Leaders in the Los Angeles diocese quickly suggested that Monday’s ruling might have a “chilling” effect on other congregations considering leaving the national church. But [Martyn] Minns disagrees.
Minns is missionary bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a group of more than 70 congregations and 150 clergy in 21 states. Founded in 2005, CANA was established as a diocese-like home for breakaway U.S. Anglican churches. The group includes 11 Virginia churches that last month prevailed in the largest U.S. property dispute in Episcopal Church history.
“I think [the California decision] might have a negative impact on some congregations, but most are leaving over principle, not property,” said Minns, speaking by phone from Nigeria. “Many congregations have chosen not even to contest [ownership of church] property. We’re doing this because we believe in something,” namely the inerrancy of Scripture and its status as the final, objective authority in all matters, including sexual morality.
Interesting that Bishop Minns says “Many congregations have chosen not even to contest [ownership of church] property” This does not seem to be true for the dioceses that left TEC. But I do applaud those that leave without trying to take everything with them. They are showing the better way.
By the way is “inerrancy” really a belief of CANA? (ACNA?) That is a new one to me.
Cultural context is an important consideration when looking at state court and federal court decisions.
The context of California is that of a state where politics and political appointments, including judicial, that has been driven by progressive/left-wing forces for over the past sixty years.
In addition, if the GLBT movement can be separated from the progressive/left-wing movements, California is a focal point for GLBT activism. Including GLBTactivism within ECUSA.
Therefore, an attempt to extrapolate an event in California to ‘fit’ the rest of the country is problematic. California is not the United States in the sense that what happens in California represents what is going on in the minds of citizens across the United States.
California as a media-center does impact American culture, but the thoughts and beliefs of the progressive/left-wing individuals of California are not the thoughts of the average American, even of many average Americans in California.
Therefore, take heart. The revisionists in ECUSA do not seem to make any serious efforts to promote anything but “inclusiveness,” whatever that means.
The revisionists do not focus on God’s Grace or Salvation or that the Holy Spirit abides with those who have truly accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. They also do not speak of sin, especially the fact that repeated and unrepentant sin is a self-imposed barrier erected by the individual that distances him from Salvation through Jesus Christ.
Instead, through “inclusiveness,” revisionist clergy of ECUSA have denied the spiritual singularity of Jesus Christ as the only path to Salvation for those exposed to His message, they have misinformed individuals under their pastoral care regarding what is and isn’t sin, they favor the ordination of clergy who unrepentantly sin and they wish to provide ‘holy’ rites for those persons who are unrepentantly engaged in sin.
Therefore, when one looks to the courts to decide property issues in the ongoing spiritual combat of orthodox Episcoplians with ECUSA’s revisionist hierarchy, one needs to look at the political makeup of the particular court involved. If a particular court clearly favors a political position over a well substantiated legal position, then that court can be challenged both legally and politically.
Yes, Eugene, I noticed that also.
I would like to believe that it was the fault of the reporter as it is not a quote from Bp Minns. Yet, this is a Christian publication and the reporter should know the difference between inerrantists and those (like the good folks at TESM for instance) who teach that scripture is verbally inspired (not dictated).
This is similar to moments when we hear well-meaning folks say that they read the Bible “literally” when what they really mean is that they trust the Bible as the inspired word of God and the primary and final source of theology. Or when liberals talk of reading the Bible in one of two ways, that is one either reads the Bible totally “literally” or totally “metaphorically” (when they really mean allegorically).
A good dose of Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana would clear this up!
The diocese that left are in a totally different position from individual parishes that leave. When a diocese leaves, it does so as a corporate whole, and thus properties and all holdings are part of that whole. It should also be noted that the orthodox dioceses are working with the individual parishes who choose to affiliate with TEc on their keeping the properties.
With the court cases underway, the question is when a congregation leaves a diocese staying with the national church, who then owns that property?
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
#1 Eugene and #3 Calvin:
If my experience here in T19 is any guide — to say nothing of what I’ve seen in the wider Christian world — then “inerrancy” is a slippery term and you usually have to pin down what the person using it thinks it means before drawing conclusions.
For instance, I’ve seen self-described “inerrantists” who take the Genesis creation story as historical truth, and I’ve seen other self-described inerrantists who take it as poetic or allegorical truth — without error in either case, of course.
And while I don’t think that ACNA uses the word — their theological principles refer to Scripture being “inspired” rather than “inerrant” — I have certainly heard reasserters here in this site point to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as describing their own position. And I have seen Matt Kennedy, for instance, throw around the word “infallible,” which is another slippery term that may or may not be the same thing depending on what he means by it.
So I would not be surprised if a fair number of people in ACNA, were the question posed to them, would in fact affirm the “inerrancy” of Scripture.
Thanks Ross, and thanks also for the link to the Chicago statement. I notice that J. I. Packer (who I and most orthodox Anglicans trust) signed this statement so I’ll have to read it carefully.
I suspect that once more I fall with more Barthian evangelicals on this count. But then again, my sense is that the same is true of folks at TESM.
“I think [the California decision] might have a negative impact on some congregations, but most are leaving over principle, not property,†said Minns, speaking by phone from Nigeria. “Many congregations have chosen not even to contest [ownership of church] property. We’re doing this because we believe in something,†namely the inerrancy of Scripture and its status as the final, objective authority in all matters, including sexual morality
And yet +Minns is contesting ownership of property. So I suppose he is doing that for the property and not the principle?
Response to Brian (#7),
Maybe CANA is trying to save its houses of worship just to prevent them from being profitably used by heretics to spread their disbelief.
I’m pleased to hear that principle is more important than property in Bishop Minns view. The difficulty is that a number of departing parishioners, including those at Truro, the Bishop’s prior home, have shown an very stubborn attachment to the physical property of the church. The “principle” would have shown through more starkly had those who left, left, instead of staid in the buildings.
#7: Minns is not contesting ownership of the property. He is not being sued by TEC/DioVA. The decision to retain property rests with the individual parishes.
#9: If you consider 90% as being “a number of departing parishioners”… Why should the majority leave the buildings to be sold? They will never again be viable TEC parishes even if TEC wins…
re no. 10: The votes at Truro and the Falls Church were much lower than 90% for departure – more in the range of 40 -60 %, depending on which number one uses as the accurate count of the parish census at the time of the vote. In any event, I was under the impression that those who voted to depart at both parishes continue to occupy the buildings and that they do not accept the notion that those who did not vote to depart can continue to conduct Episcopal services in those properties. If that is not correct, I am very confused, indeed. Those who voted to leave should leave. It’s the problem of those who did not wish to depart to fill the pews.
RE: “But I do applaud those that leave without trying to take everything with them. They are showing the better way.”
No — they can make their own decisions, but the better way is those parishes that are willing to seek to clarify the property law in each and every state to the highest level. Good for them and I thank them for their sacrifice.
Not to mention that even if they lose, they’ll have forced TEC to spend more money defending the lawsuits. And if they win, they will have kept another symbol of the Church and Christ’s gospel out of the hands of people who do not believe or promote that gospel.
Thank God for parishes who are willing to defend their property in the secular courts of law, where win or lose, they can receive a far more fair and just hearing than they ever received in TEC.