Does anyone have the details on this settlement? If the diocese is getting the building, what does the departing congregation get? How large are the two congregations, St. John’s Anglican, and St. John’s TEC? And so on.
BTW, the motto or mission statement of the Diocese of Northern Cal is pretty good, much better than most: “Make Disciples, Raise up Saints, and Transform Communities for Christ in Northern California.” An ACNA diocese or parish could adopt a fine mission-minded vision like that. If only the TEC diocese really were oriented toward that end, St. John’s, Petaluma, probably wouldn’t have had to realign itself with an orthodox foreign jurisdiciton.
It will be interesting to see what the details are. I for one am relieved by the prospect that, one way or another, this wretched business may be at an end.
I think there are some not so subtle stinging zingers in here,
[blockquote]”The Episcopal Diocese of Northern California has announced a settlement agreement with a group [b]calling itself[/b] ‘St. John’s Anglican’ church, which [b]has occupied[/b] the parish buildings at 40 Fifth Street in Petaluma, CA, since December 2006. “[/blockquote]
Sounds like “The occupation army has been ousted!”
This is very encouraging news and offers a prospect of a rational approach to departures for other congregations. Those who leave but seek to claim property and those who wish to stay and do not want to give up property can work these issues out. The amount of wastage of Christians’ assets being pumped into lawyers’ coffers is obscene and cannot possibly be pleasing in God’s sight. We could build some lovely new churches that will bear witness for centuries with the money that has been poured down rat-holes in the past few years. Statmann (No.3) has it dead on correct.
One should take NoVA’s “advice” and do the opposite. Defend all lawsuits possible. They are having a devastating effect on the TEClub both monetarily and public relations-wise. Much of the defense attorneys are working pro bono. None of Ms Schori’s lawyers are.
NoVA – NO, the point of theological principle is to prevent the buildings and resources from being used to promote the false gospel of heresies, unbiblical political and social idealogies that TEPO and her allies have adopted and are diseminating over the globe in the Name of Jesus Christ.
The practical reason is that TEO does not have moral or legal right to the buildings.
I am thankful for GAFCON and ACNA that have provided renewed identity, vision and mission. Although I am not an official spokesperson for our diocese, I believe our focus in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is on the Great Commandment as Vision statement and the Great Commission as Mission statement. We are focused on what God is calling us to do and our morale could not be better. The property belongs to our Lord and is for Him to do with as He sees fit. This is not a PR statement, it is from a deacon who is on the ground and filled with zeal and hope for the future.
Perhaps some expert in exegesis can explain why this is inapplicable here, but I follow the stories of litigation and litigation defense with great unease. Because I can’t see any ambiguity in what the Scriptures teach us about litigation over property:
To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?1 Corinthians 6:7.
But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well . . . Matthew 5:39-40.
We are engaged in spiritual warfare. The lawsuits, the canonical maneuvering, the ordination of gays, the blessing of same sex marriages, the enshrinement of abortion as a sacred act, the pagan clergy and bishop candidates, the universalism, the rejection of creedal doctrine– these are all symptoms, not causes of our spiritual warfare.
The ruler of this world, the true enemy, has a firm grip on popular culture and norms. His victims include much of the leadership and laity of the Episcopal Church and that of most mainline Protestant denominations and even many Roman Catholic clergy and laity. They have been seduced into believing in an easy Jesus who is a nice guy and a helper and a dispenser of good advice. He is not a savior, the liar teaches, because we don’t really need a savior. We all just need to be nice people.
The spiritual war is for the hearts and minds of billions of people. It cannot possibly be won with bazookas, guns, and knives. Likewise it cannot be won with expert lawyering. To put it another way, we cannot hit the enemy harder than he can hit us. We cannot outsmart him in our own strength. It is a spiritual war. It can only be won with spiritual weapons: prayer, fasting, presenting ourselves to the Lord with contrite hearts, and doing ourselves as the Lord command us: “Love your enemies.”
The victims of Satan need our compassion. When we engage in strife and, yes, when we engage in litigation, we give the enemy weapons to use on his side. Love is what wins hearts.
Rick H: What would you have those sued by TEC do? Should we stand by while the wolf scatters the sheep? Should we cower in our beds while the thief breaks into our house?
Scripture tells us to turn the other cheek. It also tells us not to cast our pearls before swine. Which admonition applies?
I don’t know what I would do in a similar situation. I pray I would be obedient to the Lord, but I don’t know what I would do. I see the tragedy in letting these buildings go. I see the tragedy in the continued teaching of a polluted gospel. It pains me, it really does, that a polluted gospel is being taught in buildings once occupied by orthodox churches. My heart wants to support those churches who are fighting to keep their buildings.
But there are still the commands of Scripture. It’s not what I say. It’s what our Lord says.
But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.
Maybe I’m taking those words out of context. Maybe they don’t apply to this situation. Maybe they are superceded by other commands of our Lord. If someone could explain that to me, I would be grateful, because the litigation, and defending the litigation, troubles me.
I’m pleased to know that there was no lawsuit and yet a settlement was reached. Still, it’s quite possible that recent court decisions influenced the settlement.
Re: “Stop paying bills, do NOT go to court, and save your precious funds for a new start.”
* We did not sue TEC or the TEC diocese – they sued us.
* We sought to negotiate – TEC refused; demonstrating that its leadership and counsel were quite willing to waste MDG money to kick us out of our church home (and btw, if TEC wins, there won’t be enough Episcopalians to keep our edifice operational. Very “fox amongst the grapes”!).
* As for our funds – TEC is even disputing our ownership of those.
TEC’s comments about “justice and peace” mentioned in another article quoted on TitusOneNine are clearly hypocritical.
With the new province in formation Parishes wishing to depart will have something real to go to. It will be intersting to see how far the loony left will push things at TEC’s 2009 GC. IF the next “wave” of departures is substantial (how many have there been so far REC, the Continuing Churches post 1976-1979 wave, a quieter small wave in the 90’s, AMiA post 2003 GC, the current post 2006 GC wave). So far 4 waves of departures since 1976 plus one in the last century that has joined the more recent departures. If wave number 5 is big enough the litigation strategy may become one of negotiated settlement. By thus far failing to strangle ACNA in the cradle – 815 may have to face reality.
I understand there are many who are genuinely concerned that litigious engagement by either side is not in keeping with the verses you quote. I also recall that when Jesus saw the den of thieves in His Father’s house, he did not say to his followers “Let them have His house”. Rather, he drove them out….
When a church is in a built-out area, where land is prohibitively expensive, where many of your outreach efforts depend on your physical building, walking away is tantamount to dissolving your congregation. Where buildable land is well over a million dollars an acre and you can rent a school cafeteria for “just” a few hundred dollars for a Sunday service, where you cannot provide meals for the homeless without a commercially rated and maintained Kitchen, it seems a little sinful to just give it to those who never paid a penny to purchase or maintain it
Spiritual gifts, no. Material gifts, it depends. There are seasons for ministries, seasons for parishes, and perhaps seasons for property. Its agreed that if the courts go against them on property, most ACNA parishes will survive (and if they can’t, there’s something wrong with the mission statement). Luke 14:26 for me holds as good for property as for human relationships.
Jesus drove the money changers and the merchants out of the temple, people who were a great source of income to the high priests, the people who actually ran the place and whom Jesus did not drive out.
I remain leery of actions that appear to violate clear Scriptural mandates. This is not to say that defending ownership of church property is necessarily always wrong or even that it is ever wrong.
One possible way to think about this would be to consider questions such as– am I committed to following Jesus and his commands no matter the cost? Do I value nothing more than my Lord? How do I read what the Lord teaches in this Scripture passage? Am I missing some historical or cultural context that would make these words mean something different than they seem to mean? Are there reasons our Lord might want these words to apply to this situation? Is my first priority to obey our Lord or is it to pursue my own notions of justice and fairness? What might happen if I took these words literally? Could this result in a gift of grace that is more important than this property?
I can’t answer these questions for anyone engaged in litigation. I can’t know if they have asked themselves these or similar questions. I certainly do not know what is in anyone’s heart. I do not want to be read as condemning anyone engaged in this litigation. I am fairly certain that the orthodox, at least, are motivated by good intentions.
While there is a lot of us v. them language here, the truth is unanimity does not exist in any Diocese or even any Parish. Someone is going to lose their right to worship in the building of their choice. Either those who are determined to leave the Episcopal Church, or those who have resolved to remain with The Episcopal Church. Likewise regardless of the outcome some are going to feel pushed out of a church home they have contributed time and money to build and maintain.
Also, despite the harsh words here, the truth is there are hundreds of thousands of Episcopalians working very hard every day to be good Christians and do what is right in the eyes of god. Those choosing to leave do not have a monopoly on virtue.
Is it wrong to sue? Is it wrong to defend? I think neither. A disagreement exists as to who must give up the building and land they have grown to love, and which became a center of their religious life. This disagreement must be resolved in some way, and it is somewhat unreasonable to expect the leaders of either side to simply abandon their flock. Sometimes people just need an unbiased third party to make the decision as to who will win and who will lose; and we must have faith that in the end god’s will, will be done.
Mitchell: It seems to make more sense for those who feel pushed out to be the ones who leave of their own volition. The worst possible state of affairs is to elect to stay and still fell pushed out.
The only lawsuits have been confined to circumstances where departing parishioners have attempted to assert control over the assets of the facilities that were formerly Episcopal properties. All the lawsuits would disappear if those who depart depart. The idea that if I leave the church, I must seize it because those who stay are using it for heretical purposes is a tough one to get resolved in the secular courts. The better course is to witness correct theology. Build righteous churches. Wish no ill to other Christians who try their best to protect the Church as they think best. I am sympathetic theologically to those who leave, but my calling is to witness within the church. I find no ethical or moral justification for leaving but clinging to the property. Besides, the decision to leave can be best valued when it is unalloyed by any sense of entitlement to take from those who wish to stay. The worth of the decision to leave is diluted when it is unaccompanied by sacrifice in the short term.
Well, it seems that the “settlement” involves TEC retaining the property, and in light of the recent CSC decision, I think it very likely that the Diocese and the Anglican parish had a gentleman’s agreement agreeing to abide by whatever the CSC decided. The CSC made it quite clear that TEC would win, and so that is probably the settlement.
As for the remaining TEC parish, the most recent diocesan statistics show it having 37 ASA and $0 in pledges. It is being led by a retired priest. I know that much of the lay leadership of the TEC parish are former liberal activist members of neighboring ultra-liberal TEC parishes who simply transferred to the TEC parish to fill the rolls. Quite frankly, the Diocese of Northern California is a diocese in decline numerically and financially (even liberals in this diocese are pessimistic), and I seriously doubt that it can sustain a Potemkin parish like this. My guess is that now that it has regained the property, the Potemkin TEC parish of St. John’s will be allowed to die, and after a couple of years, the property will be quietly sold.
jamesw may be right, not just about this parish, but others. However, there are also parishes where those advocating departure assured the parishioners that the vote would not require them to leave physical spaces in which they had worshipped for years and, where the departing brothers and sisters stayed in placed, ousting those who wished to stay, many worshippers stayed on in the pews. So the continuing congregations, forced to fend for themselves in temporary quarters, may be smaller than they would have been had the departers departed.
In any event, if jamesw has projected this correctly, is not that a better result for all concerned and for the Church than months or years of throwing church assets at lawyers?
NoVA Scout:
“However, there are also parishes where those advocating departure assured the parishioners that the vote would not require them to leave physical spaces in which they had worshipped for years and, where the departing brothers and sisters stayed in placed, ousting those who wished to stay, many worshippers stayed on in the pews.”
There is a lot of disinformation around; perhaps you speak from hearsay, and can be excused for making such statements. If you have evidence, please name the churches from which TEC-loyal members were forced to leave so these churches can defend themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no one was forced to leave. Since departure ballots were secret, how would anyone even know who voted to remain in TEC? As you also should know, negotiations were underway to share spaces so that Episcopal priests could conduct services when DioVA ended the standstill agreement and filed suit. St. Paul’s admonitions were being observed until Mme. Schori got into the act.
I have to agree with Rick (and some others) here: turning the other cheek is not supposed to be common sense, not supposed to be the way the world normally works. On the other hand, it’s hard to let these things go. If I am attacked (in any way), my natural response is to defend myself.
Sarah is correct that 1 Corinthians 6:7 does not directly apply to the defendant of a lawsuit brought by an organization that claims to be Christian. (It does [i]directly[/i] apply to the plaintiff!) However, it would seem an obvious extension to say that one shouldn’t fight lawsuits brought by others who claim to be Christians.
RE: “Actually, Jesus said, Do not resist one who is evil . . . if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well. . . ”
The lawsuit one doesn’t quite work does it. But if we are going to quote the far more general commands of Jesus then we need to quote more than just one. Of course, there are actually other commands of Jesus that say the precise opposite of this one. And so then we would have to go into context and actually *interpret* what Jesus meant . . . which doesn’t suit the purpose so much as just repeating the same old general command that actually appears to suit the purpose of the “no lawsuits” one but which latter doesn’t apply.
No, I’m comfortable that being sued by non-believers and defending oneself in no way violates anything at all that I can find in scripture. If one’s personality is more inclined to the “no conflict just walk away” sort of actions then that’s fine, of course. But attempting to haul Jesus into that preferred personality trait is really unfortunate.
RE: “I find no ethical or moral justification for leaving but clinging to the property.”
I do, of course, and many others do. If the property is owned by the parish, then they should keep the property — and of course appeal to the State in their efforts, as Paul did when he was treated unjustly. And that’s what they are doing. It is for the courts to decide who owns the property. And once that is adjudicated — state by state by state, parish by parish by parish — I feel quite confident that no parish will stay in property that is not theirs.
RE: “The worth of the decision to leave is diluted when it is unaccompanied by sacrifice in the short term.”
So says NOVA Scout. Of course, I — and many others — utterly disagree.
RE: “However, it would seem an obvious extension to say that one shouldn’t fight lawsuits brought by others who claim to be Christians.”
Goodness, no — it would not seem an obvious extension at all. Half of the US claims to be Christians!
What would you advise for those who belong – however nominally – to an ACNA body, where one considers that the atmosphere created by defending the lawsuits – however legal/moral they may be – is compromising the relationships and perhaps even the mission of that body?
Should one just leave them to it and find some other church domicile or should one adopt the same tactics you have recommended for those remaining within TEC and seek to move people to an “abandonment” strategy?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
RE: “What would you advise for those who belong – however nominally – to an ACNA body, where one considers that the atmosphere created by defending the lawsuits – however legal/moral they may be – is compromising the relationships and perhaps even the mission of that body?”
Hard for me to advise. One would have to determine as an individual if the lawsuits are “communion breaking” I suppose. If they are, then I’m guessing that would mean the individual departing that body. If they are not, then one deals. Perhaps I’m not understanding the question though.
RE: “. . . or should one adopt the same tactics you have recommended for those remaining within TEC and seek to move people to an “abandonment†strategy?”
Boy — I sure don’t see my strategy as an “abandonment strategy”. I see my strategy in TEC as a “815 is not going to be happy that any conservatives stayed” strategy.
Again, maybe I’m not understanding the question.
If an individual thinks that the ACNA is sinning by being engaged in lawsuits, then that individual will have to determine if such a sin is grotesque corruption of the worst sort. And then they’ll need to decide if 1) they should attempt to get anti-lawsuit people as their rectors/clergy or 2) leave.
“What would you advise for those who belong – however nominally – to an ACNA body, where one considers that the atmosphere created by defending the lawsuits – however legal/moral they may be – is compromising the relationships and perhaps even the mission of that body?”
My experience hs been that, initially, being sued by TEC creates some level of distraction, but after some months that focus fades and the body returns fully to its true purpose of being His Church..
I’m glad to hear that. “Distraction” implies only a measure of personal disquiet about an exterior threat. My concern is with compromised relationships between federal and communion conservatives and even – though I realize this wouldn’t be the highest concern of many here – relationships between certain liberals and conservatives.
One of the more rewarding moments of a recent chapter meeting was the declaration by a clergy member from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church (recall that, under our special resolution, we have members from both camps) that God had put on his heart to write Bishop Duncan a letter of encouragement even though he was no longer his bishop.
I hope everyone had a meaningful and restorative Memorial Day weekend. RE RalphM’s query (NO. 34) about my concern over those who did not wish to leave the Episcopal Church having to leave their churches, I was speaking of direct knowledge. I am unaware of any parish in Virginia where the departing congregation has attempted to hold on to the buildings in which those leaving have allowed those who stayed to worship in the buildings with Episcopal clergy. In these situations, the Episcopalians have had to find other places to worship pending the departure of their brothers and sisters who have aligned with African provinces, but who have not (yet) left the buildings and who seem in no hurry to do so.
Does anyone have the details on this settlement? If the diocese is getting the building, what does the departing congregation get? How large are the two congregations, St. John’s Anglican, and St. John’s TEC? And so on.
BTW, the motto or mission statement of the Diocese of Northern Cal is pretty good, much better than most: “Make Disciples, Raise up Saints, and Transform Communities for Christ in Northern California.” An ACNA diocese or parish could adopt a fine mission-minded vision like that. If only the TEC diocese really were oriented toward that end, St. John’s, Petaluma, probably wouldn’t have had to realign itself with an orthodox foreign jurisdiciton.
David Handy+
It will be interesting to see what the details are. I for one am relieved by the prospect that, one way or another, this wretched business may be at an end.
When will these poor souls ever learn? Stop paying bills, do NOT go to court, and save your precious funds for a new start. Statmann
I think there are some not so subtle stinging zingers in here,
[blockquote]”The Episcopal Diocese of Northern California has announced a settlement agreement with a group [b]calling itself[/b] ‘St. John’s Anglican’ church, which [b]has occupied[/b] the parish buildings at 40 Fifth Street in Petaluma, CA, since December 2006. “[/blockquote]
Sounds like “The occupation army has been ousted!”
Not very “respectful” IMHO.
I suspect this article is from the Sacramento Bee, and if it is, I’m not surprised at its content.
It’s a press release from the Diocese. So no one should be surprised by that language, it reflects the position the Diocese has taken throughout.
This is very encouraging news and offers a prospect of a rational approach to departures for other congregations. Those who leave but seek to claim property and those who wish to stay and do not want to give up property can work these issues out. The amount of wastage of Christians’ assets being pumped into lawyers’ coffers is obscene and cannot possibly be pleasing in God’s sight. We could build some lovely new churches that will bear witness for centuries with the money that has been poured down rat-holes in the past few years. Statmann (No.3) has it dead on correct.
Without any details it’s very hard to know whether this is a settlement with honor or just a lack of resources to defend one’s claim.
One should take NoVA’s “advice” and do the opposite. Defend all lawsuits possible. They are having a devastating effect on the TEClub both monetarily and public relations-wise. Much of the defense attorneys are working pro bono. None of Ms Schori’s lawyers are.
robroy assumes that the point of theological principle is to cling to a building.
NoVA – NO, the point of theological principle is to prevent the buildings and resources from being used to promote the false gospel of heresies, unbiblical political and social idealogies that TEPO and her allies have adopted and are diseminating over the globe in the Name of Jesus Christ.
The practical reason is that TEO does not have moral or legal right to the buildings.
Who is clinging to buildings while undergoing rapid loss of membership negating the need for such buildings?
“…not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.”
The Living Church has a story on this. The final paragraph indicates it may be a week before the Anglican congregation makes a statement.
I am thankful for GAFCON and ACNA that have provided renewed identity, vision and mission. Although I am not an official spokesperson for our diocese, I believe our focus in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is on the Great Commandment as Vision statement and the Great Commission as Mission statement. We are focused on what God is calling us to do and our morale could not be better. The property belongs to our Lord and is for Him to do with as He sees fit. This is not a PR statement, it is from a deacon who is on the ground and filled with zeal and hope for the future.
And I agree with Dale. I’m there, too!
Perhaps some expert in exegesis can explain why this is inapplicable here, but I follow the stories of litigation and litigation defense with great unease. Because I can’t see any ambiguity in what the Scriptures teach us about litigation over property:
To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 1 Corinthians 6:7.
But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well . . . Matthew 5:39-40.
We are engaged in spiritual warfare. The lawsuits, the canonical maneuvering, the ordination of gays, the blessing of same sex marriages, the enshrinement of abortion as a sacred act, the pagan clergy and bishop candidates, the universalism, the rejection of creedal doctrine– these are all symptoms, not causes of our spiritual warfare.
The ruler of this world, the true enemy, has a firm grip on popular culture and norms. His victims include much of the leadership and laity of the Episcopal Church and that of most mainline Protestant denominations and even many Roman Catholic clergy and laity. They have been seduced into believing in an easy Jesus who is a nice guy and a helper and a dispenser of good advice. He is not a savior, the liar teaches, because we don’t really need a savior. We all just need to be nice people.
The spiritual war is for the hearts and minds of billions of people. It cannot possibly be won with bazookas, guns, and knives. Likewise it cannot be won with expert lawyering. To put it another way, we cannot hit the enemy harder than he can hit us. We cannot outsmart him in our own strength. It is a spiritual war. It can only be won with spiritual weapons: prayer, fasting, presenting ourselves to the Lord with contrite hearts, and doing ourselves as the Lord command us: “Love your enemies.”
The victims of Satan need our compassion. When we engage in strife and, yes, when we engage in litigation, we give the enemy weapons to use on his side. Love is what wins hearts.
Rick H: What would you have those sued by TEC do? Should we stand by while the wolf scatters the sheep? Should we cower in our beds while the thief breaks into our house?
Scripture tells us to turn the other cheek. It also tells us not to cast our pearls before swine. Which admonition applies?
RE: “To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you.”
I do not see any ambiguity with the text either.
So I completely support the defending of oneself against the lawsuits by the various and sundry TEC leaders who are doing so.
I don’t know what I would do in a similar situation. I pray I would be obedient to the Lord, but I don’t know what I would do. I see the tragedy in letting these buildings go. I see the tragedy in the continued teaching of a polluted gospel. It pains me, it really does, that a polluted gospel is being taught in buildings once occupied by orthodox churches. My heart wants to support those churches who are fighting to keep their buildings.
But there are still the commands of Scripture. It’s not what I say. It’s what our Lord says.
But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.
Maybe I’m taking those words out of context. Maybe they don’t apply to this situation. Maybe they are superceded by other commands of our Lord. If someone could explain that to me, I would be grateful, because the litigation, and defending the litigation, troubles me.
I’m pleased to know that there was no lawsuit and yet a settlement was reached. Still, it’s quite possible that recent court decisions influenced the settlement.
Re: “Stop paying bills, do NOT go to court, and save your precious funds for a new start.”
* We did not sue TEC or the TEC diocese – they sued us.
* We sought to negotiate – TEC refused; demonstrating that its leadership and counsel were quite willing to waste MDG money to kick us out of our church home (and btw, if TEC wins, there won’t be enough Episcopalians to keep our edifice operational. Very “fox amongst the grapes”!).
* As for our funds – TEC is even disputing our ownership of those.
TEC’s comments about “justice and peace” mentioned in another article quoted on TitusOneNine are clearly hypocritical.
With the new province in formation Parishes wishing to depart will have something real to go to. It will be intersting to see how far the loony left will push things at TEC’s 2009 GC. IF the next “wave” of departures is substantial (how many have there been so far REC, the Continuing Churches post 1976-1979 wave, a quieter small wave in the 90’s, AMiA post 2003 GC, the current post 2006 GC wave). So far 4 waves of departures since 1976 plus one in the last century that has joined the more recent departures. If wave number 5 is big enough the litigation strategy may become one of negotiated settlement. By thus far failing to strangle ACNA in the cradle – 815 may have to face reality.
I understand there are many who are genuinely concerned that litigious engagement by either side is not in keeping with the verses you quote. I also recall that when Jesus saw the den of thieves in His Father’s house, he did not say to his followers “Let them have His house”. Rather, he drove them out….
When a church is in a built-out area, where land is prohibitively expensive, where many of your outreach efforts depend on your physical building, walking away is tantamount to dissolving your congregation. Where buildable land is well over a million dollars an acre and you can rent a school cafeteria for “just” a few hundred dollars for a Sunday service, where you cannot provide meals for the homeless without a commercially rated and maintained Kitchen, it seems a little sinful to just give it to those who never paid a penny to purchase or maintain it
And will God not provide such things for those who walk away?
God has already provided. Should we discard his gifts?
Spiritual gifts, no. Material gifts, it depends. There are seasons for ministries, seasons for parishes, and perhaps seasons for property. Its agreed that if the courts go against them on property, most ACNA parishes will survive (and if they can’t, there’s something wrong with the mission statement). Luke 14:26 for me holds as good for property as for human relationships.
Jesus drove the money changers and the merchants out of the temple, people who were a great source of income to the high priests, the people who actually ran the place and whom Jesus did not drive out.
I remain leery of actions that appear to violate clear Scriptural mandates. This is not to say that defending ownership of church property is necessarily always wrong or even that it is ever wrong.
One possible way to think about this would be to consider questions such as– am I committed to following Jesus and his commands no matter the cost? Do I value nothing more than my Lord? How do I read what the Lord teaches in this Scripture passage? Am I missing some historical or cultural context that would make these words mean something different than they seem to mean? Are there reasons our Lord might want these words to apply to this situation? Is my first priority to obey our Lord or is it to pursue my own notions of justice and fairness? What might happen if I took these words literally? Could this result in a gift of grace that is more important than this property?
I can’t answer these questions for anyone engaged in litigation. I can’t know if they have asked themselves these or similar questions. I certainly do not know what is in anyone’s heart. I do not want to be read as condemning anyone engaged in this litigation. I am fairly certain that the orthodox, at least, are motivated by good intentions.
That said, I remain troubled.
While there is a lot of us v. them language here, the truth is unanimity does not exist in any Diocese or even any Parish. Someone is going to lose their right to worship in the building of their choice. Either those who are determined to leave the Episcopal Church, or those who have resolved to remain with The Episcopal Church. Likewise regardless of the outcome some are going to feel pushed out of a church home they have contributed time and money to build and maintain.
Also, despite the harsh words here, the truth is there are hundreds of thousands of Episcopalians working very hard every day to be good Christians and do what is right in the eyes of god. Those choosing to leave do not have a monopoly on virtue.
Is it wrong to sue? Is it wrong to defend? I think neither. A disagreement exists as to who must give up the building and land they have grown to love, and which became a center of their religious life. This disagreement must be resolved in some way, and it is somewhat unreasonable to expect the leaders of either side to simply abandon their flock. Sometimes people just need an unbiased third party to make the decision as to who will win and who will lose; and we must have faith that in the end god’s will, will be done.
RE: “But there are still the commands of Scripture. It’s not what I say. It’s what our Lord says.”
Right — but again, the only negative reference to lawsuits in Scripture is the one against Christians suing one another.
The command is quite clear and inapplicable, as I pointed out above, in these cases.
Actually, Jesus said, Do not resist one who is evil . . . if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well. . .
I don’t think he was talking about Christians.
I could be wrong.
I would like to be wrong about this. I really would.
Mitchell: It seems to make more sense for those who feel pushed out to be the ones who leave of their own volition. The worst possible state of affairs is to elect to stay and still fell pushed out.
The only lawsuits have been confined to circumstances where departing parishioners have attempted to assert control over the assets of the facilities that were formerly Episcopal properties. All the lawsuits would disappear if those who depart depart. The idea that if I leave the church, I must seize it because those who stay are using it for heretical purposes is a tough one to get resolved in the secular courts. The better course is to witness correct theology. Build righteous churches. Wish no ill to other Christians who try their best to protect the Church as they think best. I am sympathetic theologically to those who leave, but my calling is to witness within the church. I find no ethical or moral justification for leaving but clinging to the property. Besides, the decision to leave can be best valued when it is unalloyed by any sense of entitlement to take from those who wish to stay. The worth of the decision to leave is diluted when it is unaccompanied by sacrifice in the short term.
Well, it seems that the “settlement” involves TEC retaining the property, and in light of the recent CSC decision, I think it very likely that the Diocese and the Anglican parish had a gentleman’s agreement agreeing to abide by whatever the CSC decided. The CSC made it quite clear that TEC would win, and so that is probably the settlement.
As for the remaining TEC parish, the most recent diocesan statistics show it having 37 ASA and $0 in pledges. It is being led by a retired priest. I know that much of the lay leadership of the TEC parish are former liberal activist members of neighboring ultra-liberal TEC parishes who simply transferred to the TEC parish to fill the rolls. Quite frankly, the Diocese of Northern California is a diocese in decline numerically and financially (even liberals in this diocese are pessimistic), and I seriously doubt that it can sustain a Potemkin parish like this. My guess is that now that it has regained the property, the Potemkin TEC parish of St. John’s will be allowed to die, and after a couple of years, the property will be quietly sold.
jamesw may be right, not just about this parish, but others. However, there are also parishes where those advocating departure assured the parishioners that the vote would not require them to leave physical spaces in which they had worshipped for years and, where the departing brothers and sisters stayed in placed, ousting those who wished to stay, many worshippers stayed on in the pews. So the continuing congregations, forced to fend for themselves in temporary quarters, may be smaller than they would have been had the departers departed.
In any event, if jamesw has projected this correctly, is not that a better result for all concerned and for the Church than months or years of throwing church assets at lawyers?
NoVA Scout:
“However, there are also parishes where those advocating departure assured the parishioners that the vote would not require them to leave physical spaces in which they had worshipped for years and, where the departing brothers and sisters stayed in placed, ousting those who wished to stay, many worshippers stayed on in the pews.”
There is a lot of disinformation around; perhaps you speak from hearsay, and can be excused for making such statements. If you have evidence, please name the churches from which TEC-loyal members were forced to leave so these churches can defend themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no one was forced to leave. Since departure ballots were secret, how would anyone even know who voted to remain in TEC? As you also should know, negotiations were underway to share spaces so that Episcopal priests could conduct services when DioVA ended the standstill agreement and filed suit. St. Paul’s admonitions were being observed until Mme. Schori got into the act.
I have to agree with Rick (and some others) here: turning the other cheek is not supposed to be common sense, not supposed to be the way the world normally works. On the other hand, it’s hard to let these things go. If I am attacked (in any way), my natural response is to defend myself.
Sarah is correct that 1 Corinthians 6:7 does not directly apply to the defendant of a lawsuit brought by an organization that claims to be Christian. (It does [i]directly[/i] apply to the plaintiff!) However, it would seem an obvious extension to say that one shouldn’t fight lawsuits brought by others who claim to be Christians.
RE: “Actually, Jesus said, Do not resist one who is evil . . . if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well. . . ”
The lawsuit one doesn’t quite work does it. But if we are going to quote the far more general commands of Jesus then we need to quote more than just one. Of course, there are actually other commands of Jesus that say the precise opposite of this one. And so then we would have to go into context and actually *interpret* what Jesus meant . . . which doesn’t suit the purpose so much as just repeating the same old general command that actually appears to suit the purpose of the “no lawsuits” one but which latter doesn’t apply.
No, I’m comfortable that being sued by non-believers and defending oneself in no way violates anything at all that I can find in scripture. If one’s personality is more inclined to the “no conflict just walk away” sort of actions then that’s fine, of course. But attempting to haul Jesus into that preferred personality trait is really unfortunate.
RE: “I find no ethical or moral justification for leaving but clinging to the property.”
I do, of course, and many others do. If the property is owned by the parish, then they should keep the property — and of course appeal to the State in their efforts, as Paul did when he was treated unjustly. And that’s what they are doing. It is for the courts to decide who owns the property. And once that is adjudicated — state by state by state, parish by parish by parish — I feel quite confident that no parish will stay in property that is not theirs.
RE: “The worth of the decision to leave is diluted when it is unaccompanied by sacrifice in the short term.”
So says NOVA Scout. Of course, I — and many others — utterly disagree.
RE: “However, it would seem an obvious extension to say that one shouldn’t fight lawsuits brought by others who claim to be Christians.”
Goodness, no — it would not seem an obvious extension at all. Half of the US claims to be Christians!
Sarah,
What would you advise for those who belong – however nominally – to an ACNA body, where one considers that the atmosphere created by defending the lawsuits – however legal/moral they may be – is compromising the relationships and perhaps even the mission of that body?
Should one just leave them to it and find some other church domicile or should one adopt the same tactics you have recommended for those remaining within TEC and seek to move people to an “abandonment” strategy?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
RE: “What would you advise for those who belong – however nominally – to an ACNA body, where one considers that the atmosphere created by defending the lawsuits – however legal/moral they may be – is compromising the relationships and perhaps even the mission of that body?”
Hard for me to advise. One would have to determine as an individual if the lawsuits are “communion breaking” I suppose. If they are, then I’m guessing that would mean the individual departing that body. If they are not, then one deals. Perhaps I’m not understanding the question though.
RE: “. . . or should one adopt the same tactics you have recommended for those remaining within TEC and seek to move people to an “abandonment†strategy?”
Boy — I sure don’t see my strategy as an “abandonment strategy”. I see my strategy in TEC as a “815 is not going to be happy that any conservatives stayed” strategy.
Again, maybe I’m not understanding the question.
If an individual thinks that the ACNA is sinning by being engaged in lawsuits, then that individual will have to determine if such a sin is grotesque corruption of the worst sort. And then they’ll need to decide if 1) they should attempt to get anti-lawsuit people as their rectors/clergy or 2) leave.
“What would you advise for those who belong – however nominally – to an ACNA body, where one considers that the atmosphere created by defending the lawsuits – however legal/moral they may be – is compromising the relationships and perhaps even the mission of that body?”
My experience hs been that, initially, being sued by TEC creates some level of distraction, but after some months that focus fades and the body returns fully to its true purpose of being His Church..
I’m glad to hear that. “Distraction” implies only a measure of personal disquiet about an exterior threat. My concern is with compromised relationships between federal and communion conservatives and even – though I realize this wouldn’t be the highest concern of many here – relationships between certain liberals and conservatives.
One of the more rewarding moments of a recent chapter meeting was the declaration by a clergy member from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church (recall that, under our special resolution, we have members from both camps) that God had put on his heart to write Bishop Duncan a letter of encouragement even though he was no longer his bishop.
I hope everyone had a meaningful and restorative Memorial Day weekend. RE RalphM’s query (NO. 34) about my concern over those who did not wish to leave the Episcopal Church having to leave their churches, I was speaking of direct knowledge. I am unaware of any parish in Virginia where the departing congregation has attempted to hold on to the buildings in which those leaving have allowed those who stayed to worship in the buildings with Episcopal clergy. In these situations, the Episcopalians have had to find other places to worship pending the departure of their brothers and sisters who have aligned with African provinces, but who have not (yet) left the buildings and who seem in no hurry to do so.