Archdiocese, 13 OTR at 212-13 (describing nexus between priest’s duties and location of rectory near church). Accordingly, the court finds that taxpayer does not meet the second prong of the German Apost. Christ. Church test, requiring that the use of the property be “reasonably necessary for the furthering of the religious aims of the church.” German Apost. Christ. Church, 279 Or at 642. The court also finds that taxpayer fails the first prong of the test, that the use “must be primarily for the benefit of the church.” Id. Parsons’job may be made easier by the residence’s location, given his wife’s illness, yet that fact only underscores that the primary reason for the residence’s location is Parsons’ convenience, not that of the congregation. See Washington County, 11 OTR at 254 (<HOLDING>). With regard to residences, it is neither the
holding that the determination and assessment of damages are not the primary purpose of a declaratory action holding parsonage taxable despite frequent religious use and requirement that parson live there because the primary purpose of the residence was to house the parson and his family holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise holding a parsonage taxable where the use of the property to accomplish religious purposes was only incidental or secondary to the primary purpose of providing a residence for the pastor and his family holding an office exempt and the rest of the residence taxable