Id. at 252-54. However, the court held that “the primary use of the property is as a residence. It appears to the court that the use of the property to accomplish religious purposes is only incidental or secondary to the primary purpose of providing a residence for the pastor and his family.” Id. at 254. Some generalizations can be inferred from the above discussed precedent. Regarding the first prong of the German Apost. Christ. Church test, that a religious use of property be “primarily for the benefit of the church,” it can be said that those cases holding property exempt involved situations in which the property was used primarily or essentially for religious objectives, with only incidental benefit to the persons using the property. See House of Good Shepherd, 300 Or at 343-44 (<HOLDING>). Where instead the use was primarily for the
holding exempt portions of a ranch devoted to and actually used for religious purposes 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 exempt under ors 307130 which relates to other charitable institutions a building that was used as an office for a religious official and religious court and a printing press for a religious publication holding that imposition of government fees did not violate exempt status of religious organization holding convent exempt where communal prayerful living was itself a religious objective