NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. ”“ May 5, 2009 ”“ St. James Anglican Church, at the centerpiece of a nationally publicized church property dispute with the Episcopal Church, announced today that it will file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to resolve an important issue of religious freedom: Does the United States Constitution, which both prohibits the establishment of religion and protects the free exercise of religion, allow certain religious denominations to disregard the normal rules of property ownership that apply to everyone else?
Under longstanding law, no one can unilaterally impose a trust over someone else’s property without their permission. Yet, in the St. James case before the California Supreme Court, named Episcopal Church Cases, the Court created a special perquisite for certain churches claiming to be “hierarchical,” with a “superior religious body,” which may allow them to unilaterally appropriate for themselves property purchased and maintained by spiritually affiliated but separately
incorporated local churches. St. James will argue before the U.S.Supreme Court that this preferential treatment for certain kinds of religion violates the U.S. Constitution.
The constitutional issues St. James will raise before the U.S. Supreme Court go far beyond St. James or even the Episcopal Church. Every local church, temple, synagogue, parish, spiritual center, congregation or religious group which owns its property, and has some affiliation with a larger religious group, is possibly at risk of losing its property upon a change of religious affiliation. As a result, religious freedom is suppressed, as those who have sacrificed to build their local religious communities are now at risk of having their properties taken based on some past, current or future spiritual affiliation. A United States Supreme Court decision in favor of St.James would benefit local churches and religious groups throughout the country because it would allow congregations the ability to freely exercise their religion without having to forfeit their property to a larger religious body or denomination with which they are affiliated in the event of a dispute over religious doctrine.
While petitions for review with the U.S. Supreme Court are never assured, there are compelling arguments for the Justices to grant this petition, including:
· Dozens of church property cases are percolating in the court
system, lacking clear constitutional direction.
· States are in conflict regarding the handling of church property cases.
· These issues have garnered widespread national attention and
involve important questions of federal constitutional law.
The people of St. James Church have owned and sacrificed to build their church property for many decades, and during that time they have never agreed to relinquish their property to the Episcopal Church upon a change of religious affiliation. St. James has consistently maintained that it has the right to use and possess its own property.
John Eastman, a nationally recognized constitutional law scholar, has
joined the legal team to pursue the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A response from the Court regarding the St. James petition can be
expected as early as October 2009. A decision could be reached as
early as mid-2010.
Even as St. James prepares for a bid on the Supreme Court calendar,
the church’s legal battle has returned to the Orange County Superior
Court. “While we are surprised that the California Supreme Court
would prefer certain religions over others when it comes to property
ownership, the battle in this case is far from over,” said Eric C.
Sohlgren, lead attorney and spokesperson for St. James. “The case has
already returned to the Orange County Superior Court. Because St.
James had an early victory in 2005 by legally attacking the Episcopal
allegations, we now look forward to presenting evidence and additional
legal arguments on behalf of St. James. For example, St. James has
brought a complaint against the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles based
on a 1991 written promise that it would not claim a trust over the
property of St. James on 32nd Street in Newport Beach.”
For more information, please visit the website: www.steadfastinfaith.org
=====================================================================
A Brief Recap: St. James Anglican Church’s Fight to Keep its Property
In August 2004 St. James Church ended its affiliation with the
Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the Episcopal Church over
theological differences involving the authority of Holy Scripture and
the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles
brought lawsuits against St. James Church, All Saints Church, Long
Beach, CA, and St. David’s Church, No. Hollywood, CA, and their
volunteer board members in September of 2004. Subsequently, the
national Episcopal Church intervened into the lawsuits against the
three local church corporations and their volunteer board members.
In August 2005 the Honorable David C. Velasquez of the Orange County
Superior Court ruled in favor of St. James Church and struck the
complaint brought by the Diocese of Los Angeles. In October 2005
Judge Velasquez issued a similar ruling in favor of All Saints and St.
David’s Churches. These early victories arose from early challenges
to the two complaints filed by the Diocese and the Episcopal Church,
and as a result, no trial ever occurred. The Episcopalians then
appealed to the California Court of Appeal sitting in Orange County on
this very limited court record, arguing that under neutral principles
of law they had a probability of prevailing and had alleged legally
viable claims.
In July 2007 the Court of Appeal rejected nearly thirty years of
California church property law by ruling that a secular court must
defer to the determinations of the highest level of the church
hierarchy regarding ownership of local church property, regardless of
any agreements between the parties, the corporate documents, who paid
for the property, or who held the deed. The Court of Appeal reversed
the trial court judgment in favor of St. James, and ordered the case
back to the trial court.
In August 2007 St. James filed a petition with the California Supreme
Court, which the Court unanimously and quickly accepted under the name
of Episcopal Church Cases. The Court heard oral argument in the case
in October 2008.
In January 2009 the California Supreme Court ruled in Episcopal Church
Cases that church property disputes in California must be resolved by
neutral or non-religious principles of law, not by civil courts merely
deferring to the decrees of church “hierarchies” or larger church
bodies. As a result, every church property dispute in California now
will be resolved based on non-religious factors that are unique to the
dispute. While adopting this non-religious method of resolving
property disputes between churches, however, the Court seemed to defer
to the Episcopal Church’s alleged “trust canon,” which purports to
create a trust interest in church property owned by local
congregations. The Court made its ruling despite the fact that St.
James purchased and maintained its property with its own funds and has
held clear record title to its property for over fifty years. St.
James believes that this ruling overlooked decades of trust law in
California that only allows the owner of property to create a trust in
favor of someone else, and will as a result have wide impact for local
church property owners throughout California that seek to change their
religious affiliation.
In late January 2009 St. James formally asked the California Supreme
Court to modify its January decision.
In February 2009 the California Supreme Court granted the St. James
request, and modified its decision to confirm both that the suit
against St. James is not over and that no decision on the merits of
the case has yet been made. Instead, the Court clarified that its
decision was only based on the limited record before it, which will
now be augmented through the normal discovery and trial process.
In late February 2009, the case against St. James Church corporation, the volunteer board members, and clergy returned to the trial court in Orange County where St. James can assert factual and legal arguments that were not addressed on appeal through discovery, depositions, motions, and trial. Using the legal standard set forth by the California Supreme Court, the Orange County Superior Court will eventually decide the merits of this dispute. For example, St. James has brought a complaint against the Diocese of Los Angeles based on a 1991 written promise that it would not claim a trust over the property of St. James on 32nd Street in Newport Beach.
In May 2009, St. James will plan to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. A response from the Court regarding its decision to hear St. James’s petition can be expected by October 2009. The Justices could render by mid-2010.
I could write their decision on the writ if it would help.
DENIED 9-0
The question is ridiculous and the Court will not spend more than 3 minutes
A better petition would be to move all of the property cases to Federal court. But then the petitioners would have to acknowledge that TEC is a national church.
#1 – agreed, brian. the supreme court won’t touch it.
While I think that St. James has the correct legal position, and while I believe that the current trend in the courts towards the “ecclesiastical tyrant” approach to resolving church property disputes is a gross violation of the U.S. Constitution, nevertheless, I think that Brian is most likely correct. The courts in this country are not about justice or truth, but rather about expediency and politics. The “rule of law” has been fading in our country for quite a long time now, and there is no reason to think that trend will reverse itself anytime soon. Judges are nothing but lawyers, and lawyers tend to be much less smart then they think they are, and a good deal more arrogant then they have the right to be. So anyone who thinks that St. James “will” win because they have the best legal argument is looking at the world through rose-colored glasses.
I tend to agree with 1 and 2.
The Supreme is loathe to touch property law cases, unless it tramples other substantive civil rights or is a multi-state issue that can be combined into one case. There is not sufficient ripeness with this particular case as far as I can tell.
Brian from T19 and youngadult – I suggest you check out the following Wikipedia entry – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory for a view of TEC’s future.
Does it help at all in getting to the SC that various Episcopal dioceses in various states have sued individual parishes? And that dioceses in various states have left TEC? Or would the SC view property law as a state issue and leave up to each state how to rule, without seeing this as a multi-state (and therefore potentially federal) issue?
With concerted efforts in fervent prayer, the Supreme Court Justices might be helped to see this situation as an assault upon free exercise of traditional orthodox Christianity (therefore a violation of the 1st Amendment) as well as the seizure of local church property (fraud) by persons with extra-Christian agendas.
Perhaps the cases from the 1970s should be re-examined.
Has TEC ever been compelled to produce conclusive proof of the passage and ratification of the Denis canon?
Perhaps also, every parish among the 50+ in court with TEC could join with them as well as all the CP parishes and dioceses filing as friends of the court. If they do not all act, there will come a time when they will regret it.
KJS et al need to be put in their places…whittled down to proper size, removed from office.
For the record, I would support St. James filing this request. It would be nice if the courts would actually rule justly. And I will always say – you never know what a court might decide. If St. James wins this one, the lid blows off TEC. If it loses, we just know where we stand.
But what is more important is that conservatives within TEC start playing smart. Timing of when to leave TEC should be strategically thought out. Put your parish into deep debt over the property, THEN leave. What would have been smart would have been for a handful of loyal Anglicans in each of the DSJ parishes to remain “loyal” to TEC and request funding from TEC to keep their Potemkin parishes open. Bleed TEC dry from within.
Conservatives should immediately cease giving money to TEC parishes or dioceses unless those parishes and dioceses create arms-length organizations to hold that money in a way that TEC can’t touch it.
TEC cannot survive on liberal tithes and investment funds for very long. It is conservative tithes that keep the beast running. Let’s use that power.
This is an area in which the Chief Justice has interest, and I would not be so quick to assume they won’t touch this. The votes (4) for cert might be there; the votes to overturn the California Supreme Court might not be, however.
[i] Deleted by elf for unnecessary sarcasm. [/i]
The property cases would be better brought when there are 4 state court diocesan property cases to consider, would they not?
Aren’t some of the justices Episcopalian? Would they have to recuse themselves?
FWIW – This is a waste of time and energy, as there is 0 change of the court granting cert. The only possible justification is that is costs very little and that may be worth the small amount of publicity that the petition may garner. It is wrong, however, to get folks’ hopes up who may not be familiar with the limited jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Very few matters may be appealed to the U.S. S.Ct., and this definitely is not one of them.
Frankly, the same is true of the appeal of the likely summary judgment in the San Joaquin case. Better to face reality now and save the energy for moving on, rather than have people continuously disappointed with how bad the world is treating them.
While I tend to agree to agree there is no federal question, the Supreme Court has been there before and some of their earlier cases follow the real property test. These cases may have brought about the Dennis canon. For the first time in our history, the Supreme Court does not have a protestant majority. Souter may be the only Episcopalian.
It is very, very hard to get a matter heard before the US Supreme Court. That said, it does present an interesting issue in an area of law that has been evolving. They should consider talking to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean at the new UC Irvine law school. I suspect that he may support St. James’ position, not because he supports St. James, but because in the past he has tilted to the “no establishment” side in the tug of war between establishment and entanglement. Recall his efforts to have the clergy housing allowance declared unconstitutional that ran aground only on standing issues. A pure argument that churches don’t get a pass on property laws of general applicability might appeal to his views.
Daniel271 (#13) said:[blockquote]It is wrong, however, to get folks’ hopes up who may not be familiar with the limited jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Very few matters may be appealed to the U.S. S.Ct., and this definitely is not one of them. [/blockquote]
While I agree with you on the very low odds of the petition being granted, I think it’s important to be clear that the California Supreme Court’s decision “[b]may[/b] be [b]appealed[/b] to the U.S. S.Ct.,” and that this definitely is “one of them.” Whether the Court grants the appeal is a different question. But to suggest that the case somehow isn’t justiciable by the U.S. S.Ct. would be incorrect…unless you know something I don’t.
If by “limited jurisdiction” you mean the tiny number of petitions that the Court grants each term, I agree with you. If you mean that somehow this isn’t a case that could ever be heard by the Court, I think you’re wrong.
Hey, let TEC win. St. James: walk away and hand them the headache and the debts. Go to the gym and start over. THAT will be a bigger witness compared to the vacuous souls that are chasing you down in court.
The more that the black hole leadership of TEC wins these cases the more that we can wish them luck in filling all of those useless, dead properties. What a legacy and heritage. Rich in things but poor in souls. And the PB wondered recently why there is so much bad press about her Church. Uh…well…
With concerted efforts in fervent prayer, the Supreme Court Justices might be helped to see this situation as an assault upon free exercise of traditional orthodox Christianity (therefore a violation of the 1st Amendment)
The protections in the First Amendment protect against government action, not churches.
as well as the seizure of local church property (fraud) by persons with extra-Christian agendas.
The vast majority of the State courts have already decided which party siezed the property and it wasn’t ++Katharine et al.
Jeff in VA…just because it is a decision by a state supreme court does not make it subject to review by the U.S. S. Ct. The point I think you were trying to make is that the petition…at least according to the reports I’ve seen…is trying to assert a constitutional issue under the Establishment Clause. Anything is possible, but that’s a reach and as close to reaching 0 percent chance as is possible in the real world. My point is, people should not get their hopes up on this…or on a Dio. San Joaquin appeal of the probable Superior Court summary judgment in that case. It’s a matter of picking one’s battles wisely…and so far it appears that people have been operating on an illusion that the land and buildings will not ultimately be found to be the property of the Episcopal Church. To foster unrealistic hopes engenders only bitterness.
And a note of caution to JamesW (or those who may take his advice seriously) who wrote:
Put your parish into deep debt over the property, THEN leave. What would have been smart would have been for a handful of loyal Anglicans in each of the DSJ parishes to remain “loyal†to TEC and request funding from TEC to keep their Potemkin parishes open. Bleed TEC dry from within.”
On this, “Youngadult”, whose comment appears to have been deleted, was spot on…at least for those who hold office in what are currently Episcopal churches (i.e., vestry, rectors, treasurer). As long as they hold office they have a fiduciary duty to not “waste” the resources by spending down and leaving a debt ridden building. Officials who intentionally do so run a risk of civil liability and possible criminal penalty, depending on how obvious the attempt to bleed the church dry is..
Besides which, it is immoral and unworthy of a Christian… how is that not self-evident to [i]all[/i] of us?
I find it amazing that conservatives, who normally would support state’s rights, are asking for the federalization of real property law. I am hoping that the Supreme Court will appropriately regard this as a matter best handled on a local basis (like family law) and let the states implement their own rules consistent with their local values. That may be untidy, but that is what our federalism entails.
I will note that the suggestion in the press release that the California Supreme Court somehow invented an unconstitutional distinction between hierarchical and congregational denominations is simply incorrect. Almost every state applied that distinction—based on a 19th-century ruling by the Supreme Court of the US—until about 50 years ago, and the majority of states still do. Subsequent SCOTUS decisions have recognized that states may, if they wish, ignore the factual distinction and treat all denominations alike (in practice, as if all were congregational in polity)… but it has seemed highly unwilling to impose one rule or the other on an unwilling state legislature or court system.
Both sides need to back away from this litigation frenzy and behave like Christians, even if they no longer recognize each other as such.
#18 – again, exactly right. this is not a question of the establishment clause, because the government is not “establishing” the episcopal church over and above the breakaway groups, and the “seizures” have already happened and are now being rectifies by the courts.
#19 – first off, thanks for the backup (i usually don’t get that on here…). okay, let me say this as unsarcastically as possibly, for the elves sake: following jamesw’s “advice” will not hurt tec, which will be able to recapture its assets when they come from the former leader’s pockets. if the church’s “leaders” covertly fritter away money in the hopes of bottoming their church before they bail out, then the church will sue, not out of some “scorched earth policy/instilling fear in other to stay,” but because the former leaders have violated a fiduciary responsibility, and so that responsibility shifts up to the next-higher leader (bishop, presiding bishop), who is likewise canonically required to protect the assets from loss. we saw this in pittsburgh, as well as at the parish level elsewhere. there, not sarcastic; just reality.
#20 — hi frank, that’s what i (admittedly sarcastically) said immediately before it was removed; following the “advice” to waste money is terrible stewardship, unworthy of being called christian.
Could it be that is far better to never align yourself completely with any form of hierarchical authority, but instead have an unwritten affiliation with some group or authority, whom you consider shares the same spiritual views and values you do?? This arrangement could be changed quickly and seamlessly at any time. The lawyers would go crazy.
ps The lawyers have collected about $8,000,000 so far, and the clock is still running. How Tragic that no souls have been saved!
youngadult: You appear to misunderstand my point. I am not talking about “frittering” away assets unlawfully. What I mean is the parishes should begin, for example, an expensive remodeling project. Nothing illegal about that. Then in the middle of the project, the “individuals” can simply walk away from the building to start a non-TEC parish. That leaves the TEC with an unusable church on their hands that isn’t worth very much UNLESS there are people to support it. At this point, TEC has the choice of either taking a major financial hit or negotiating from a weak hand. There isn’t any lawsuit which could result from the above.
As to statements by Jamesw. I agree with Daniel271. In fact I think those statements are sufficiently clear to constitute an invitation to engage in a conspiracy to defraud the Episcopal Church, and if anything comes of it would possibly be admissible evidence in a criminal prosecution. It would clearly be admissible in a civil action. Lets hope jamesw is not currently in a leadership role in any Parish or Diocese.
#26 – okay, let’s just assume for a moment that what you suggest is indeed both legal and canonically acceptable (a questionable assumption, but we’ll go with it). does that mean that it is good stewardship? how is intentionally beginning a project — sinking both time and money in it — that you have no intention of finishing make stewardship sense? a remodeling project like you hypothesize would likely displace worship, at least temporarily; you yourself call the church “unusable” in the meantime. what is the purpose of such a project, other than a) spite, b) wasting money, or c) all of the above? you would hinder or prevent worship, spend money on a non-necessarily needed project (to avoid calling it “frittering”), all with the plan of swooping in when the church is forced to “negotiate from a weak hand,” and call it ethical, much less christian? sounds more like the scheming of which tec is all-too-often accused.
p.s. — elves, don’t delete this; it’s not sarcastic, just honest questioning.
jamesw, regarding your suggestions in #26, you are wrong. The actions you propose are referred to in civil tort law as Fraud in the Inducement, and would subjecting all those involved to liability for actual and punitive damages.
#28
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. Starting a project that you expect to walk away from in order to saddle someone else with the consequences is appalling stewardship.
Frankly, I don’t buy the argument that conservatives have a duty to keep funds invested in their parish out of the hands of “liberal activists” at all costs. There will be another and more final judgment about how they were acquired or used.
It’s fair enough to use the legal process in a case where the other side are not willing to negotiate a division of assets (though I question its wisdom) but if you’re going to take that route abide by the process (and don’t get so wrapped up in it that all negative decisions have to be explained away or the authority of the losing ecclesiastical body is compromised).
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I rarely disagree with jamesw. Today I must. At least in part. His #26 is not sound advice.
#8 Souter just announced his retirement. Thomas, a RC, used to attend Truro with his wife and might, emphasis on might, feel compelled to recuse.
In the main, as I’ve articulated here and on SFIF in the past, I think it is well within the realm of possibility if cert is granted that the Supremes will come down in favor of the hierarchical church arguments. It might even be unanimous. Conservatives don’t want to touch the 1st amendment and thus might well defer to the hierarchical church argument and walk away while the the liberals don’t want the FedCons to win based on their view of civil rights.
Probably not what a lot of folks on this blog want to here, but so be it.
Good luck,
-miserable sinner
I see 5 votes to take the case and 5 to find in favor of San Juan, St. James, et al: Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts and Alito. These men are all RC so inclined to be hierarchical in their world view, however they are smart enough to see the sham that TEC has become: usurping property through improper means to fund their heretical activities.
Case closed!
I should add that TEC loses either way: if they win on court they can’t do anything but sell the buildings to fund their silliness, and eventually they’ll run out of buildings…..
I would consider this a high-risk strategy. What, after all, would happen if TEC won? Let’s see…would they therefore automatically get everything in Ft Worth, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Virginia, everywhere else?
#34
I suspect TEC will, in the long run, win anyway (with perhaps the exception of VA). The courts are loath to get involved in the intricacies of canon law (esp. when one sees just how complicated, unclear, and confusing canon law can become at times).
When rulers invent novel interpretations of existing law in order to accomplish their aims, we live under a tyranny. In other words, the TEC today. Sigh. At least the Lord laughs at the wicked, because He knows their time will come.
With regards to the suggestion by jamesw in #8 et al to potentially leave behind a debt, I believe the corporate language is that of a “poison pill”, a measure designed to prevent a hostile take-over. There are two areas to question: 1. when is a defensive move a matter of good stewardship (our parish has property insurance and hurricane shutters, both of which seem to be matters of fiscal responsibility)? 2. what is an effective tactic for a defensive strategy?
Regarding the later, money and debt do not appear to be effective. TEC is willing to spend millions–very few parishes can create a deep enough hole to prevent TEC from swallowing that debt. Our parish is considering the opposite defense: invest very little in property, and invest lots in people. If we can not take the property when they kick us out, we’ll still have the ministry team, leadership, and membership to move forward. The Church after all are the people baptized into Christ Jesus, not the edifices. The edifices instead are tools for ministry.
words of wisdom Senior Priest, words of wisdom.
#37: I know of several parishes pursuing the strategy you outline.
#37 – realize also that eventually TEC will not be able to swallow the debt as there is a finite amount of assets that they can liquidate. TEC can’t prevail long term unless they find new sources of revenue, and that involves getting people back in the pews, something at which they have for 40 years failed to do.
LCF (post #37) – your way is, of course, the right way. I do, also agree with Chris (#39) that TEC doesn’t have an infinite supply of money. There are several dioceses teetering on the edge, while the wealth seems concentrated in certain pockets.
JamesW adds an unhibitedly overt scorched earth aspect to the “Let’s grab the assets on our way out” philosophy that has so cheapened the very legitimate theological discussions that underlie current discord in the Anglican Communion. While I’m sure there are relatively few secessionists who would express their views as exuberantly as he does, I fear that there is too much of his destructive disregard for stewardship abroad in the land. Think what powerful witness could have been made by thousands of departing Episcopalians leaving behind the places where they used to worship because of their unhappiness with their perceived view of current Episcopal doctrine and practices, worshipping in garages, homes, gyms, theaters, while amassing resources for the construction of distinctively modern new buildings to mark a revolution in American Anglicanism. Instead, we have departing brethren who want to have their cake and eat it too, ostentatiously castigating the Church, but clinging to property, ousting those who wish to stay as Episcopalians, and provoking waves of dissipating litigation where resources of the faithful on both sides end up in the pockets of lawyers, some of whom are not even Christians. What utter folly. Where is the Spirit in all of this? Where is the sacrifice for orthodoxy? It is utter madness. None of this would be happening if those who feel strongly about the errancy of the modern Episcopal Church in the United States would just leave. There are no doubt many cases in which the remaining parish would not be sufficiently populous to support the property and reasonable arrangements could eventually be made. But a great opportunity for witness has been missed, and outsiders looking in would be forgiven for thinking that most of this looks just like a power play to grab accounts and buildings. JamesW just lets trip off his e-tongue what many repress – that there is hatred and malice at work here, and a desire to inflict harm on God’s larger Church.
35. Hursley wrote:
“I suspect TEC will, in the long run, win anyway…”
I assume you mean TEC will win the property. There is absolutely no possibility that a post-Christian church can win anything of eternal value.
While it’s unlikely the Court will take the case, it’s worth the effort. Any parish established and built before the Denis Canon arguably thought it owned the property, and the imposition of a trust without consent is unjust. This is a property issue, not directly a theological one. California was said to be a state where the deed ownership would prevail, and watching “neutral principles” fail there has been disappointing.
The effective way to use the weapon of money against TEC is to stop giving it money. If you are staying, you must find a way for your parish and diocese to stop sending any money to the national church. If you’re in a hostile diocese, you must find a way for your parish to stop sending any money to the diocese. Where these things are impossible, you have the difficult choice of continuing to worship where you cannot in good conscience put an offering on the plate, or worshiping in an alternate Anglican place where you can give with joy.
I agree that a Vestry cannot deliberately involve itself in plans to build when the parish numbers and outlook don’t support the plan. I do know of at least one TEC parish which embarked on an ambitious building plan only to see its numbers drop because of the Robinson matter. This is a liberal parish, so there is no question of its leaving, but its outlook, and indeed that of the diocese, is rather bleak.
In my experience, in California, political correctness trumps justice on social issues. Gay issues and abortion for women must be supported regardless of any legal arguments. Since the Episcopal Church supports abortion for women and gay issues, their pleadings before the court in California must be given special consideration some bias. With that in mind, California churches in conflict with the Episcopal Church should consider closing their churches and church schools and leaving them for the Episcopal Church and whatever diocise to manage. Continuing to support the Episcopal Church with time, talent or treasure is not an option.
#41 — you hit the nail on the head there. conversely, also, as a faithful episcopalian, i can assure all that the episcopal church does not want to be wasting money embroiled in lawsuits either. just as much as the departing groups, tec would love to put the money toward mission in the world. if you want to leave, then leave. but please, don’t waste everyone’s time and money. we all want to use it to help bring christ to the world.
#42 – tec is not “post-christian,” just “christian.” and trust, me there are plenty of faithful episcopalians who be winning things “of eternal value.”
#43 – interesting points. my question would be whether by virtue of the fact that general convention voted to approve the canon, in conjunction with the fact that dioceses accede to the national church and general convention, implies that dioceses (and their congregations) acceded to the dennis canon as soon as it was passed by gc. i would also like to disagree with one of your two options. if you feel like you need to leave, we’ll miss you, god bless you, see you on the other side. but if you elect to stay, then is it right to simply stop offering time, talent, and treasure? as noted above, if congregations would stop trying to unjustly take property, no one would be wasting money on lawsuits. furthermore, the amount spends on such suits pales in comparison with the money tec puts toward mission work in the world. so is it really good and faithful stewardship to say that because others are taking our property, which we have a fiduciary responsibility to keep, that faithful christians should stop giving, when by and large, their gifts go to those who need them (and christ) most?
My understanding of the Dennis Canon is that it attempts to create an implied Trust between a Diocese and a Parish. The danger of approaching the Supreme Court with this question is that a negative ruling could reinforce an interpretation that would include the National Church itself (which I’m sure TEC would love to have in its lawsuits with the departed Dioceses).
This might also weaken St James’s own case, especially since they are now resurrecting the issue of Bishop Borsch’s written promise not to claim the property.
One poster writes … But what is more important is that conservatives within TEC start playing smart. Timing of when to leave TEC should be strategically thought out. Put your parish into deep debt over the property, THEN leave.
and … Bleed TEC dry from within.
and … What I mean is the parishes should begin, for example, an expensive remodeling project. Nothing illegal about that. Then in the middle of the project, the “individuals†can simply walk away from the building to start a non-TEC parish. That leaves the TEC with an unusable church on their hands…
The above suggestions are outside the bounds of any reasonable and decent sense of propriety. I sincerely hope that our poster might reflect on what he has suggested and then rethink his position.
Of late, it seems that toxic comments are on the rise at TitusOneNine. Perhaps it’s time to take a break.
Children, how hard it is for those who trust in their wealth to get into the kingdom of God! Perhaps all should step back and think what is truly important. The disciples walked away from all they had to follow God should not we who claim to be on the side of truth be willing to forsake a few worldly treasures and start anew so that god may bless us in the future?? Think how it tarnishes our message to be embroiled in this dispute in a worldly court. Walk away never look back and be blessed for it.
Jamesw doesn’t really want to poison the well, does he?
45. Youngadult,
I did not label TEC as post-Christian — Pope Benedict XVI did that. Of course it is post-Christian. It says Jesus is a way, but not the way. It says people should not take the Scriptures too seriously. (Much less important than the canons.) It is dying out for lack of attention to the Great Commission. What else does it have to be to be non-Christian? Elect Buddist bishops?
All that said, I agree with you completely about the fact many Christians remain in TEC. I attend an Episcopal church during the winter, and I love the people in it. I see the attempt they are making to return their church to Christianity, and I pray for it and them. In the long run I think they will need to get out of TEC if they are to advance the cause of Christ and put down the rear-guard action and retreat of which they are increasingly becoming aware. They have a fine Christian Bishop in John Howe. Who will take his place?
#43 youngadult, the question of whether the canon on property is binding if the parish didn’t immediately leave is what is being litigated and is a reason for the appeal. Individual parishes and dioceses were not specifically called to accede to this canon. Are property rights lost simply because no protest was filed? At what point?
As to the money, these questions are exactly why I have left, personally. I could no longer put money on the plate to support an organization which no longer teaches what I believe, and which, in failing to teach “right teaching” in religious and moral matters failed to support my then-teenaged daughters in the struggles they and all young people face. Since you are a young adult, you do not have the privilege I do of having known my parents and grandparents, born in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, and you have not seen the massive changes which have affected the church in my adult years. Present-day teaching and practice represent a clear and dramatic break from past generations. TEC today is indeed “a new thing,” and it is not a continuation of the faith for whose support those dead generations gave. You feel that people are trying to steal things from your church, but I feel that somebody stole my church entirely.
Probably your side is going to end up with most of the stuff, but trying to make people, who sincerely dissented and believed they owned property for which they paid and on which they held the deeds, pay for losing the lawsuits TEC filed is really not right. It’s vindictive, which is not an especially Christian attitude.
Much heat, some light, above. I generally agree with what I see as a predominant sentiment here – the Court will not accept certiorari on this case, leaving the California Supreme Court decision intact. [Jeff in VA, #16, expertly explains this, I think.]
#21 Dale writes “I find it amazing that conservatives, who normally would support state’s rights, are asking for the federalization of real property law.” While it is probably unnecessary to mention this, religious conservatism does not equal political conservatism. I may be a religious conservative, but I would love to repeal the 2nd Amendment. What does that make me? Yet, even so, I agree with Dale on his essential argument about “our federalism” – which in the eyes of some make us both judicial conservatives. It’s a strange word and concept and demonstrates the fallacy of labeling.
Brother sinner, #31, above writes “Thomas, a RC, used to attend Truro with his wife and might, emphasis on might, feel compelled to recuse.” A point of clarification – Justice Thomas infrequently attended a Friday night praise meeting when John Howe was rector at Truro. He attended a handful of Sunday services, but was never a member. With respect to the St. James petition, there would be absolutely no basis to recuse. It’s unlikely that there would be a basis to recuse even if it were the DioVa litigation which was on appeal.
#32, Chris writes the five horsemen of the Church of Rome (my phrase, not his) would see past the hierarchy they would normally support and strike down the deeds of the evil liberals in ECUSA (okay, this is all my gloss on his comment). I disagree. I think, in agreement with Dale, that their principles of federalism would override any anti-liberal political biases they might have and they would have no compunction against ruling for ECUSA.
This is one of those situations which is unique – as Dale notes in passing, it is the “liberal” Supreme Court of the recent past which has given us a basis for thinking there might be a ray of hope. It was Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan who overturned the notion of deference to a hierarchical church (correctly, in my opinion – I must be a rank liberal), in favor of neutral principles of law. Basically, the neutral principles approach looks to the deeds and other legal documents as they would if the organization were any other non-profit (or even for profit, such as a franchise). If a hierarchical church believes that the Bishop or Diocese holds property, it should act like it believes it and put their legal documents in order. If not, and the local churches walk, with legal documents supporting them, well, why should the court ignore the deeds?
Ironically, this brings us back to the Virginia litigation – where the litigation is based on a Reconstruction-era law passed by those Yankee carpet baggers (or progressive legislators, depending on where you are from) which looks to what Marshall and Brennan would come to call the neutral principles of law. And, here in Virginia, we have the religious liberals seeking to strike down a liberal law and doctrine adopted by the two pillars of judicial liberalism.
I’m so confused.
#51, Katherine, very well put. When I read what youngadult said, it made me think of my grandparents and parents and the years of loving sacrifice of time, effort and funds they put into a church they would no longer recognize. It’s beyond insulting to hear people like youngadult say that it’s okay if we leave – just don’t take the stuff with you. Very callous indeed.
William Sulik, you may be right, however I’m wondering if you, or anyone else, can reconcile embracing federalism squares with the rejection of neutral principles in a property dispute? That seems to be a non sequitur……
#50 (canaanglican) – if pope benedict xvi said that, then i am going to have to assert that he is also mistaken. and while i do not doubt that you can find some prooftext from someone in episcopal authority to defend your suppositions, your statements are mistaken if you look past individual instances. no episcopalian worth his or her salt would dream of saying that the canons should be placed higher than the bible. the church on a local, diocesan, and national level is indeed working to fulfill the great commission. choosing problematic statements occasionally made by some leaders and enlarging them to be the standard thought of the church as a whole at all levels is no more ridiculous that saying that all those in cana/acna/et al. are schismatic, special operatives seeking to blow things up. aside from that, i disagree that your fellow church members will “need to get out of tec to advance the cause of christ;” why would they? if they are faithful and genuinely christian now, as you say, then why should they become any different? whether the church adopts resolutions at gc that they do not like or not, will they cease be faithful if they remain?
#51 (katherine) and #53 (alli b) – i think its honorable of you to follow your conscience and leave if you must rather than worship where you cannot meet god. but that did not answer my other question – if one elects to stay, then is it right not to continue giving for the work of ministry in the world?
now, as to the fact that i am young: it’s true, i don’t necessarily have a very long view of the church (except through church and episcopal history classes). i know that since, say, 1970 especially, the episcopal church has undergone real changes, perhaps even to the point that previous generations “would no longer recognize” it (though i think this is somewhat doubtful). i believe you when you say that you feel the church is no longer teaching the “right teachings” and that “somebody stole your [hmmm… my church? isn’t the church, by its nature, supposed to be outward-looking?]” church from you. but i would then ask: is the church is supposed to remain static? the church that your grandparents, parents, or you yourself received is different from the earliest church’s house meetings, or from the ninth-century unintelligible latin mass wholly dominated by clergy, or from the sixteenth century elizabethan church (though perhaps less so), or from william white’s church, all to say nothing of the equally-as-much “received” catholic church in brazil, anglican church in new zealand, etc. are you then implying that since those earlier christians would not identically recognize the modern church that their gifts of time and treasure were in vain, or that the modern church is an illegitimate continuation? i don’t think so; i’d say they would realize we live in a different time and place, yet worship the same god. it may not look identical, but that need not negate its truth or witness. i am not trying to be “callous,” alli, but honest – things change, nothing remains static (i already feel the accusations of buddhist synchretism raining down on me). that does not mean that the new is awful, just that it is new. if the newness is irreconcilable for you and you feel compelled to leave, then i really do get it. but please do not call all new things ill, when the church that you received is also a product of new developments.
as to the legal side, i am only stating the canonical facts. not trying to be cold, or callous, or whatever, just saying what the canons say. now, you may not like the canons, but that does not change the fact that they have in place a legal obligation to protect assets against loss (in the cases of the departing parishes’ property), and to maintain fiduciary accountability (in the case of the individuals). i understand if you don’t like it, but that’s how it is. it’s not some vindictive, callous evil – it’s playing by the rules.
youngadult says:[blockquote]i know that since, say, 1970 especially, the episcopal church has undergone real changes, perhaps even to the point that previous generations “would no longer recognize†it (though i think this is somewhat doubtful).[/blockquote]
You think it is doubtful that my parents, grandparents and others of their generation would be appalled to see men marrying men and women marrying women in their beloved Church? You think it’s doubtful that these same people would be shocked to see bishops of their beloved Church who openly deny Christ’s uniqueness as a path to salvation and deny the resurrection?
[blockquote]but i would then ask: is the church is supposed to remain static?[/blockquote]
Yes! Absolutely, positively, yes! It’s called adhering to principles; in this case, principles set for in the Scriptures. Your suggestion that the Church should shift with cultural norms is frightening, and this is actually what has occurred with TEC. It is why people are leaving in droves. Yes, the “newness” you advocate is totally and completely unacceptable, but how nice of you to wave at us as we leave. You may tell yourself it’s not callous. It surely is. And by the way, the “Church I received” is NOT “a product of new developments.” I don’t know where in the world you get that idea or, for that matter, many others that you’ve expressed.
Re: #17 above: Actually, there are no debts associated with St. James property apart from the usual monthly bills (gas, electric, etc.). Our former Rector, Bp. David Anderson, was insistent that all the funds be in place BEFORE we broke ground. We would be handing over approximately 10 million in bay-front Newport Beach property.
#56 (alli b) – let’s take your argument back in time. would the early church fathers “be shocked” to know that you are in a church that doesn’t subscribe to the total authority of the pope? would medieval christians “be appalled” that you belong to a church whose catechism calls the notions of both purgatory and transubstantiation “repugnant” to the word of god? would early seventeenth century anglicans be horrified at the idea that your family would call yourselves a member of the anglican church, yet (probably) trace your bishop’s apostolic lineage through samuel seabury, consecrated by scottish nonjuring bishops? would slavery-era episcopalians be scandalized to think that tec has african-american diocesan bishops?
the answers to the above questions are most likely yes, yes, yes, and yes.
but if that’s the case, then how can you assert that the church hasn’t changed? unless you are ready to revert back to the earliest teachings of peter and paul’s communities (which i don’t even think we can actually have a crystal clear picture of, and which your family clearly was not doing), then why should you expect that once the church reached your (or your parents’/grandparents’/etc.) generation that it should suddenly cease changing?
answer me this, alli: are you ready to subscribe to the pope, defend transubstantiation as biblical, claim an unbroken and division-free apostolic connection to peter, and reject the ministries of african-american episcopal clergy? because if you aren’t 100% ready to commit to those (or any of countless other changes, long before women’s ordination or the consecration of faithful lgbtq clergy entered the picture), then i think you need to rethink your claim that the church is not a product of new developments.
when i attended TEC i insisted on giving my tithe to the discretionary fund, that way i knew my money wasn’t going for lawsuits. that is, until i realised the rector was giving me the run around on his true feelings about the direction the church was taking and just placated me to increase his numbers to the higher ups(a very small church)…once i realised he couldn’t be trusted i had to get out. it’s only natural of course that when your church abandons the faith they won’t act honourably or honestly. youngadult won’t realise this until he’s an oldpooh. sin is sin my good fellow no matter which age you are living in. take it from an old lady, you will want something in your life to remain stable throughout your life because EVERYTHING else will change. the Bible remains unchanged for a reason, it has lasting power.
[blockquote]let’s take your argument back in time[/blockquote]
Gee, how far back are you going here? And I’m talking about the Scriptures, not evolving from Catholicism. I think this response is a bit specious.
[blockquote]answer me this, alli: are you ready to subscribe to the pope, defend
transubstantiation as biblical, claim an unbroken and division-free
apostolic connection to peter, and reject the ministries of african-american
episcopal clergy? because if you aren’t 100% ready to commit to those (or
any of countless other changes, long before women’s ordination or the
consecration of faithful lgbtq clergy entered the picture), then i think you
need to rethink your claim that the church is not a product of new
developments[/blockquote]
I think your argument is frankly ridiculous. And a smokescreen. We’re talking about men marrying men here and denying Christ’s divinity, youngadult. Please address that “newness.”
#60 (alli b) – i note that you still didn’t address my questions from either post, but i’ll go ahead and give yours a shot anyway. but first let’s think now about marriage, since it seems to be a hang-up for you. even this rite has greatly evolved: american episcopalians can now not marry older men to underage women, as in shakespearean europe, for instance; interracial marriage is legal; episcopal clergy can marry; polygamy is illegal in the united states; etc. so again, please don’t imply that the way marriage is today is the way it’s always been, because that is simply untrue.
now, at least in the civil realm, why should two men or two women not be allowed to marry? if we are speaking of civil benefits associated with marriage, then the state should not favor heterosexuals over gays and lesbians unless there is a compelling secular argument for it, which i would say there isn’t despite what most t19 bloggers probably would say. in the church realm, i think that we need much more biblical, historical, theological reflection than simply saying “the [english translation of the] bible says so,” before i can grant you that the seven-ish prooftexts used to condemn gays and lesbians are either saying what they are so often claimed to say, or texts which outweigh other commands to love, not judge, etc.
about the divinity of christ, who said he isn’t divine? i know i certainly didn’t, so who precisely are you talking about? last time i went to church, surprise surprise, i said the creed, heard the readings, and listened to the eucharistic narrative, and not once did i hear someone say christ was not divine. and i’m pretty sure that if you go back at look at any official statement of the episcopal church (even from the much-reviled general convention!), you would hear the same thing.
there’s a start; now are you ready to actually think about what i asked you, rather than dismiss the fact that the church has changed?
Pardon me for butting in, but YA’s response to AlliB simply demands a response for it’s ignorance of history and abundance of straw man arguments:
would the early church fathers “be shocked†to know that you are in a church that doesn’t subscribe to the total authority of the pope?
The early Church father’s probably wouldn’t have used a phrase such as “the total authority of the pope”, though they would have recognized the primacy of Peter exercised by the bishop of Rome. Come to think of it, I, as a Catholic, wouldn’t speak of “the total authority of the pope”. In a real sense, the pope is the final authority on matters of Faith and Morals, but actual authority is exercised by all the faithful in their particular states of life and areas of responsibility.
would medieval christians “be appalled†that you belong to a church whose catechism calls the notions of both purgatory and transubstantiation “repugnant†to the word of god?
If I am not mistaken, Anglicanism was theologically born in the rejection of what was considered by protestantism to be “innovations”; it seems to me that makes the argument that not every innovation is correct. Now, as a Catholic, I regard transubstantiation and purgatory to be doctrinal developments, not innovations. But every development supposes an authority which can discern whether the development is of God or not. At this point, TEC has de facto adopted moral and theological innovations rejected by the majority of the Anglican Communion. Since I am no longer an Anglican, I’ll resist the urge to do more than point out that fact and raise the question: by what authority has the General Convention Church adopted these innovations?
would early seventeenth century anglicans be horrified at the idea that your family would call yourselves a member of the anglican church, yet (probably) trace your bishop’s apostolic lineage through samuel seabury, consecrated by scottish nonjuring bishops?
That is a political, not a theological question. To the degree that Anglicans regarded the episcopacy to be a sacramental office, they would be bound to consider the American bishops validly consecrated. The current anthropological and christological controversies in TEC are of another order entirely.
would slavery-era episcopalians be scandalized to think that tec has african-american diocesan bishops?
Another political question: slaves were held as part of an economic system, not as a matter of theology. Some people certainly justified the system using biblical proof texts, but the clear trajectory of scripture and Church history was to separate the spiritual concerns for the slave from their state in life, ultimately discarding the economic state of life as immoral. Therefore it’s profoundly dishonest to use the history of slave trading as a justification for sanctifying sodomy. At any rate, it was Anglicans (in England at least) who pushed against the slave trade.
Anyway, slavery and racism are separate matters; outside of the American experience, slaves were generally conquered people, not necessarily of a different ethnicity. So I suppose some Anglicans would be horrified to think of African-American bishops, but they derives from their racial views, not their view of slavery itself.
On the other hand, AllieB, it’s clear that Christianity in general, Catholic, Orthodox, and protestant (including Anglicanism) have changed over time. It’s quite clear that understanding of scriptures have changed: Christology developed over several hundred years, so that today we can speak of Christ as fully God and fully Man, as the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, and so on, in ways that are implicit in scripture, but not spelled out. Young Adult certainly has a full cast of straw men, but that doesn’t change history.
#62 (words matter) – thanks for your rigorous response. you make good points, i’ll admit it. my designation of the pope was certainly overdone. as to purgatory and transubstantiation, they can certainly be called catholic doctrinal developments, but in my context, later anglican doctrinal developments ruled them out, which further demonstrates that the church’s views change (from no to yes to no, in my case). to the two that you labelled as political questions, i would dare to say that the issue of full inclusion of lgbtq episcopalians is also a political issue, admittedly with a theological angle, but both the ones i mentioned also had theological angles. as far as “sanctifying sodomy,” i think that what i said was that “we need much more biblical, historical, theological reflection than simply saying ‘the [english translation of the] bible says so,’ before i can grant you that the seven-ish prooftexts used to condemn gays and lesbians are either saying what they are so often claimed to say, or texts which outweigh other commands to love, not judge, etc.” so in fact, while you may have inferred that i meant that committed, faithful lgbtq relationships are legitimate and should be sanctified, i did not say so. words matter, as you know.
on the other hand, thanks for the more eloquent backup that christianity has undoubtedly changed and evolved over time. feel free to attack pieces of what i say all you want, but in the end i’ll still thankfully accept your support for my main historical point.
My my my, so much misinformation here I don’t know where to begin to correct it all. First, the decision of the California Supreme Court is certainly appealable to the U.S. Supreme Court. While it is true that the U.S. Supreme Court has discretion whether to grant review and only a small fraction of cases are taken up, it is certainly possible this one will be.
Second, there is indeed a question of federal constitutional law here. That question is whether the First Amendment permits a state, in this case California, to confer a power on religious denominations, but only religious denominations, that no other actor in our civil-law society has. That power is the power to create trusts in real property that the denomination [b]does not own[/b] simply by passing an internal rule to that effect.
In actuality, it’s worse. The California Supreme Court’s decision gives this power not even to all religious denominations, but only to “hierarchical” ones, thus compounding its error.
The First Amendment does more than just forbid the establishment of a State Church. It forbids civil government from preferentially conferring powers on denominations that no one else gets. I’d encourage the naysayers here to review the case of Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, 459 U.S. 116 (1982). In that case, the Court reviewed a Massachusetts statute which permitted churches (but only churches) to veto liquor license applications within a certain radius. The Court struck down the statute as violative of the Establishment Clause. Churches are not to be given preferential powers. Either everybody gets to veto the liquor license application, or nobody does.
But it gets better. Not only has the California Supreme Court conferred a power on TEC that it is not conferring on anybody else, but the decision also [b]exempts[/b] TEC from the ordinary laws governing property, probate and trusts that govern everybody else. I can’t create a trust in the property of somebody affiliated with me simply by passing a rule in my household; I have to get that person’s express written agreement, comply with the Statute of Frauds, etc. By ruling as it did, the California Supreme Court has granted a special exemption from civil law to religious denominations that no one else has — again violating the First Amendment.
I suggest that St. James Church’s appeal has more “legs” that a lot of people here are giving it credit for. In the last 25 years, a number of law review articles have questioned church property jurisprudence in this country and its tendency to often “give denominations a pass” from property law. No law review article of which I’m aware has said this is a good thing. The development of scholarly opinion is something that the U.S. Supreme Court considers when deciding to take up a case.
This is not a matter of “federalizing property law,” as one of the commenters claimed. Actually, it’s TEC that has argued for effective federalization of church property law by claiming that a single line in the Jones v. Wolf decision empowers it to create trusts-by-unilateral-rule, no matter what the ordinary property laws of the states might say.
I suggest the St. James Church appeal has far more “legs” than a lot of people here are giving it credit for.
The fact of the matter is: many good-willed, well-intentioned, moral, people who believe their actions are both legal and justified are still going to end up in Hell. They have rejected the only Source of Salvation, God’s Law, and rather than “intending to walk in a holy, righteous and sober life”, defiantly claim that they can “be the way God created me” without shame or remorse.
Those who steal God’s property from His people always get their just reward…maybe not this side of Judgment, but eventually. I pity them, and feel terrible about those who were once my friends who are now following a false gospel. We pray for our persecutors each week. I used to attend All Saints, Pasadena before joining St. James, Newport Beach….but I still live in Pasadena. Isn’t it somewhat ironic that those who call themselves “Peace & Justice” congregations, have no idea that God’s Peace only comes in discerning His Will in your life and then walking in it; and that God will bring His own Justice?
Wow, there’s so much packed into your posts, it’s hard to discern a real question. I thought I answered an unequivocal yes to your main question. You mentioned “new developments” and then proceeded to go back centuries. I guess your definition of new is different than mine. I also said that I thought your comparisons were specious and ridiculous and didn’t merit a response. [blockquote]but first let’s think now about marriage, since it seems to be a hang-up for you[/blockquote]
It’s a “hang-up” not just for me, sir. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that most Christians are “hung up” on this.
You must be an attorney. I deal with them almost daily, and I recognize the tactics they use when arguing. As Words Matter put it, many straw men here. I certainly admit that there have been developments that have changed our Church over the centuries, I don’t think anything compares with what has happened in the last few decades. I was under the impression we were discussing people of recent generations building and nurturing churches here in the Episcopal Church, people who have invested blood, sweat, tears and money into their churches. Isn’t that what we were discussing?
[blockquote]again, please don’t imply that the way marriage is today is the way it’s always been, because that is simply untrue. [/blockquote]Where did I even imply such a thing? Another straw man, and one you spent many words knocking down.
[blockquote]about the divinity of christ, who said he isn’t divine? [/blockquote]Wow, there are so many quotes available from some of our bishops and priests that do just that, I would have to get back to you on that to compile a list of them. It’s very, very well documented. Bp. Spong was only one of many who did just that.
[blockquote]in the church realm, i think that we need much more biblical, historical, theological reflection than simply saying “the [english translation of the] bible says so,†before i can grant you that the seven-ish prooftexts used to condemn gays and lesbians are either saying what they are so often claimed to say, or texts which outweigh other commands to love, not judge, etc. [/blockquote]I’m not sure how much more exegesis you need to make an assessment on this. It’s pretty clear to most Christians. I suggest you Google Robert Gagnon if you personally need more convincing. And you seem hung up on the fact there’s only seven-ish or so places in the Bible. I find that to be an odd point to even make. Makes one wonder if eight or nine would be more convincing.
Daniel L: I think it unscriptural for you to imply that those who seek to leave the Church but try to cling to the earthly property will end up in Hell. This is not an offense that damns souls (as far as my primitive discernment of God’s plan can grasp). It’s just morally and ethically repulsive. It’s not a course that fits easily into Christian concepts. Those who are motivated by discomfort with the Episcopal Church and who are sincerely motivated by a spiritual need to distance themselves will gladly walk away from the property and build new churches more suited to their discernments. But I would urge you not to speak so harshly of these people. Their discomfort with the present ambience of the Episcopal Church is real and they should be allowed to go in peace and love. That they might, in weak moments lust for bricks is wrong, but understandable. Many of these people have worshipped in the same place for many years. I do not think your views are reflective of most Episcopalians’ views of those who are departing.
Alli B. (No. 60): It is a difficult and potentially error-fraught thing to make secular judgements (such as property ownership) about what the deceased would think about this, that or the other in a Church. My church is nearly 300 years old. I suspect that some of its leading lights at the time of its founding would fall out on either side of the issues of the present day. But all of them started within the Church of England, and then spent two centuries and a decade or two within the Episcopal Church. I would feel presumptuous in voicing their views by proxy in the current troubles. But if that factor is to have weight, the vast majority of the members of my Church over the past 275 years have been Episcopalians.
By the way, Alli, are men really marrying men in the Episcopal Church? I have been an Episcopalian for decades and this has never happened in my church. Has it been happening in your church? Moreover, I have never heard of anyone at the diocesan or national level telling us that we should engage in that sort of activity. I would think that would be a rather notable event that would attract a lot of attention. If I were you, I would just decline to permit that.
[blockquote]It is a difficult and potentially error-fraught thing to make secular judgements (such as property ownership) about what the deceased would think about this, that or the other in a Church.[/blockquote] I guess we just have to disagree. I believe it’s a very safe bet to say the people I’m discussing would be aghast about the current situation. I guarantee you I know how my family felt.[blockquote]By the way, Alli, are men really marrying men in the Episcopal Church? [/blockquote]Let’s start with the CofE. Reverend Peter Cowell and the Reverend Dr. David Lord exchanged marriage vows and rings last June in a church, officiated by Rev. Martin Dudley. Here in the U.S. we have Jon Bruno, a bishop no less, “blessing” the union Malcolm Boyd and his partner. Susan Russell has been blessing unions in the church for years. Gene Robinson married his partner last June. Are you not aware of all of this, or are you trying to make some distinction with the so-called blessings not being considered marriage? If so, you certainly can’t make that argument where it concerns Gene Robinson.
I had not realized that Robinson was married in an Episcopalian ceremony. I had heard he was considering a civil marriage in New Hampshire and had lost track of what happened. Now that you tell me that the Episcopal Church conducted the ceremony, I am surprised and disturbed. But I can state with certainty that our Episcopal Church has never conducted a homosexual marriage and has never been instructed by our Bishops at any level to do so.
“Blessings” do strike me as something quite different. My dog and my boat have both been “blessed” by Episcopalian and Roman Catholic priests. I have never regarded these events as theologically significant. More to the point, I did not think that there was a doctrinal position of the Episcopal Church on the propriety of blessing same sex unions.
As to the wishes of the dead in property disputes, if you can count your dead, then others can count their own, and the odds are that there will be little diversity between the views of the deceased and those who are counting their votes. I recommend that we not peer too long or deeply into that murky glass. I do think, however, that, at least in the circumstances of very old churches such as my own, one should show some inchoate respect for the fact that many generations of Episcopalians worshiped there as Episcopalians and supported the church financially and otherwise with no lesser avidity than did the dissatisfied parishioners of the moment, all of whom have the option to leave.
It hardly seems worthwhile for me to jump back in, as Alli B and Words Matter have been doing good work while I slept.
youngadult, of course the church has changed in form since apostolic times; in language and in ritual, and in some respects in development of doctrine. I would argue, though, that there is a consistent and coherent faith which has been held by all the generations, and that faith has been left behind in recent decades in TEC. Yes, yes, the General Convention hasn’t officially outlawed the creeds, but statements of many bishops, many sermons, and many teachers at seminaries make it clear that two faiths exist in TEC today. The majority, in control of the power structure of the denomination, holds the new faith; the minority is consistent with the traditional faith. It’s quite possible you’ve never been taught the traditional faith, and as others have demonstrated, you lack an understanding of the apostolic and patristic faith and teachings.
Let me second Alli B’s recommendation that you read things by Robert Gagnon. He and many other scholars and theologians point out that the support for marriage is far more than “seven proof texts.” It is a consistent biblical theology of our created nature, beginning with the creation of male and female to which Jesus himself refers in his endorsement of lasting marriage. We are not simply nutcase fundamentalists focused on the Levitical holiness code, which is what you may have been told.
Lastly, as to the responsibility of people, if they stay, to support the “mission” of the church, it is precisely the “mission” which I can’t support. TEC supports unlimited abortion on demand. The diocese I left has been in the forefront of that battle, with prominent support from this bishop and the previous one. How can I give money to an organization which advocates the murder of innocent children? TEC is also, at the NY headquarters and in most dioceses, a strong supporter of the gay activist agenda. My former bishop has a written policy allowing same-sex blessings in the church, and if it ever becomes legal in our state, I have no doubt he would permit marriages in church, as was done in California during the time between the Supreme Court ruling and the election. Since I believe this to be contrary to Christian doctrine, and since this teaching in theory and practice considerably muddies the teaching against promiscuity for the the 98% of people who do not experience same-sex attraction, how can I give to support this? If you are going to argue that the church’s services to the poor outweigh these items, I agree that I have a responsibility to give to the poor, and there are a multitude of agencies doing excellent work to which I can and do donate without doing violence to my beliefs. If the Church is not teaching Christian doctrine and practice, its value as a social service agency is questionable, especially given the national focus and use of funds for “advocacy” of a variety of political programs with which I differ.
Most of the heated argument here has little to do with the original post, property rights. I still contend that to walk away from TEC it will be best [not easiest] to lay down all start anew and neither attack, argue or demean the original church. To stand up for what is right and to not do what is right does not make good sense. By our witness [our actions] we will be known, how can we leave an organization for not sticking to the bible if we ourselves don’t follow one of the most basic teachings?
Healthy debate is a good thing but don’t allow you’re spirit to be dragged down or to be led astray from what is right, know who you are pray and listen.
dawson, if the property is lost, then starting over with faith will do wonders, and looking back in anger will be the wrong thing.
However, believing as they did that the parish owned the property, it would be poor stewardship on the part of the parish leadership to simply turn over a multi-million-dollar property to a diocese teaching contrary principles. Once the legal precedent is established, state by state, then parishes entering the fray later can look at their state’s legal decisions and make their own plans accordingly.
#69 Robinson was married by a justice of the peace in a civil ceremony. His partnership was later blessed, but he did not participate in a marriage ceremony in the Episcopal Church, and to the best of my knowledge no one ever has. So I believe the statement men are marrying men in the Episcopal Church is wrong. Was it prudent to bless his partnership? I do not know, but it certainly was not a marriage, and did not acknowledge recognition of his marriage by the Episcopal Church or God.
I agree with you there is a significant religious difference between a marriage ceremony and a blessing. One is a sacrament, one is not. A blessing is essentially a prayer for happiness and success. When I started a business partnership several years back, I asked my priest to pray for our success, and bless our new business.
I am personally opposed to the Episcopal Church conducting same sex marriage ceremonies. However, if the people of a state want to allow secular civil unions, what does that have to do with the Episcopal Church. As Christ said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is Gods.” The Episcopal Church and the secular state do not have to agree on what constitutes marriage.
#73 Mitchell, I refer you to this announcement made on the blog of the leader of Integrity that her parish, All Saints, Pasadena, would perform marriages for gay couples following the California Supreme Court ruling, and I believe in subsequent blog entries she said that this was done. Men have married men and women have married women in that Episcopal church.
http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2008/05/marriage-for-all-at-all-saints-church.html
From the UK papers:
[i]Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly homosexual Anglican bishop, is about to “marry” his partner, further inflaming tensions in the church ahead of a series of critical meetings this summer.
The bishop, whose appointment has driven the worldwide church to the brink of collapse, is to have a civil union with his partner of 20 years, Mark Andrew.
They will have a private ceremony carried out by a lawyer in front of family and friends on Saturday, followed by a service of celebration in a church nearby in New Hampshire, northeast USA.
Bishop Robinson, who recently claimed he had always wanted to be a “June bride”, said: “We’re very excited about it. It won’t look like a wedding, but it will be wonderful.”[/i]
And as I stated before, Rev. Cowell and Rev. Lord were married by Rev. Martin Dudley in one of England’s oldest churches last June.
Ah, Alli B, are you now retracing your steps and telling me that you led me astray in your comment #68 that indicated that Mr. Robinson and his partner were “married” in an Episcopalian rite? I asked you if men were marrying men in the Episcopal Church. You came back with the example of Gene Robinson. If Mitchell (#73) is correct, I’m sure you share my sense of relief at being better informed than at the time of your comment.
#76, see my #74. Same-sex marriages were performed in All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena, CA.
I like what Mr. Sulik [#52] wrote:
” …If a hierarchical church believes that the Bishop or Diocese holds property, it should act like it believes it and put their legal documents in order. If not, and …. local churches walk with legal documents supporting them…. why should the court ignore the deeds ? “
NoVa, I didn’t mean to lead you astray. Please reread my comment. We have an active bishop in TEC married to another man. I never said he was married here. And Katherine in 77 is right as well.
I read Katherine’s link and regret that one parish, has chosen to perform at least one same sex marriage, possibly more. However, I am unwilling to ascribe the actions of one parish to the Episcopal Church as a whole. As you can see from the comments to Susan Russell’s blog she has no good answer to the charge her is parish is acting outside the Cannon’s of the Episcopal Church. Many priests, both Episcopal and Catholic, have taken actions with which the Church as a whole may not agree.
I am not a theologian, but I must question, whether in this case the performance of the marriage or marriages constitutes being married as defined by the Episcopal Church. They were performed in an Episcopal Church Building. They are considered married under secular law, but given the Cannons do not currently allow same sex marriage, I do not know if they are married as that term is defined by the Episcopal Church. I would say not. It appears the Bishop of this Parish has stated his desire to have civil unions and Church blessings, not same sex marriages within the Church.
Mitchell, I looked at Susan Russell’s blog during the time frame in question and I think there were many such weddings. However, even if it had been only one, the Bishop of Los Angeles has not only failed to take any action to censure or inhibit this activity at All Saints, but I think I remember reading that he personally attended one of the weddings. There was no action to stop this in the Diocese of Los Angeles, and no action from the national office, either, in a time frame in which the Presiding Bishop has personally intervened in several places to appoint new bishops in ways which many believe is not within the scope of her canonical powers. In the case of All Saints, Pasadena, the omission of censure speaks as loudly as the lawsuits against others.
I don’t know the current status of the marriages that were performed between the California Supreme Court ruling and the November election, when the ruling was overturned by the voters. The marriages were performed using marriage licenses issued by the state, and were celebrated and documents signed in every way like marriages between men and women. I don’t see any difference; in fact, that’s what All Saints was proud of — that pairs of men and pairs of women were now being treated exactly the same as heterosexual pairs.
Mitchell, you are right to question if this is just one unusual event in one unusual parish. AAC has documented the pattern across the whole of TEC the events and actions of the TEC. One might still argue that some of these events are isolated incidents, but many are certainly of an official nature speaking on behalf of all of us–if we do not challenge those voices. You can find the report at http://www.tinyurl.com/TECdoc.
Katherine: You say you left the Episcopal Church. Are you now Roman Catholic?
I don’t know why the tinyurl is not working, so here’s the long one:
http://www.americananglican.org/assets/Resources/Equipping-the-Saints/Equipping-the-Saints-3AAC.pdf
One or the other should work…
Mitchell: No, I belong to an Anglican parish which is now REC and will, God willing, be part of the ACNA. If the effort to reconstruct an authentic Anglican church in North America utterly fails in my lifetime, I will choose between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Either would be a cultural shift of large proportions, and I am hoping that I, and my children, will have an Anglican church home available.