Quite simply, Christianity is about grace and love. For we who seek to follow Jesus, grace should take precedence over law.
The Episcopal Church operates through democratic processes. When a majority of a parish (or a diocese) votes to leave, those who leave should recognize that the property belongs to the denomination and, if they wish to have the property, offer to purchase it at fair market value. If those who wish to leave insist on keeping the property, however, grace demands that we accept that selfish decision rather than holding to the letter of the law. Although the Episcopal Church likely may prevail in the courts, it will have further alienated the disaffected, turned its focus away from the gospel imperative and wasted precious resources on an issue ultimately of little importance for God’s business.
This choice may seem unfair to the minority who wish to remain Episcopalian, but it is gracious towards the larger number who left as well as to those whom God’s love will touch because the church focuses, and invests its resources, in mission rather than legal actions. The Diocese of Virginia, for example, may well spend several million dollars in lawsuits to retain the property of seven parishes that voted to leave.
Although substantial property is at stake, for the several million dollars and countless hours of time the suits will require from bishops, priests and laity, the Diocese of Virginia could fund several new missions to serve those who remain and others. Successful lawsuits that retain large buildings for small remnants will burden those congregations with excessive overhead and probably instill a maintenance rather than missionary orientation.
“In private conversations, Episcopal Church leaders from various dioceses tell me that two important reasons for suing to retain title to assets of parishes and dioceses that wish to disaffiliate from the denomination are fairness to the faithful Episcopal remnant and deterring others from leaving.”
In fact, I don’t credit the first reason. It is all about the second.
And it speaks volumes that any church thinks that is the way to present a Christian witness.
It is much too sad that Rowan Williams tacitly supports that. I take the long view, though, so hope a future Archbishop of Canterbury does better.
If TEC operates through “democratic processes”, and a “majority” of a given parish votes to leave (and I assume here that the majority has been paying upkeep on and or has built buildings and purchased and maintained housing, as well as paying clergy and so on), then it makes sense that this majority be entitled to the real property they own. But it seems here that the democratic process only applies to people leaving TEC. But for this (leaving), people need only walk out the door – no vote need be taken. So just what is the process for? If it is a vote called by wardens (parish corporate officers), then the vote concerns a real institutional entity for which they are legally responsible, and is of course about property, plain and simple. It makes no sense for another entity, the diocese or TEC National Offices, to then trump the process and attempt to sell a church something the already own or fight to “keep” it in the secular courts. This sort of action is not democratic. It is tyranny (and please hear this word as it is properly defined).
We in the medical field believe that every child of God has the right to be a brain surgeon.
We in the law enforcement profession believe every child of God has the right to be a police officer and carry a gun.
We in the professional sports field believe that every child of God deserves a place on a pro sports team.
We in the mainline churches believe every child of God has the right to interpret Scripture and teach it to others, or even be made a bishop.
All this in the name of dignity and forget any qualifications or standards!
So just what is the process for? If it is a vote called by wardens (parish corporate officers), then the vote concerns a real institutional entity for which they are legally responsible, and is of course about property, plain and simple.
That process does not exist. There is no process in canon law for a diocese to vote to leave TEC and there is no process in canon law for a parish to vote to leave its diocese or TEC. (As an aside, there is a process in canon law whereby a diocese(s) of TEC can be released from TEC to form an independent province of the Anglican Communion. As we here in Mexico experienced in the recent past.)
A vote to leave is out of order. And, as the appellant court in California has found, and which the high court affirmed, the moment such a vote is taken, all who voted to leave have removed themselves from office and membership in TEC and no longer have any further legal jurisdiction over the parish’s property, real or personal.
Not so fast, David (#4). The Court of Appeal in California ruled only that the Fallbrook (St. John’s) parish articles and bylaws bound the parish corporation “perpetually” to the Episcopal Church, and the diocesan canons required that vestry members be “qualified electors” of the Episcopal Church. Once the vestry and directors resigned from the Episcopal Church, they no longer met the requirements to serve on the board or vestry of the parish corporation.
In contrast to what you say, there are no comparable provisions that bind any diocese “perpetually” to the national church, or that prohibit diocesan conventions from amending the diocesan Constitution or canons in any manner they deem fit. Nor do all dioceses require that deputies to their conventions be other than communicants “in good standing” in the diocese itself. Thus the case to which you refer has nothing to say, for example, about the votes taken by duly elected deputies to amend the Constitution of the Diocese of San Joaquin.
While we as the Episcopal Church operate with democratic principles, we operate under rules and covenants, as do most democracies (with the exception, I believe, of the Swiss). In becoming a parish, a congregation enters a covenantial relationship with the diocese and, by extension, with TEC whereby all real and personal property is held in trust for TEC. The same is true with our dioceses being made part of TEC. The same is also true of our clergy — deacons, priests and bishops — none of whom could have been ordained or consecrated without making a public oath to abide by the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church (not the doctrine or discipline they might later wish was held by the Episcopal Church).
Those leaving the Episcopal Church for whatever reason do not have the right to cancel the covenants previously entered into — nor do clergy retain rights and privileges (except for their vested interest in the Church Pension Fund) when they privately or publicly reject the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church.
There is a further problem for those voting to “leave” the Episcopal Church — and that is the fiduciary responsibility of Vestry members, voting members of diocesan conventions and Standing Committee members. As elected officers of the Episcopal Church they have a fiduciary responsibility towards the Episcopal Church. If they cannot fulfil those responsibilities they need to resign. There is good law that holds them accountable for criminal as well as civil damages. I don’t think the Episcopal Church is going to press for charges under each, except in the most egregious circumstances as in Colorado Springs — but surely leaders among the dissidents should be taking leadership in describing and urging the rules here.
One last thing: if the argument about democracy is really pressed, the majority of duly elected deputies to General Convention along with bishops entitled to vote represent democratic rule for the Episcopal Church. It is anti-democratic for Jack Iker to declare that his interpretation of the “real” doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church has any standing other than in his own thoughts.
G.K. Chesterton called The Church the most democratic institution in history because, through tradition, it allows the dead to vote. George (along with most Progressives) rightly calls the Episcopal Church democratic, but then forgets its largest voting block.
David,
Can you point to where dioceses are not allowed to leave TEC? Can you cite the Article and Section of the Constitution where they are forced to stay? How about the Title and Canon of the Canons where they cannot leave?
I didn’t think so.
According to the C&C;, the diocese must exist prior to being admitted to union with the General Convention. Thus, GC (and TEC) is a creation of the dioceses. TEC does no form dioceses, it is formed by them. All we have to do is look at the history of TEC to see that. The nine dioceses existed prior to the first General Convention.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
As usual PS, YBIC, you have reversed what I said. I said; “There is no process in canon law for a diocese to vote to leave TEC and there is no process in canon law for a parish to vote to leave its diocese or TEC.” I also said; “there is a process in canon law whereby a diocese(s) of TEC can be released from TEC to form an independent province of the Anglican Communion.” So, when there is an appropriate situation for a diocese to leave TEC, the Canons provide for that. That process has not occurred. There is also a process in the Anglican Communion whereby new provinces are formed, usually from dioceses of other provinces. That process has also not occurred.
Yesterday the judge in Colorado handed down his decision. Once again, as in the decided CA cases, in the decided NY cases, as in other past cases, the wording is familiar. Folks can leave TEC, they cannot take to property, real and personal with them.
As far as your description to how dioceses arise, it is really much more complicated and involves the General Convention and the “birthing” diocese. Go study the “birth of Dio Ft. Worth” from Dio Dallas and you might have a better handle on the process. The only time dioceses formed TEC was the initial birth of the province after the US-British War. Never been repeated since.