sophomoric conversation which sometimes appears on this website. Two final thoughts and then please feel free to have the last word:
1. You have a very strict view of the PC(USA)’s trust clause without much wiggle room for presbyteries or congregations. But it’s fortunate for the PC(USA) that presbyteries haven’t been enforcing the trust clause as strictly as you construe it. The Episcopalian denomination has been strictly enforcing its trust clause and it has turned into a $30 million disaster for the denomination.
2. Given all that’s happening in the PC(USA), what’s your view on leaders in Louisville routinely calling for peace and justice in the name of Christ in troubled places around the world? Shouldn’t they also be willing to speak out against the harsh, un-Christlike ways some of their own presbyteries are treating departing churches?
By the way, is there some reason you don’t use your name in a conversation like this?
1. I suppose I have a strict view of what the property clause SAYS. It says what it says. That does not necessarily mean that I have a strict view of what the presbytery should do. Every situation is different. First consideration should be what the parties have agreed to. If one party then wants to ask the other to be generous in deciding how to dispose of the property that has been held in trust, they are welcome to do so and it would appear that in general those requests have given serious consideration. Nonetheless, they should not presume that they can completely ignore their agreement on their own terms, and when folks move to another denomination with a property for what is in effect a new church plant at pennies on the dollar, they should not be screaming about how they have been ill treated.
2. You question assumes “facts” not in evidence.
Anonymous posting seems to be the norm on this website. Perhaps you should ask that question of some of those who by their posting are clearly in sympathy with the so-called mission of this website, but for others you might presume that there are people who do not want to be accidentally identified as Layman fellow travelers.
in response to comments about using anonymous names. several years ago ‘i’ went thru what can only be described as a death to self. technically still alive, still breathing, for all practical purposes ‘i’ died a few years ago. many are being used as vessels at this time.
It should be the rare exception rather than the rule for any denominational governing body of a protestant church to acquire or claim any interest or control in the real property of a local congregation (which acquired, bought, paid for and maintained the property without financial contribution from the governing body) which votes to depart to another denomination, either as a condition of the departure or with continuing effect after the departure…. even if the denominational governing documents (which the congregation “agreed to”) contain such provisions, or under another legal theory absent a written provision. Such provisions should be deemed unenforceable and stricken even if the congregation “agreed to it”. Ok, maybe a departure fee, perhaps based on a % of the annual fees which would otherwise be paid the governing body. But having to leave the property or pay the governing body to keep the congregation’s own property as a condition to being “allowed” to leave, is immoral. PCUSA and the Episcopalians are increasingly ecumenical even across different religions; they say all religions are equally valid, all is one, no one has the exclusive truth. If so, then one Christian denomination is as valid as another…. So why make the departing congregation pay what amounts to a ransom to change to a more conservative denomination (or a more liberal one, for that matter)? Why force them to accept future restrictions and control of the property, after the departure takes place? This is hypocrisy. Only if the local congregation permanently disbands (permanently and completely ceases to use the property as a Christian church, without either departure to another denomination or merger with another congregation of the same denomination) then the congregation can be deemed to have “died” and/or abandoned the property; then the governing body could control its disposition, either installing a new congregation or selling the property and, after paying the disbanded congregation’s debts, holding the proceeds in trust for the general benefit of the denomination. Other than that, the land and improvements should go with the congregation merging or departing to another Christian denomination, free and clear of any claims or restrictions of the governing body. Reversionary clauses are morally acceptable but not desirable, in deeds donating property to a local congregation (or denomination, as the case may be). Otherwise there should also be no restriction on the sale of the congregation’s property, to any buyer, whether staying, departing or merging, except a right of first refusal in favor of the governing body, provided the net proceeds are to be used to acquire other property for the congregation, to pay its debts, to invest into the new congregation if departing or merging, or its expenses during rebuilding on a new site. Reciprocally, such a right should be provided in favor of a local congregation if the property is owned or controlled by the governing body – to avoid situations in which the congregation offers to buy at a higher price but the denomination refuses but then sells to another buyer for the same or a lower price. I agree that it’s a shame and makes me very sad to see buildings, formerly occupied by Christian churches, used for other (false) religions; I feel much less sad (or not at all sad) when they are used for legitimate commercial or educational purposes or for residences. However, I don’t believe church-owned land or buildings are especially “consecrated” except that “the Earth is the Lord’s and everything in it”. For example, I am very saddened by the so-called Crystal Cathedral, supposedly once a Christian church, being sold to the roman catholic diocese. Apparently the sale was necessary due to financial distress. In the situation mentioned in the article, the first sale from the presbytery to the Management Group,(presumably not another Presbyterian, reformed or other church, but a commercial enterprise) obviously did not include any restrictive language in the deed on the future use of the building, so there was no legal impediment to the first sale, nor to subsequent transfers; and apparently, the rules governing the denomination allowed this, too. (I’m not clear on how the presbytery, rather than the congregation, had the right to sell the property.) I accept that. However, it is immoral, unethical and sinful for the governing body to sell “its” property without restriction, and at the same time, impose on congregations, departed or otherwise, restrictions on the congregation’s use and sale of congregation property. The incident of the apostate episcopal hierarchy selling to a muslim group at a deep discount rather than to the departed Christian congregation at market value, shows why some people detest denominationalism and is a symptom of the continued degeneration of that particular hierarchical sect.
Dear Guest, were you upset that I appeared to question the brand of Christianity espoused by the Crystal Cathedral? or that the statement likened roman Catholicism to false religion? Hogwash, rant or moral rubbish means anything critical or challenging of the pope or his church? or perhaps the teachings of Robert Schuller? Do you think reformed theology and roman catholic theology are the same, equally valid, or reconcilable? If you are a roman catholic I can understand your allegiance to that system, although your “defense” of it is non-existent and amounts to name-calling. If you are not, then I question your reasoning, if in fact you have reasons. What I condemn impliedly or expressly does not matter, not temporally and especially not in eternity. Nor does your condemnation of my beliefs. Or the pope’s condemnation of them, either, for that matter. Cheers.
Guest, I don’t want to give you a hard time, but maybe you should rethink your harsh attitudes about the church that was your family’s, especially when you see how quickly those who share some of those opinions will turn around and say some offensive things about your Catholic church. And really, you were going along with most of the floridian post up to that point? Suppose that a some local Catholic congregation decided it was going to break away along with some rebelling priest and tried to keep the property…how far do you think that would go?
But for what it is worth, I think the Diocese may be making better use of that property than the Schullers.
‘Suppose that a some local Catholic congregation decided it was going to break away along with some rebelling priest and tried to keep the property…how far do you think that would go?’
actually there is a splinter group of conservatives that has already done that, and if you believe in Biblical prophecy, in the end times, the majority will be under immense pressure to conform with societal norms. the rumblings have already begun, in the next couple years we should begin to see this. i think it will go far, very far, as far as Jesus tells us, which is up until His return. Jesus has spoken through the prophets that we are to move on, find another church, not fight it, as you see here so often. i find it rather shocking that so many Protestants are wasting time with this.
‘But for what it is worth, I think the Diocese may be making better use of that property than the Schullers.’
agree. i don’t know anything about Schuller’s work, all i know is i occasionally saw him in my parent’s living room, they considered such television broadcasting to be a perfectly fine substitute for joining a Presbyterian church after retirement, for oh about 30 years. shortly after the morning TV binge was over the real binge began. and so on and so forth. that is my recollection of the Presbyterian way, and based on what i’m reading here things have not changed one bit since back in what someone here referred to as ‘the good old days’. countless of my parents friends from the Presbyterian college they attended visited this retirement home where my parents lived full time for decades, witnessed this pagan lifestyle, actually participated in it willingly without protest. the end result is now public knowledge, for all the world to see. for that i can be grateful, the truth exposed.
‘And really, you were going along with most of the floridian post up to that point?’
i’ll go along with just about any ‘news’ up to a point, do have my limits. like most of us i watched TV, read newspapers, magazines, mostly financial press for business reasons, for many years before i finally realized that 99% of what’s published is propaganda, lies, gave them up. i’ve been on this website since about july 1. thought i’d be gone by now, most likely by end of month i’ll be out of here. i consider this site to be a form of entertainment at this point, there’s nothing spiritual going on here, as far as i can see. when was the last time you saw someone here offer up a prayer? like never.
‘is like a person writing a will or estate plan wishing that his/her heirs get X, but the hand of the overarching authority, in this case the PCUSA, stepping in post-death, saying that the wishes or intent of the former occupants are irrelevant and unlawful.’
in trust and estate law there is a concept known as undue influence; simply defined, an interested party uses an illegal amount of influence to manipulate a situation to their advantage prior to death. this could be argued on the part of departing congregations; arguing that the PCUSA officers and teaching elders used rules as a form as entrapment. and there is also the question of competence or lack thereof on the part of both parties who signed the documents before death. the overriding issue in this case, speaking from a non-legal layman’s perspective, is the obvious insanity of the present day Presbyterian church, all of it. which raises the question how far back has the denomination been legally incompetent. i would argue it goes back at least as far as the churches were built. an insanity defense could then be raised on the part of the PCUSA. either way it’s a losing battle. both sides should stop fighting and move on. what part of the word hatred do you people still not understand. that’s the image you’re projecting to the world, from both sides. speaking as an objective (no cash donated/invested in Presbyterian institutions) bystander. frankly i see no difference between what’s going on here and the reaction people have when they lose money on Wall Street. sue them all, kill them all, is the public outcry. look folks, no one hog tied you and dragged you kicking and screaming down the aisles of these pagan institutions, you sat there stewing in this for decades of your own free will, get over it.