In truth, our members overwhelmingly elected to leave the Episcopal Church in August 2004 due solely to long-standing theological differences, specifically regarding the authority of Holy Scripture and the Lordship of Christ.
What do those two phrases mean? Authority of Holy Scripture asks, “Does the Bible say what it means and mean what it says?” At St. James we believe that the Holy Bible is God’s word. We take to heart its teachings and do our best to live by its tenets. The lordship of Jesus Christ asks, “Is Jesus who the Bible says he is ”” the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who died for our sins, was resurrected, and is with God in heaven?” The Bible teaches this and we believe it to be true.
Over the course of several decades, the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the national Episcopal Church stepped further away from the Bible’s traditional teachings ”” to the point that many Episcopal leaders now deny Christ’s virgin birth and his resurrection from the dead. Just this month, the presiding bishop of the national Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts-Schori, proclaimed that having a personal relationship with Christ ”” a core tenet of evangelical Christian belief ”” is the “great Western heresy.”
Rhoades also opined that “the Episcopalians want their Newport Beach property back, but St. James is digging in.” Our legal battle is about religious freedom and property rights. Americans hold dear the right to free speech and freedom of religion. People should not have their property confiscated for exercising their religion even if others do not agree with their beliefs. But that is exactly what is happening to St. James. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the national Episcopal Church have never held title to the St. James property. The people of St. James bought and paid for every square inch of this property with their tithes and offerings. They alone purchased the pews, the hymnals and the Sunday School booklets. The Episcopalians never paid a penny toward the purchase of the St. James’ property or toward building construction.
Based on Rhoades’ remarks, the St. James situation must present one of those very rare instances in these times of trouble where every member, without exception, of St. James decided to leave the Episcopal Church and no contribution toward the acquisition, building and maintenance of the church had come from anyone other than those who decided to leave (I take it that this is a recently formed parish). Most of the situations around the country present more ambiguous equities. Where these decisions are not unanimous and where there are historic properties where the investment reflects generations of support, it is not as easy to take a strong position on departure with property. In churches where these unique circumstances are not present, the risk of deciding property rights by a vote taken at a particular point in time is that the parish becomes a seething cauldron of cleric/pols campaigning on this issue or that that may arise over the coming decades and centuries for momentary control that enables them to seize the levers of worship, the monies in the banks, and the property itself. The problems with these political campaigns is that they tend to be one-sided in their presentation, and where there are considerable material prizes (buildings and accounts) at stake, there is sometimes a tendency to over-dramatize the perceived affront and to demonize the opposition, an opposition that is often not present within the parish and is easily labeled “Them” in the “Us/Them” persuasion dynamic. I fully expect ACNA to organize itself in a way that would make impossible a dissident group’s transferring property to itself by majority vote (although perhaps there could be a “St. James Exception”).
The notion of people having “their property confiscated for exercising their religion . .. etc.” seems hyperbolic and polemical, certainly in any other context other than the very special one he apparently describes, one that I strongly suspect is not replicated anywhere else.
I also think he is confused about the TEC doctrinal position on such issues as virgin birth and bodily resurrection. I have heard skeptics on these points from inside and outside of virtually every Christian denomination, but I was not aware that either the Diocese of Los Angeles or the national Church had doctrinally embraced rejection of these concepts. If that has happened, I would anticipate more departures, but suggest that such apostasy is meaningless to faithful Christians when expressed individually by others, and, in any event, would have no impact on property dispositions at Rhoades’ church or elsewhere. I further suggest that he has stripped out a fair degree of context and nuance in the cited Jefferts-Schori remarks, not that I particularly get what she was driving at in her “great Western heresy” statement, but I did not read it as saying that one could not or should not have a “personal relationship with Christ.” Again, I view this kind of careless overstatement to be an exercise in polemics. My concern about the PB tends to the other side of the coin – that she and some of those who influence her have a relationship with Christ that is personal to the point of being perplexingly idiosyncratic.
1. NoVA Scout wrote:
[blockquote]where there are historic properties where the investment reflects generations of support, it is not as easy to take a strong position on departure with property. In churches where these unique circumstances are not present, the risk of deciding property rights by a vote taken at a particular point in time is that the parish becomes a seething cauldron of cleric/pols campaigning on this issue or that that may arise over the coming decades and centuries for momentary control that enables them to seize the levers of worship, the monies in the banks, and the property itself. The problems with these political campaigns is that they tend to be one-sided in their presentation, and where there are considerable material prizes (buildings and accounts) at stake, there is sometimes a tendency to over-dramatize the perceived affront and to demonize the opposition, an opposition that is often not present within the parish and is easily labeled “Them†in the “Us/Them†persuasion dynamic.[/blockquote]
I find incredible the notion that “historic” Episcopalians in the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century intended through their sacrifices of time, talent and treasure (not to mention sweat and tears) to provide “the coming decades and centuries” with parishes, dioceses and a national organization that advanced the causes of divorce, abortion, feminism and sexual immorality and in which the fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures, the Creeds and the BCP were not only ignored, but militantly overthrown.
I find incredible the notion that those who sent in their offerings to and established endowments for the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America did so to advance causes of divorce, abortion, feminism and sexual immorality or such notions as pluriform truth, the denial of the doctrines of the Scriptures, Creeds and BCP.
I also suspect that they had no idea that in establishing parishes and dioceses they were simply enriching a radical bureaucracy in Philadelphia or NYC. And had it been presented to them in that manner, they would have been far less enthusiastic in their labors and giving.
[blockquote]I also think he is confused about the TEC doctrinal position on such issues as virgin birth and bodily resurrection. I have heard skeptics on these points from inside and outside of virtually every Christian denomination, but I was not aware that either the Diocese of Los Angeles or the national Church had doctrinally embraced rejection of these concepts.[/blockquote]
Yeah, I know. That is the sort of mendacity that Schori and Anderson attempted on Williams. Apparently he was not amused.
The simple fact of the matter is that the doctrine, discipline and worship that is established in the Constitution, Canons and BCP of TEC are widely undermined by bishops, priests and the dwindling official seminary of TEC. And nothing whatever is done to reaffirm the doctrine, discipline and worship of Scripture, the Creeds and the BCP. Yes, Scripture, Creeds and the BCP are the official doctrine of TEC (wink, wink) and they’ve never been repealed (wink, wink).
Of course TEC will do nothing to discipline those bishops, priests and deacons who violate their ordination vows by undermining the doctrine of Christian Scripture, the Creeds and the BCP. And it has been decades since the General Convention has been able affirm any of these things — year after year resolutions attempting to make such affirmations have been defeated.
Katherine Jefferts-Schori, proclaimed that having a personal relationship with Christ — a core tenet of evangelical Christian belief — is the “great Western heresy.â€
…..
Do we conclude that KJS considers herself a heretic or that she has no personal relationship with Christ? In either case what is she doing leading a Christian church? Most people in TEC are Christians and have personal relationships with Christ. Why do they put up with this nonsense?
NoVA Scout, as you must know, Virginia law is quite clear that in a church division, the majority voting group retains the property. There is no real question about what the law says and Judge Randy Bellows has said that to TEC and the DioVA in the clearest and most forceful of terms. By his ruling in court, they have no claim to the properties.
The departure that we are sure of is the departure of TEC leadership from Christian faith in their attempt to craft a Post-Christian Church. This is apostasy from which any Christian Church should recoil. Our ACNA church has not left the Christian Church, we preach Christ’s saving power to all who will hear.
You say, “I fully expect ACNA to organize itself in a way that would make impossible a dissident group’s transferring property to itself by majority vote…” Are you not aware that ACNA did exactly the opposite and has declared all church property to be locally owned? The majority can do with it whatever they wish.
Rev. Richard Crocker is writing in a community paper:
[blockquote]
… [A reporter] wrote that St. James parted ways with the Episcopal Church due to theological differences and because of the consecration of a gay bishop in 2003. In truth, our members overwhelmingly elected to leave the Episcopal Church in August 2004 due solely to long-standing theological differences, specifically regarding the authority of Holy Scripture and the Lordship of Christ.
…
Over the course of several decades, the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the national Episcopal Church stepped further away from the Bible’s traditional teachings … Just this month, the presiding bishop of the national Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts-Schori, proclaimed that having a personal relationship with Christ — a core tenet of evangelical Christian belief — is the “great Western heresy.â€
[/blockquote]
This is not at all what the Presiding Bishop said.
My question is whether this distortion is deliberate or based on misunderstanding.
4. stabill asks:
[blockquote]This is not at all what the Presiding Bishop said.
My question is whether this distortion is deliberate or based on misunderstanding.[/blockquote]
The exact quote from the Presiding Bishop’s opening address to General Convention was:
[blockquote]The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention. [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/070709_PBopeningaddress.pdf]General Convention opening address[/url][/blockquote]
Oddly enough, after that God pretty much drops out of the address which is all about us.
And to make things even more odd, the center of attention at the convention became “telling my story” and “personal experience” — not of God, but of “my” lusts and desires. Individual experience trumps Scripture, Tradition and Right Reason.
Nineteen Eighty-Four becomes more relevant every day with respect to TEC. The principle character’s job at the Ministry of Truth was to alter the historical record to suit the ever changing Party line. And Newspeak corrupted language to make it impossible to think, much less, speak anything but the Party Line.
RE: “I fully expect ACNA to organize itself in a way that would make impossible a dissident group’s transferring property to itself by majority vote . . . ”
Um — the ACNA C&Cs; allows parishes to keep their own property and indeed to *walk away* from ACNA entirely with everything.
The only exception to that rule that I am aware of is if a parish is already a member of one of the three dioceses that has currently existing canons about church property.
Then my expectations are invalid re ACNA. As one with pro-ACNA theological proclivities, I don’t know whether to be relieved or concerned. But I suspect that the devil will be in the details of how the parish expresses its views and that a system of church governance that makes title turn on majority vote at the parish level is fraught with difficulties. I know of very few denominations free of theological dissonance over time. I would not much enjoy the thought that factions would tilt for title by campaigning on this issue or that. One should take a long view of these things, I reckon.
CanaAnglican: I was not aware that Virginia law is as well settled as you profess it to be. I thought that the meaning and application of the Virginia statute, a statute whose origins are very much a product of Civil War era regional tensions, is very much at the heart of ongoing litigation between the Diocese of Virginia and secessionist parishioners that occupy the premises that were Episcopalian before their departure. The trial court decision to which you refer struck me as rather the beginning of that legal dispute, rather than its ultimate resolution.
Ken Peck: I do not know what previous parishioners of previous centuries would have thought of our present bickering. The best I can assume is that they have no opinion on the matter and had no opinion on the issues of same-sex marriages/blessings in their day. But my point is that in historic churches that are not like what apparently pertains to St. James, where the views of all contributors are known and completely unanimous, the momentary occupants of the present should not presume to control the property for all time simply because they have determined to leave.
[blockquote]Just this month, the presiding bishop of the national Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts-Schori, proclaimed that having a personal relationship with Christ — a core tenet of evangelical Christian belief — is the “great Western heresy.â€[/blockquote]The news media and Presiding Bishop Schori would have us believe that the dispute is about sexual preferences but it is, as Richard Crocker points out, about theology.
If the Presiding Bishop really wants Christians to remain in the Episcopal Church all she has to do is display some respect for the long standing theology of the Church which she misrepresents.
It seems to me that the Presiding Bishop and her supporter are using the Gay controversy to create their own Personal Religion with their own personal theology and their own personal power structure.
I had not thought of leaving the Episcopal Church until I heard her characterize the concept of personal salvation as heresy. Now I am now very concerned about the idea of supporting “her” church in any way.
8. NoVA Scout wrote:
[blockquote]Ken Peck: I do not know what previous parishioners of previous centuries would have thought of our present bickering. The best I can assume is that they have no opinion on the matter and had no opinion on the issues of same-sex marriages/blessings in their day.[/blockquote]
Yes, I know. Instruction in history in general is poor, and in terms of the Episcopal Church, abysmal. If you want to know what Episcopalians were like in the 19th century, you only have to look to places like Uganda, Rwanda, Southeast Asia, etc. One of their points is that the gospel they preach is the gospel which missionaries from the Episcopal Church and the Church of England preached 100 years ago.
[blockquote]But my point is that in historic churches that are not like what apparently pertains to St. James, where the views of all contributors are known and completely unanimous, the momentary occupants of the present should not presume to control the property for all time simply because they have determined to leave.[/blockquote]
Interestingly, for the people of St. James’ ACNA and many others who are leaving TEC, it is about theology. Apparently for you, its only about property. Apparently TEC is happy to win empty buildings which eventually must be sold because there are no people to pay the mortgage, utility bills, repairs, staff, etc. Maybe so. TEC has to raise money to pay the lawyers.
And, of course, what does not happen is evangelism in TEC. General Convention must lay off the 815 evanglism officer to pay the lawyers. Makes real sense from a Christian view.
And it must be pointed out that the “model” of “heirarchy” on which this is based in the TEC is less than 50 years old.
RE: “As one with pro-ACNA theological proclivities . . . ”
No you don’t — as you’ve demonstrated countless times on this very blog. What gall.
Really.
RE: “The best I can assume is that they have no opinion on the matter and had no opinion on the issues of same-sex marriages/blessings in their day.:
Tee hee. Yes — I’m sure they had no opinon at all about two persons of the same sex having sexual relations. Free spirited types, all.
[roll eyes]
What did they teach people in school in the old days?
The TEC has beautiful vestments but borders on being heretical.
Sarah1 purports to know me better than I do. One of us is wrong. I may have more information on the subject than she does.
I would guess that same sex relations would seem quite repulsive to virtually all of our forebears. My comment was on the issue of the moment. I very much doubt that any Episcopalian prior to the latter half of the 20th century ever considered the issue of same sex blessings or same sex unions. I very much doubt the issue ever came up.
RE: “Sarah1 purports to know me better than I do.”
Not at all. Sarah understands that NoVA Scout knows himself quite well . . . but has chosen to try to assert, in contradiction to his many frequent comments on this blog from the past, that he’s really just as traditional as ACNA folks.
Again — sheer unmitigated gall that anyone who has read NOVA Scout’s comments may recognize instantly.
RE: “I may have more information on the subject than she does.”
Yes indeed — that makes your claim on this thread to be even more outrageous, as you know yourself quite well.
Really incredible.
13. NoVA Scout wrote:
[blockquote]I would guess that same sex relations would seem quite repulsive to virtually all of our forebears. My comment was on the issue of the moment. I very much doubt that any Episcopalian prior to the latter half of the 20th century ever considered the issue of same sex blessings or same sex unions. I very much doubt the issue ever came up.[/blockquote]
There’s probably a very good reason for that.
There’s also a very good reason it should never have come up in a Christian Church in the latter half of the 20th century or ever.
For starters, consider the first promise of the Baptismal Covenant.
#8. NoVA Scout wrote:
“I was not aware that Virginia law is as well settled as you profess it to be. I thought that the meaning and application of the Virginia statute, a statute whose origins are very much a product of Civil War era regional tensions, is very much at the heart of ongoing litigation between the Diocese of Virginia and secessionist parishioners that occupy the premises that were Episcopalian before their departure. The trial court decision to which you refer struck me as rather the beginning of that legal dispute, rather than its ultimate resolution.”
—–
I am not a lawyer. However, I have read the provisions of law in question and they are plainly written. I have also read Judge Bellows’ ruling. It seems incredibly thorough in looking at every possible side of the TEC arguments and finding them without merit. The law has been applied several times in Virginia and the VA Attorney General has filed a friend of the court brief supporting the constitutionality of the law and its application in this case.
You are quite right that the matter is not yet settled. TEC has appealed the ruling to the VA Supreme Court. There is no way to know if they will hear the case or, if they do, how they will decide. That does not even touch what could happen at the level of the US Supreme Court. If the law stands, it would be hard to see TEC gaining the properties.
You mention the invested interest in the properties of past generations of Episcopalians. We are indeed indebted to their Christian foresight and now can do no less than reach out, standing on their shoulders, to the community and to the world. In 2006, we prayerfully considered the best way of advancing the work they planted here, recalling that Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Now, our forebearers planted, we are watering, and God is giving the increase.
The vote to do what we did was 99 to 33, so it was done by a 75% majority. How would those who built our sanctuary in the 1880’s have voted? Only God knows, but there is no way I can see them approving any aspect of what TEC has done theologically in the past 40 years. From a Christian point of view they are theologically bankrupt. They have moved on to be a Post-Christian church, and I do not believe our forebearers would have voted in favor of that.
Well, what is the increase? Our little 99 are, after three years, more like 150. We are now considering how best to add a second service, as our forebearers built only a 150-seat sanctuary. Our ASA is all the members. If they are in town they come. We have sent missionaries to Uganda, Nigeria, Niger, the Sudan, Russia, Iceland, Ireland, Thailand, India, and the Dominican Republic. We have had several missions to other US states. We are going door-to-door in our neighborhood.
A trust for the property holds that it shall be used for a place of Christian worship, not Post-Christian. We are trying our best to fulfill that objective. We solicit your prayers for this work and for those who decided to stay in TEC. We seek God’s richest blessing for each one of them.
RE: “I very much doubt the issue ever came up.”
A different statement from this one: “The best I can assume is that they have no opinion on the matter and had no opinion on the issues of same-sex marriages/blessings in their day.”
Which attempted to be some sort of coherent response to this by Peck: “I find incredible the notion that “historic†Episcopalians in the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century intended through their sacrifices of time, talent and treasure (not to mention sweat and tears) to provide “the coming decades and centuries†with parishes, dioceses and a national organization that advanced the causes of divorce, abortion, feminism and sexual immorality and in which the fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures, the Creeds and the BCP were not only ignored, but militantly overthrown.”
Again — incredible gall, and easily pointed out and observed by the commenters on this thread.
But it’s as if NoVA Scout believes that nobody will recall the first or second comments. As if he can say one outrageous thing — or *imply* another — and then when called on it, proceed to another.
We know that “previous parishioners of previous centuries” of Anglicans read the Bible and used the Book of Common Prayer in their church services so it is reasonable to assume that they respected Scripture and the beliefs of their church as expressed in The Book of Common prayer.
.
In most cases those parishes and dioceses which have withdrawn from TEC have done so, precisely because TEC has abandoned the doctrine, discipline and worship of those whose time, talents and treasure — not to mention sweat and tears – made the parishes and dioceses possible and viable. Those who are the spiritual descendents and heirs of that doctrine, discipline and worship wish to fulfill the intentions of those who went before them. Or to put it more bluntly, those who created parishes, bought land, put up buildings, paid off mortgages, maintained those buildings and in some cases endowed for future support envisioned a parish or diocese that advanced the causes of divorce, sexual immorality and abortion and that depreciated the value of Scripture, the Creeds and the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. In most cases those parishes and dioceses that vote to leave TEC have done so precisely because they remain in the faith and tradition of those previous generations who established and supported the parish and its work.
One might also point out that those who in the 19th and first half of the 20th century endowed the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America likewise had no intention of advancing the causes of divorce, sexual immorality and abortion or of depreciating the Scripture, Creeds and the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
TEC today is in a historical disconnect with its roots. It does, indeed, take on an odd form at times. We see TEC calling up the ancient canons of the councils of the Church Fathers (which on other days they dismiss as power crazy patriarchs) against wandering bishops—ignoring the fact that the same canons of the same Church Fathers say that some of the bishops and presbyters who advance this argument cannot be bishops and presbyters.
But the generations of Christians who came before us—or for that matter will come after us—cannot be so easily dismissed. We, with them, are members of the one Body of Christ, of the one Communion of Saints. The faith of our fathers is the faith that we have received and which we as members of the Body and the Communion have the responsibility to pass on to those who are outside of the Body and the Communion in our generation and to those who will be inside the Body and the Communion in the generations to come.
Anglicans put great stress on the historic episcopate. It ranks in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral along with Scripture, the Creeds and the Dominical Sacraments as being the minimum basis for our involvement in ecumenical discussions. Now what is this historic episcopate?
One becomes a bishop when three bishops lay hands on the bishop-elect. What does this laying on of hands signify? It is an outward and visible sign of the handing down of the tradition of faith from one generation to the next as well as the giving over of the authority to guard, teach, preach and evangelize that faith. In many places one will see a genealogy of the local diocesan. It will show his consecrators going back to the first bishops of TEC, going back from there to the bishops of England and Scotland who consecrated the first American bishops, going back from their through the bishops of the English Church to Augustine of Canterbury, and through him to the bishops of Rome to finally the apostles of Jesus. Thus the historic episcopate is the outward sign of the historic continuity of the apostolic doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received. Bishops historically were not selected to be innovators—they were selected to be conservators.
As Chesterton observed, the Catholic Church is the most democratic of all institutions in that in it, even the dead have a vote. The faith of our fathers does matter. The Body of Christ does matter—and in it we are members with them. As members we need them that we may receive gospel of Jesus Christ and the apostolic faith. As members they need us to hand that same gospel of Jesus Christ and the apostolic faith on to generations yet to come. Fnd for those members who are yet to come, they need us to pass on faithfully that same gospel of Jesus Christ and the apostolic faith; and we need them to pass on faithful that gospel and faith which we received from our fathers.
The gospel of Jesus Christ and the apostolic faith—it is not about us and our “story†(other than our story is how Jesus Christ redeemed us from sin and death and is recreating us in his image for righteousness and life. It is not something that we make up as we go along. Thus the Baptismal Covenant, by which we are made members of the Body of Christ and the Communion of Saints, appropriately begins with the Apostles’ Creed (including its confession of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son and Holy Spirit–the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, Second Coming and Final Judgment) and the first promise to continue in the apostles’ teaching. And surely the other promises do not contradict the first, but must be understood in the light of the apostles’ teaching if we are to be faithful to the whole covenant. And, indeed, we enter into that covenant only after we have renounced the world, the flesh and the devil. This world, as the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out in his Reflections does not define the faith of Christ’s apostolic Church. The fact that the states of this world declares abortion or same-sex partnerships, unions and “marriages†to be legal does not define Christian sexuality for Christ’s apostolic Church. Scripture, Tradition and Right Reason (informed by the Scriptures and the Tradition) are the sources of the Christian Church’s doctrine, discipline and worship. And it is the work of the whole Body of Christ and the whole Communion of Saints—not just some local convention.
General Convention has–as the Archbishop of Canterbury and others have pointed out—chosen to walk apart from the Body of Christ and the Communion of Saints. It didn’t happen in 2009; it has been in the making for a half century. The schism occurred at the 2003 General Convention, in spite of the pleas of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Communion and the catholic Church. And, in spite of the pleas to repent and to return to the Body and the Communion, the schism has been reaffirmed repeatedly by the House of Bishops and by General Convention in 2006 and most recently 2009.
1. NoVA Scout made what appears to me to be a disingennuous comment. Under the implicit criteria used by NoVA Scout, if even one member had given as little as $0.01 toward the building and is now deceased (and thus cannot indicate their desires), then the presumed criteria would preclude the departure of the congregation with the building. I presume that NoVA Scout is not sincere in proposing the use of such a criteria (hence my use of “disingenuous”), since such a criteria would seem to me to disqualify the Dennis Canon from application.
Since I did not propose it, Jack, it can be neither disingenuous nor sincere. It’s a construct that you extrapolate from my concerns. But, since you raise it, I do think the moral and ethical dilemmas are diminished in situations where there is no reservation about departure and no contribution from Episcopalian loyalists. Your $.01 hypothetical is pretty close to that scenario, and defines the type of scenario where my qualms are largely allayed. The difficulty is that I don’t think those situations exist in the real world of denominational fracture. I’ll get back to that in a moment.
My comments were directed to the original post. There Richard Crocker countered some previous comments by Brady Rhoades. My reaction was that I thought Crocker was engaging in rhetorical hyperbole intended to simplify misleadingly for polemical purposes a fairly complex state of affairs within TEC. Other folks may not agree – I offered it as my opinion based on facts as I know them. Sarah1 finds this all “outrageous”, galling, and is lightning fast to classify me theologically (incorrectly as far as I can discern based on what I know of my own views, as opposed to what she knows of them). The flat medium of blog chatter no doubt hides the joy, Christian fellowship and good-natured humor which I’m sure she intended to direct my way and makes her sound a bit angry and overwrought to those who do not know otherwise about her. I would prefer we talk about the post.
Getting back to Jack’s point, I am comfortable saying that the newer the church, the more overlap there is between the departing crowd and the universe of parishioners who have borne the burden of the costs of the church over time, and the nearer the vote to depart is to being unanimous, the less uncomfortable I am with the ethics of seeking to retain ownership of the property. These circumstances will vary from parish to parish, diocese to diocese. However, the various situations of which I am aware all have a high degree of moral ambiguity, and in these situations, I would argue for acting very much on principle and not allowing property to confuse the theological statement. I have expressed no view on the efficacy of the Dennis Canon, Jack, and tend to think of these things equitably in terms of individual parish impacts. For example, did the 99 of CanaAnglican’s parish offer to compensate the 33 or make available or contribute to facilities for continued Episcopalian worship?
I continue to believe that the desire for property by those departing is a stain and blight on an otherwise justifiable theological position. I would probably have marched out the door with my fellow traditionalists if the process been more objective, the clergy and vestry less exuberantly pushy about the urgency of departure, and the departees less fixated on arguing that a large yes vote would enable us to retain the property. Many, many parishioners were swayed by the thought that the most likely way they could continue their patterns of Sunday worship was to vote yes on departure. Contrary to Sarah1’s quick pigeon-holing of me as one of the odious “them”, my views on this do not strike me as inconsistent with my conservative theological proclivities. If departing parishioners left and made do for a period of months or years, there would be many cases in which the property issues would resolve themselves ultimately in their favor simply because the the remaining group could not sustain the abandoned property. In cases where this did not happen, I would rather see CanaAnglican’s 99 or 150 build a fine new church than spend their funds on lawyers, particularly given the fact that much of that lawyer money will never find its way back to Christian pursuits. Similarly I’d rather see his 33 fellow Christians be able to vote not to leave the Episcopal Church, if that is their considered view, without fear that such a vote will cast them out on new choices of a worship home, and be able to continue to attend Episcopal services in premises that they did not choose to depart.
I agree entirely with Ken Peck’s point that we are united with our forebears in unifying bonds of faith. My reservations on the general subject relate to the tendency for partisans of particular issues to count the dead as unified in their camp. I find it easy to contemplate that my fellow parishioners of the the 1780s did not have opinions on the theological implications of stem cell research. I have considerably more difficulty attributing to them specific views on whether such research should or should not be undertaken. If I feel strongly one way or the other on that issue, once I or anyone else decides to count the votes of the dead, the trend is to find that the dead vote unanimously as a group for exactly the same position as the guy invoking their support. It makes the moral issues of the day start to look like Richard Daley’s (the elder) Chicago of 1960.
Again, these are my views. I doubt many here share them, which is why I think it important for me to express them from time to time in this space. It is a superb site for a variety of subjects. I learn a great deal from it and I am grateful to Dr. Harmon and his elves for keeping it going.
Thank you Ken Peck for defending the Faith.
NoVAScout asks:
For example, did the 99 of CanaAnglican’s parish offer to compensate the 33 or make available or contribute to facilities for continued Episcopalian worship?
Reply:
Yes, the 99 together with the other orthodox congregation had worked out an agreement on how to design separation and compensation to which +Peter Lee had given his blessing. It was taken off the table by KJS who demanded he sue us.
NoVAScout states:
If departing parishioners left and made do for a period of months or years, there would be many cases in which the property issues would resolve themselves ultimately in their favor simply because the the remaining group could not sustain the abandoned property.
Response:
No, KJS stated that remaining TEC congregations could sell their properties for any purpose (bars, nightclubs, etc.) other than for use in Christian worship by an Anglican congregation. That use could not be allowed.
NoVA states:
I would rather see CanaAnglican’s 99 or 150 build a fine new church than spend their funds on lawyers, particularly given the fact that much of that lawyer money will never find its way back to Christian pursuits.
Response:
We felt called to keep the property dedicated to holy use as intended by those who built it. If we ultimately withstand the TEC attack in court, would you suggest we sue to recover the money spent, so it could be applied to Christian pursuits?
NoVAScout wrote:
Similarly I’d rather see his 33 fellow Christians be able to vote not to leave the Episcopal Church, if that is their considered view, without fear that such a vote will cast them out on new choices of a worship home, and be able to continue to attend Episcopal services in premises that they did not choose to depart.
Response:
The rector and all the 99 made a prayerful and most earnest plea to the 33 to stay and worship with us. As an Anglican church we are episcopal in that we have a bishop and we have continued on with exactly the same litergy.
Thank you for these insightful questions and comments. We ask for your prayers, especially for the 33.
Just to be clear, CanaAnglican, the PB did not advocate turning those properties into bars or even into use for non–religious purposes. You might want to read the transcript of that exchange. If litigation does not go your way, I would strongly support giving those who have maintained the property and kept it open for Episcopalian worship in the interim credit for their contribution to maintenance of the physical plant. If you have excluded Episcopalian worship, then I guess you’re just out the money, and you touch on another reason why I think clinging to the old property is problematic for those who leave. It would have been tidier to have used your parish’s wealth for new CANA facilities. As for legal fees, it doesn’t happen that people who try out a legal strategy that doesn’t work get reimbursed for the costs of that strategy when it fails. In this country it doesn’t happen all that often that those who succeed recover much of what they spent. So I think you can just regard the legal costs as sunk, whatever happens. I don’t know what your parish’s situation is other than your description of it, but in a number of these parishes, the departing folks not only asserted control over the buildings after the departure vote, but did not even segregate the funds and assets (bank accounts and supplies, for example) that had been acquired before the vote and kept right on using them. There ultimately will have to be an accounting for that unless the peculiarities of Virginia law indicate that that sort of behavior is sanctioned by the law of that state. I strongly doubt that it would be sanctioned by any common conception of ethics or morality, be it Christian or otherwise.
Yes, we should be clear. She said the buildings could not be sold to Anglican congregations, but they could be sold for any other purpose. One Episcopal sanctuary, in Colorado, was sold and transformed into a nightclub. Why did she say it could not be purchased by an Anglican congregation? Spite, I think. Now, do I think she really could influence what use buildings are put to after they are sold? I doubt she could, but am not a lawyer or real estate expert.
I only addressed the recovery of legal fees in the event we prevail in the suit brought against us. Clearly, there could be no hope for recovery if TEC prevails. So far we have considered our costs as sunk. The former bank accounts are in escrow and I believe will be divided after settlement of the suit.
After the DioVA unilaterally threw out the protocol that all had agreed to for reaching a settlement for the properties, we have continued to offer to negotiate without going to court. Our desire was to settle the matter without the help of the court. After each court decision went in our favor, we offered to return to negotiations but were rebuffed. It would appear the TEC has a cutthroat, winner-take-all agenda. So far they have only lost in court. Why do you think they might prevail at this point? Do you have some inside info?
You seem to advocate a “walk away approach”. Why would that have not worked for the minority? They could have taken away a goodly sum of money from us and saved all their legal fees. which to this point have been to no avail. “Majority” is still a valid reference point in Virginia and I hope it will continue to be so.
No VA Scout:
If you can find a link to the transcript of the Presiding Bishop’s deposition to the Court in VA you can find out exactly what the Presiding Bishop said in response to a question about saloons.
CanaAnglican: I think it’s sort of a fundamental point that if they did not choose to leave they shouldn’t have to leave. I applaud you and your colleagues for escrowing funds. You’ve done better than some of the other departing parishes on that score. But it is exactly the right thing to do short of handing over all the accounts at the time of separation to the non-departing faction. Bettcee = I’m not good with links, but I did read a hard copy of the transcript. I’m more of a paper and fountain pen guy. It’s generational, I guess.
NoVA Scout, The minority did not have to leave. They chose to leave. They could have stayed with the majority and continued Christian worship and service with us. We begged them to do so. We are doing good for the community and we wish they were with us in that work. Please keep praying with us for them and maybe they will come back.
Bettycee, Thanks for the reminder about the Presiding Bishop’s (video) deposition to the Va court. I did not think the TEC presented a very convincing case and her deposition seemed unhelpful to it.