This post is not directed at any particular group of Episcopalians (or Anglicans or Christians, for that matter). Instead, if the shoe fits, wear it.
At this time of year, churches across the land are seeking to establish their annual budgets, and are asking parishioners to submit their pledges. The unavoidable fact is that the recession we are currently experiencing will adversely impact those budgets. It therefore becomes all the more important for both churches and their parishioners to allocate their priorities, in order to maximize the benefit of each dollar donated. Thus one has to wonder why churches in tight financial straits would allocate any significant portion of their budgets to lawsuits. And one has to wonder even more at why parishioners, who are perhaps struggling to keep their donations to their church at least on a par with the previous year, would let their money be used in such a wasteful way.
This will not be news to many who reflect for even a moment on the matter, but it needs saying, and saying repeatedly: lawsuits are one of the most inefficient ways that exist to spend money to achieve a given object. Any of the alternatives to a lawsuit—mediation, arbitration, or even face-to-face, unmediated talks—are preferable to taking a case to trial, if the object is to put the dispute behind you as quickly as possible.
Thank you, and esp for mentioning the good work of Stanton and Iker. No one needs to fund a church that is doing what cannot be supported. CP dioceses understand this. The cooperation of Stanton and Iker is salutary.
Prof. Seitz–You wrote: “No one needs to fund a church that is doing what cannot be supported. CP dioceses understand this.” These may be two simple sentences that change my outlook drastically. I expect Sarah Hey to write something like this, but not you. Please extend this principle for me. If you were in a congregation in a moderate diocese that makes a 100% commitment to 815, would you seek to have your congregation withhold money from the diocese?
It has always been the case that financial restriction of funds has been a hallmark of what are (now called) ‘CP Dioceses.’ In the old Fitz Allison language — ‘stay, pray, don’t pay.’ CFL, SC, Dallas, W-TX, W-LA all have ways to redirect funding away from the ‘national church.’ This is a live option and always has been. The Diocese is the fundamental unit of American anglicanism. Is now, always has been. McCall only writes up from a legal perspective what has been the steady polity of TEC. My priest father can remember a time, as can all clergy of his generation, when the PB was a diocesan and when there was no ‘national church.’ The only thing that appears to have changed is the will not to accede to present overreach.
St Francis in the Fields, Louisville, was the setting several years ago when on behalf of ACI I told the assembled they did not need to fund the national church — CP Rector Jennings told me at the recent Houston CP meeting that that was quite a statement. But it was simply the policy of places like CFL and Dallas and SC, with which I was familiar. (Now Canada, that is a different matter, but even here there are other ways forward). CP has said repeatedly that there is great latitude to differentiate and not leave — ‘pray, stay, don’t pay, obey the Lord Christ’ and seek wider Communion support and missionary outreach. Sorry, Bull Street, if that was not clear. Unsure why.
#2 — I do not know what diocese you are in, but you can consult with any CP Rector to discuss ways to address the issue you mention specifically. (The only ‘Bull Street’ I know is in Charleston, SC — thought you were in SC). I would not accede, for example, to +U-SC’s desire to pay the full apportionment to the national church. I suspect there is very little +U-SC can do if a church like Christ Church decides to give its money to support a missionary endeavor (this is a real example) rather than the ‘national church.’ But this has been the consistent logic of CP thinking and nothing new. Grace and peace.
So we stay in a Church that we are not prepared to fully support?
[i] The elves ask that you not try to comment with one liners. [/i]
And then the parish can be found to be unable to support itself and reduced to mission status, the Bishop taking over. And we know how well TEC respects the Canons. But I am glad that the CP rectors know how to play this game.
We support the anglican communion as non-leavers and so build up the Body of Christ in this AC. But we would say that, being non-leavers and ACI. ‘The Church’ we are prepared to support is the AC. If TEC chooses — 40% of it let’s guess — to demur in respect of Communion-Covenant life, CP will not.
Blessings to you and yours.
Thank you for this reflection! I have been greatly disturbed at the litigation and the bravado language of entitlement from all sides. Last summer while visiting my family the situation of the Episcopal Church came up in conversation. My uncle said; “Why on earth would any intelligent person belong to a church, nevermind the Episcopal Church? All you’ve demonstrated to me is what I see all around. Namely when you get pissed off you sue. I don’t need to go to church for that. You people don’t live any differently than the rest of us.” My heart sank. Oh that our witness was not so badly compromised. Lawsuits do not demonstrate the ‘more excellent way’. We should weep for this sin that our division brings no matter what side you are on. And pretending we are ‘reconciling the world to Christ’ by hauling people into court is profound evidence of our need for a Savior!
These are all fine points, but as many have said before, many of the reasserters churches were brought into the lawsuits by 815. What do you do then? It’s like a marriage: reconciliation is only possible if both parties will talk, negotiate and compromise.
Prof. Seitz–Thank you for the full reply. I appreciate it and it gave me a different perspective on CP. Actually, my Bull Street is in Columbia–famous in the past for the state psychiatric hospital. So, it is interesting that you addressed Upper SC’s approach. Bishop Henderson’s very personal appeal for full funding of the national church is now boilerplate for our convention. Any attempt to divert part of that money (e.g. for needy hispanic ministry in our boundaries) is voted down with applause. Very distressing. It raises the cool-aid specter.
Another note: Christ Church in Greenville–once the site of a diocese giving-rebellion–is now very much trying to play ball with Bishop Henderson. The new rector claims to be studiously non-political. The diocese has no (zero) clergy leadership for resistance to national trends.
It’s not carping. The Churches in the ACNA have been doing this for years. The dioceses are aware of the tactic of re-direction of funds and they are and will be taking steps to stop it. One way is to require the full payment of assessments to the diocese in order for the parish to retain it’s non-mission status.
And in addition is the fact that you are remaining in a Church in which you are not fully supporting by redirecting funds away from the diocese. Once you pay to the diocese you have no say where those funds go.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
Fair enough elves, but then I think Dr. Seitz’s comments directed at me should be slightly edited too.
A very powerful piece. It needs to be distributed to every delegate at next weeks reorganizing convention in Pittsburgh. There it is expected that a budget will be passed with fully 1/3 of it dedicated to legal expenses. Although some feeble attempt at justifying this outrageous expense is made by noting the $250,000 is being “privately raised” (fat cats at Calvary) isn’t it obvious that this money would be much better used in shoring up the feeble budgets of the many struggling and tiny parishes remaining with TEC? I am appalled that no one inside the reorganizing diocese seems even remotely interested in settling the property issues amicably.
Wow, great timing for this blog item! I just had this conversation with a friend from church! I recently moved from the Dio. of West Texas where I was able to choose what my pledge money funded (or, equally as important, DIDN’T fund!) to a diocese that doesn’t have this option. And, yes, it’s pledge time! What to do?!
My friend suggested giving to the Rector’s Discretionary Fund or to ERD or a particular mission. Good suggestions. But isn’t there a requirement of some sort of pledge to be a full voting member of a parish? She said she doubts anyone would really check up on that but some elements of TEC have been getting awfully petty! Do any of you know about a pledge requirement to vote at parish meetings and be considered a member in good standing?
14, It depends on the parish. Many parishes keep track of what their members pledge and limit church leadership positions to those who tithe. Some do not.
In my old parish in Florda only the treasurer know the amount of each person’s pledge. The Rector took the position that that was a matter between you and God. And our parish did re-direct funds for a time. He is now a member of the Anglican Network of North Florida.
teatime–Go talk to the Rector straight-up. Ask how s/he determines eligibility for voting for Vestry. The clergy are required to maintain a list of eligible people and they determine the list (usually with the Treasurer’s input on who is a supporter of the parish).
Thanks for the insight! I do need to look into this further and make some discreet inquiries. Our rector is leaving very soon, too, so policies could change with the new one.
Some of y’all practically spit out the word ‘litigation’ as though it’s a dirty word. I spent many years as a technology litigator, and I dislike its inefficiencies as much as anyone. But there are times when differences simply cannot be reconciled; in those situations, litigation is how civilized people settle such differences: in court, instead of in combat. The alternative to litigation is the rule of the stronger.
Arbitration is no panacea: it’s much like litigation, and if not managed properly can be nearly as expensive and time-consuming.
Mediation works only if both sides are willing to engage in give and take. From where I sit, most secessionists are willing to give nothing, nor to take anything less from TEC than unconditional surrender. (I’m sure many of you here feel the reverse about TEC.)
D.C., when the PB says she is willing to sell any church building to any party, including someone who will turn it into a night club, but she is unwilling to sell to those that just left (i.e., a new “anglican” entity), then it’s pretty obvious who is not “willing to engage in give and take.” It is obvious, also, that the negotiations that were gong on in the D. of VA were squelched by the entrance of the PB. Most successionists are more than willing to pay a reasonable amount for their properties.
The “Office of the Presiding Bishop” has sent letters to all known Episcopalian lawyers in NY (at least), specifically asking for donations that will be used to fund litigation against dissident parishes, such funds to be used in the discretion of the PB after consultation with an [unnamed] advisory committee.