From its beginnings, the Episcopal Church has relied on its geographic administrative units (dioceses) to preserve those claims. The Convention of the Diocese of Virginia, for example, asserted as early as 1790 that it was the “sole owner” of church property. For two centuries, dioceses have placed restraints on parishes encumbering property and claimed property when parishes closed.
For 29 years, the Dennis Canon has been a part of church discipline. All priests who are younger than 56 have made ordination promises to abide by the “discipline” of the church under church canons including that canon.
If some clergy and laity are uncomfortable with the range of interpretation by Episcopalians of the statements of belief found in our Book of Common Prayer, they are free to find a more compatible home but not to ignore other obligations they undertook as parish leaders. For me, leaving behind the property when one leaves the Episcopal Church is a moral obligation as well as a legal requirement.
Claims that “Christians should not sue Christians” or that the generous course is to negotiate a property settlement require that we ignore previous promises and obligations. This makes a mockery of the trust my grandparents and parents (and others) had that their work building an Episcopal church in a particular location would be honored by those who followed them. Many wrote clauses into their bylaws or articles of incorporation binding the corporation “forever” to the Episcopal Church.
Joan and I have had differed considerably on this topic over the past few years. Frankly, I have – and continue to have – problems with the continued reasserter focus on property (and yes I do know why people believe we should be doing it), but more for what it is doing to us as a community than because I believe there is no possible claim.
In the first place, strict regard for the intent of those who founded and funded the original parishes would leave many southern parishes clinging to a whites-only congregational order and would not have seen many of the formerly Anglo-Catholic missions of the San Francisco Bay area radically alter in character. The change that has taken place in Pittsburgh over the past half-century has been organic and indigenous, not the result of infiltration by reactionary elements from outside southwestern Pennsylvania.
More to the point, the approach Joan advocates assumes that there are no longer any relationships across the divide (if this perspective ends up prevailing, there probably won’t be). I once put it to her that in the case of St. Stephen’s, Sewickley, there would be no way that that church plant could be run by 10 percent of its present membership (many on the elderly side). Her response was that she had had experience of rebuilding several congregations that had split (either over personality or theology). It didn’t seem to me that she was taking account of the unprecedented nature of the present division. In the past, she always had a united diocese to provide encouragement and support. That is no longer the case in Pittsburgh, even if the remaining diocese were to be awarded the diocesan property.
Joan writes of an implied trust that the “work building an Episcopal church in a particular location would be honored by those who followed them.” I wonder if one can be so definitive. The founders of some the churches established during Bishop Pardue’s time are still with us. Is that really the sole criterion they had in mind when they went to work?
It’s interesting to note that Joan is hostile even to the idea of congregations deciding that it is in their best interest for realigners and reasserters to share space – at least for now. Even if one holds to an absolute view of the trusteeship principle, that doesn’t need to stand in the way of local arrangements, especially where people still acknowledge the common profession of an essential Anglican witness.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
[blockquote]geographic administrative units (dioceses)[/blockquote]
This is certainly an obvious example of asserting without arguing. Neither will I argue the point here, except to point out the unfounded assertion. The model of 815 as the Home Office of TEC, Inc. and dioceses as Regional Offices and congregations as retail outlets is neither self-evidently valid nor universally accepted.
It’s not at all clear to me that the moral and legal duties of trusteeship lead only and inevitably to the conclusions that my friend Joan Gundersen outlines.
Trustees are by definition required to act in the best interest of the party they represent, but that interest can and does often include concerns beyond the strictly financial and material ones in question here.
My own belief is that the life and mission of both the TEC and realigned dioceses will be enhanced most by an effort to envision a future where both may flourish as a blessing in Christ’s name to this corner of Southwestern Pennsylvania and the wide world.
My sense is that we are not simply Trustees of the institution of the Episcopal Church–although we certainly are that–but that we are even more deeply Trustees of the one Body of Christ.
My assumption is that in building churches and creating endowments and most importantly, most importantly, in preaching the gospel and reaching out in mission and ministry from within the Episcopal Church over all these generations it was the intention of our parents in the faith not simply to build up the Episcopal Church, but to honor Christ and serve in his name. I believe that as Trustees we must make every effort to be stewards of the fullness of that intention, which does not negate the Trusteeship implied in, say, the Dennis Canon, but which steps beyond it, and is a higher calling.
I don’t know exactly what it would look like in each particular case–perhaps the resolution in Donora would need to be different from the resolution in Sewickley. But if we aren’t able to sit down together in humility and with a spirit of grace and generosity on both sides of the table, Philippians 2:5 inscribed overhead and on our hearts, then neither “side” can walk away with any result but failure. Mutually assured destruction.
Bruce Robison
Amen to the above, Bruce.
I just wish that that those people on Standing Committee to whom I’ve talked weren’t so cagey about their ultimate intention. I would like to be doing something now, because the longer we wait the more opportunity for people on BOTH sides to say things they later wish they hadn’t said (your good self not included, of course).
Joan Gunderson writes:
Indeed they did in 1790, thinking that they were still the “Established Church” of the Commonwealth of Virginia and would carry on just as if the American Revolution never happened. Indeed, the “Established Church” asserted they owned EVERYTHING and the Commonwealth of Virginia said “Oh no you don’t!” and stripped their authority so that there would indeed be religious freedom in the Commonwealth.
In fact, it became a principle in the Commonwealth – the people decided their fate, not the institution – and the decision-making was based on legislation written by none other than Thomas Jefferson himself.
If you wanted the land you needed to put the bishop’s name on the deed, as the Roman Catholics did in Virginia. But the Episcopalians knew better than to do that, for they would have a massive rebellion that spanned theological divisions. There are deeply held principles in Virginia for why the bishop cannot compel financial support from the parishes in Virginia (“the Virginia Plan”) to the diocese and that his role is historically limited. We Virginians have very long memories, thank you very much, Mr. Jefferson.
It would be wise, I might add, for the leadership of the new province to remember that as well.
How can The Episcopal Church justify lifting out a piece of major Virginia history and let the context go by the wayside? How can a “historian” forget about Thomas Jefferson? But isn’t this the real issue before us now – the lifting of scripture and canons and state law out of context to suit one’s own political and litigious and theological proclivities? Shall we not now add history to that pile?
Isn’t it rather nice to imagine that the American Revolution never happened and The Episcopal Church will return to its exclusionary place as the Established Church where the people have no right to vote – as it is now written with reason in the law of the Commonwealth – after all? What’s next, the restoration of the Throne?
We cannot pull out the bits we like and throw the rest by the wayside, not in law, not in scripture, and not in history.
bb
“Previous promises and obligations”, as we all know, trump Christian considerations. Though I heartily endorse what Bruce has written (consistently), and pray that all the parties come to his conclusion, I have little hope they will. Dr. Gunderson’s position only reinforces the “surrender or die” option adopted by the organization supporting the Pittsburgh lawsuits. If Christian considerations or “claims” have no standing with Ms. Gunderson and her allies, I fear what lies ahead. Bruce is correct: Mutually assured destruction may not be intended, but it will happen. And for what purpose? In the meantime, the Gospel of Christ continues to be discredited by those who said they would uphold it. As we approach Holy Week, and as we recall how TEC has used holy seasons in the past to further their legal “strategy”, I suspect we shall see yet another action on the part of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society in opposition to the reconciling work of Christ on the Cross.
BB,
TEC appropriates without context whatever will support its desires. That is why they can butcher history so consistently.
[blockquote] Claims that “Christians should not sue Christians” or that the generous course is to negotiate a property settlement require that we ignore previous promises and obligations. [/blockquote]
Claims? Wow, those “claims” are straight out of scripture. Apparently, Ms Gundersen knows more than St. Paul.
I wonder if Ms Gundersen’s grandparents would approve of the the innovations that their granddaughter is forcing upon the denomination.
It is too late. Ms Schori will never abandon the present course. That would insult her overarching pride.
The lawsuits will result in the demise of the denomination. With their vindictiveness and mean spiritedness, the denomination is getting what it deserves.
I wish someone would do survey to ask the question “when you think of the church, what do you think of first?”
a. Your congregation
b. Your diocese
c. The national church or denomination
Would it be any surprise if the results were overwhelmingly “My congregation”?
Most people don’t have any allegiance to a denomination, they associate with a congregation they feel comfortable with or because of familial roots to a parish. Most don’t give a “fig” about the denomination, so spare us the diatribe on fiduciary responsibility for future generations of the church and the accumulation of wealth and property which was bought, paid for and sustained locally. TEC has voted itself the treasury and hopefully the Supreme Court of the United States will ultimately put an end to these unlawful trust clauses. If the Church or diocese owns the properties then get your names on the deeds and pony up some money to buy them and maintain them.
Probably true Palagious, but are you saying that’s a good thing? Out ere, many in ACNA argue that its those “familial roots” that have led certain conservative parishes to eschew realignment. Isn’t the essence of the present dispute that we ought to be thinking more in terms of the Church Catholic than the congregation? ACNA is at present stressing how property rights will be vested at the congregational level, but will that last? And should it?
And obviously “Out here.” Not my day for spelling.
[blockquote]”TEC appropriates without context whatever will support its desires. That is why they can butcher history so consistently.”[/blockquote]
That is because history is held in trust for the benefit of TEC by virtue of the Dennis Cannon. TEC may asserts its interest in, and re-interpret, those portions needed at any appropriate time.
Oh, and by the way, in addition to property, history, science, and dictionaries – chronological “time” is held in trust for the benefit of TEC, which is one of the several reasons that TEC can ignore the burden of two thousand years of Christian teaching – even to the point of proclaiming that their ancestors would, without hesitation, support the New Thingâ„¢.
More and more, TEC reminds me of an episode of Dr. Who.
; – )
Palagious and Jeremy. I say that I identify myself first and most importantly as an evangelical Christian, secondly by the name of the congregation which is my family, and finally as an Anglican which defines encompassing structure and patterns of my worship to my God. As an Anglican, I am also identifying with my larger family of believers.
Regarding Joan Gunderson’s arguments, I cannot get away from the fact that the denomination is rapidly redefining itself by its departure from the accepted doctrine and tradition of the Episcopal Church.
So who owns the property? Is it the organization which is no longer Episcopalian and therefore which might be said to no longer have legitimate claim to parishes which refuse to deviate from Episcopalian tradition and belief? Or, is it the ‘parts’ (dioceses and parishes) that maintain the ecclesiology that has described the ‘organism’ called the Episcopal Church since its inception.
I would hold that those who depart from the original ecclesiology (i.e. 815 et al) should not be the inheritors of the properties built to ‘house’ and enable the congregation that built the church. I also believe that property that was bought and built on by 815 and the current body which still calls itself the Episcopal Church (to use the formal name of this group) belongs to this Church, but property paid for and developed by congregations that still represent the traditions of the original Episcopal Church are the true owners of their property.
The middle group of congregations in which there is a relatively even split between the two (the progressives and the traditionals) are the ones who have to equitably resolve their issues.
[blockquote]All priests who are younger than 56 have made ordination promises to abide by the “discipline” of the church under church canons including that canon.[/blockquote]Hmmm, yes… the ordination vows. Now, what else was there in those vows again….
I guess if you can be selective about the bits of bible and the historic faith you deem to be authoritative, you can also be equally selective about the bits of the ordination vows you like best. At least it is consistent, in its way.
I promised to be “loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church [b][i]has received[/i][/b] them.” I did not promise to be loyal to anything the Church decided it could construe.
When it comes to secular property, I say we follow secular law. The property is owned by the names on the title and trusts are not created by the trustee. If TECUSA decides it wants to take ownership, then it should take the necessary steps to put its name on the deeds and titles. My own parish is owned by the “Corporation of the Diocese of Dallas” and any building, improvements (other than regular maintenance), or loans need to be approved by the Standing Committee.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, per your
[blockquote]When it comes to secular property, I say we follow secular law. The property is owned by the names on the title and trusts [/blockquote]
I think folks on both sides could start here. The question is, will be, “[i]who[/i] are the named entities?” If property is titled “Rector, Wardens, and Vestry of St. Swithen’s Church,” or, as you say, “Corporation of the Diocese of Dallas,” that only answers half the question. The next question is, if there are two entities claiming to hold the name on the title, what criteria does the court use to determine which is the valid one? The TEC argument is that once a Vestry, or a Rector, or a Bishop, ceases to be under the authority of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, the “person” under that title no longer holds the office. Per the national canons, under which all these entities once clearly resided, the Rector has to be an Episcopal Priest in good standing, the Wardens in Vestry have to be communicant members in good standing of the Episcopal Church. The argument would be that the ownership has not changed, but rather that the individuals, by leaving the Episcopal Church, were no longer qualified to hold the named offices.
Bruce Robison
BMR+
It also depends on the Articles of Incorporation for the Parish and the mechanisms to change them and if those mechanisms were followed. For example, if the Articles of the congregation (assuming that the congregation is incorporated as a non-profit in a state) are changed such that they are no longer members of the Diocese of X or that the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry no longer need to be members of TECUSA and those changes were done in the approved manner (again, according to the controlling documents), then that should settle it.
Of course, I believe that the best way forward is the negotiated settlement – even one that may leave two congregations worshipping in the same physical space with the larger congregation taking ownership, but having a legal contract that allows the smaller congregation to hold worship there and use the facilities as well. The two congregations should share fellowship together in terms of parish dinners, etc. They are still brothers and sisters in Christ even if one of them can’t see a way to remain in TEC given its current position and trajectory.
This will all become more interesting when TEC refuses to sign the covenant and removes itself as a full member of the Anglican Communion.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Everyone must read BabyBlue’s essay where she sends the supposed “church historian”, Ms Gunderson, back to school for a history lesson: [url=http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2009/03/episcopal-church-history-in-remaking.html ]The Episcopal Church: History in the Remaking?[/url] A snippet:
[blockquote]
She [Ms Gunderson] writes to explain why TEC is pursuing litigation in Virginia, when she writes:
[blockquote] “The Convention of the Diocese of Virginia, for example, asserted as early as 1790 that it was the “sole owner†of church property.”[/blockquote]
Indeed they did in 1790, thinking that they were still the “Established Church†of the Commonwealth of Virginia and would carry on just as if the American Revolution never happened. Indeed, the “Established Church†asserted they owned EVERYTHING in their purview and the Commonwealth of Virginia responded rather forcefully said “Oh no you don’t!†and stripped their assumed pre-Revolution authority so that there would indeed be religious freedom in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
[/blockquote]
Let me just repeat here what I said in the next thread:
Well, since TEc says that all parishes belong to it, and can never be taken out of TEc, and that the parish has no say in ownership, and are only the caretakers, the answer is simple:
Send every bill — utility, repair, upkeep, copier paper purchase, salaries, etc. — to 815 for payment or reimbursement. If They say They own it, then They can pay for it.
Jim Elliott <><
The other day I got a letter from my prescription plan stating that they “reserve sole right to determine medically necessary” prescriptions. Sounds a lot like 815.
Dumb Sheep.
Not being an academic, the joy of this site for me is the high quality of the posts. The Gundersen piece that kicks off this thread is no where near the quality of the comments. It appears to be written with tunnel vision at a shallow school yard shouting match level. It’s hard to believe that Gunderson purports to be making a serious argument.
The dioceses in this country are more than “geographic administrative units of the Episcopal Church,” as Joan says above. That’s like saying the states are simply “geographic administrative units” of the United States, which they are not. (And as Crawford+ wrote, the CEO model with 815 being the home office isn’t what we are about, either.) About the Covenant: from what I’ve read so far in the TEC response, the problem is not with the ideas in the covenant, it’s with the suggested regulatory machinery. I hope we can reach negotiated settlements on property in that spirit, that it’s mutuality which is important, not unbending and blind regulation.
#22 celindascott says:
Actually I would argue that states are simply “geographic administrative units”… now. That’s not what they were originally, and that’s not what the writers of the Constitution envisioned — the Constitution describes something rather like the EU, a collection of independent nations that have agreed to a common currency, a joint military, and free internal trade — but that is no longer the reality.
Ever since the Civil War, we’ve been one nation with internal administrative regions called “states.” The federal government is vastly more powerful than state governments, and the only effect of moving from one state to another is that your tax burden shifts around in relatively minor ways and you have to go stand in line at the DMV to get a new drivers license.
I see a similar process happening with TEC. Right or wrong, TEC is becoming a strongly centralized national church, rather than the collection of largely independent dioceses with a common prayer book that the Constitution describes. Unless something changes that course, I would lay good odds that in fifty years people will simply take it for granted that we are a church with a powerful central authority.
Although it’s true that the federal government has more power now (Hamilton would be happy, but Jefferson would be sad), and there are things the states can’t do, the states are still much more than “geographic administrative units,” as any observer of state politics can attest. It just isn’t that simple or easy to gain firm central control at the national level in all things, and it won’t be for the church either–although there has always been some central control in the church. I don’t think we have ever been “a collection of largely independent dioceses with a common prayer book” (witness +Seabury’s pressure on other bishops in the early days of the national church to keep certain items in the prayer book having to do with the essence of our faith; he couldn’t have succeeded without the willingness of other bishops to compromise for the sake of unity, but his influence at the national level initiated that compromise). Right now a difficulty is that the secular courts can intervene in property disputes, but not doctrinal disputes; this makes possible the selective enforcement of canons we are now seeing. Despite Canon IV:15, which defines our doctrine, bishops can teach against theism (the creeds are theistic documents, and the creeds are mentioned in our constitution) but no one wants the negative exposure it would take to formally inhibit those teachings.