“Sad indeed” is very gracious, Kendall. Despicable is more accurate. And completely irrational when one learns about the situation in the Diocese of Colorado.
Let’s see…..’07-’09 Triennium budget for litigation expense is $300K. $1.5 million in short term reserves in that budget period is exhausted paying litigation expense. Estimated litigation expense for that budget period is $4.7 million with no explanation of where the rest of the money comes from. PB claims full responsibility in Va. suit for all decisions on when and where to litigate. Off balance sheet St. Ives fund established in ’08. HOB votes at GC ’09 to refer litigation expense disclosure resolution to CCAB for report to GC ’12 but HOD rejects resolution effectively killing it after Pres. Anderson deflects attempt from floor to offer substitute amendment so it could be voted up or down w/o CCAB referral (following short recess for a song while she conferred with parliamentarian). Now we have setbacks in litigation and this plea for more funds to support TEC’s habit. Need I say more?
It seems that ECUSA’s mission concept has morphed from carrying out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission to chasing down and punishing those Episcopalians who do not agree with ECUSA’s new concept of what “inclusiveness” means.
St Ives is the patron of lawyers, though not, it is said, their model, for—”Sanctus Ivo erat Brito, Advocatus et non latro, Res miranda populo.” From here.
Why is this in any way sad? Or despicable? Do the breakaway churches have funds for lawsuits or do they just take it out of the plate on Sunday? Why is it not a responsible use of resources to fundraise for extraordinary costs? In the SC case where the Diocese and All Saints Pawley’s Island were involved, how did the Diocese pay? Did they raise money? If not, did they take money from trusts? Were those trusts earmarked for litigation? Stop being two-faced on this.
[i]A few weeks ago, St. George’s Anglican Church — a congregation that started as a breakaway group from the Episcopal church — asked its members for a one-time family donation of $1,500 each to defray about $750,000 in legal costs, as well as tens of thousands in fees that were assessed as part of a settlement.
St. George’s rector, the Rev. Donald Armstrong, said Tuesday he’s optimistic that the church will pay off its debts within the next 60 days.[/i]
Heck, at least the people at 815 asked for money from an attorney. Is the attorney who received the letter somehow upset that his/her chosen profession bleeds people dry?
When SF says ‘permission’ was granted, whose permission would that be? (Not that permission was necessary after the private communcations of reasserters were published a while back – but let’s not feign civility, shall we?)
Suppose the diocese or national church broke into the buildings, changed the locks and physically took direct control of the properties(which they purport to be able to do legally, if they own the buildings.)
Would it be appropriate for the breakaway congregation to initiate a lawsuit?
And why are they raising money on the TEC website for this and other purposes? “Give to the Episcopal Church” is one of the first things you see. Now they are competing with the parishes and dioceses that raise money and are forced to pass it along to TEC. I hope they expect support from the dioceses to continue to drop; actions like this invite that response.
New York’s Episcopalian lawyers got a similar appeal about a year ago, but it was on the letterhead of the “Office of the Presiding Bishop”… although not signed by Schori.
RE: “When SF says ‘permission’ was granted, whose permission would that be?”
I believe that would be the permission of the person who received the letter and merrily sent it on to the webmaster of SF.
RE: “Why is this in any way sad?”
Hey Brian — in the same way that sending out an appeal for donations to provide abortions is “sad.” Now granted, liberals don’t believe that what 815 is doing is intrinsically wrong in attempting to impose trusts on parish property. But conservatives do.
So appealing for donations to law firms in order to be able to enforce imposed trusts on local parish money is considered “sad.”
Again, I understand why a liberal wouldn’t think that sad, any more than raising money to provide abortions would be “sad.” But I’m merely describing the perspective of a conservative Episcopalian.
Thinking a bit more about it, I think the lead on this post is a little off the mark. The monies are not really being sought to “sue Christians” are they? I’m sure that if Muslims, Hindus, or Zoroastrians took over property that formerly had been within the Episcopal Church, the reponse by TEC would be very much the same. Similarly, if someone decides to leave an Episcopal Church, but asserts rights to bits of property on the way out, the response would be the same – and the motivation is not that the absconder is a Christian. If the departing member asserted that he was immune to replevin of the property because he is a Christian, I doubt that anyone would take him seriously. The hypothetical doesn’t really change when our notional departer is joined by large numbers of like-minded folks, even if they also are Christians.
What we have here are two Christian factions in an advance state of schism, each blaming the other for the conditions that led to the break, amid general disagreement as to whether the disruption of the existing church structure is justified, appropriate, or necessary. We are finding out that the various laws of the various jurisdictions are not particularly clear on how the secular authorities should react to these property disputes that attend the spasms within the Christian community. It will take several years yet for a clear general rule to be established. My hope is that a few intelligent, fair-minded and sensible people on both sides are thinking hard about alternatives to litigation and that a miraculous settlement will take place. However, the distance between the principled positions of the factions is vast and not obviously reconcilable. The monetary cost of using the litigation mechanisms, however, is so crushing for all concerned hat abandonment of principle might, alas, be the greater good at this point. A great many new Churches and missions could have been established with what has ended up in the lawyers’ pockets on both sides. A pragmatic abandonment of principle is a tough thing for Christians on both sides who feel they are doing God’s work. Probably a lot tougher than for businessmen fighting over a piece of land. But in this case, God might understand. Then again, I do not presume to know the mind of God. It’s just as likely He wants us all to stew in this mess for a while to understand how stiff-necked hostility within our community of faith leads to ruin for all.
RE: “why is this a liberal/conservative issue? . . . ”
Easy. Because the vast vast majority of aware [acknowledging that there are plenty of Episcopalians who don’t even know about Gene] liberal Episcopalians support 815’s attempted imposition of trusts on local parish property.
And the vast vast vast majority of conservative Episcopalians do not.
Take, for instance, you and Brian.
Take, for instance, me.
And I was answering Brian’s question about why it was “sad.” Obviously it’s not “sad” for liberal Episcopalians. But it is for conservative Episcopalians, and indeed many of the moderates with whom I’m now speaking. They’re appalled.
Sarah: I don’t know about Brian, but I assume that you and I both are “conservatives” in any commonly understood meaning of the term. Yet I think you and I have different views of this issue. So where is the dividing point? My sense is that liberal/conservative terminology doesn’t work very well to address these issues.
THIS is MISSION and EVANGELISM for the ECUSA/TEC. Why did they just limit the department stationary to mission?
“Sad indeed” is very gracious, Kendall. Despicable is more accurate. And completely irrational when one learns about the situation in the Diocese of Colorado.
Let’s see…..’07-’09 Triennium budget for litigation expense is $300K. $1.5 million in short term reserves in that budget period is exhausted paying litigation expense. Estimated litigation expense for that budget period is $4.7 million with no explanation of where the rest of the money comes from. PB claims full responsibility in Va. suit for all decisions on when and where to litigate. Off balance sheet St. Ives fund established in ’08. HOB votes at GC ’09 to refer litigation expense disclosure resolution to CCAB for report to GC ’12 but HOD rejects resolution effectively killing it after Pres. Anderson deflects attempt from floor to offer substitute amendment so it could be voted up or down w/o CCAB referral (following short recess for a song while she conferred with parliamentarian). Now we have setbacks in litigation and this plea for more funds to support TEC’s habit. Need I say more?
It seems that ECUSA’s mission concept has morphed from carrying out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission to chasing down and punishing those Episcopalians who do not agree with ECUSA’s new concept of what “inclusiveness” means.
So, the Mission of TEC is to make lawyers rich?
AnglicanFirst, or their mission has changed. Perhaps their mission now is just to make lawyers rich.
St Ives is the patron of lawyers, though not, it is said, their model, for—”Sanctus Ivo erat Brito, Advocatus et non latro, Res miranda populo.” From here.
Why is this in any way sad? Or despicable? Do the breakaway churches have funds for lawsuits or do they just take it out of the plate on Sunday? Why is it not a responsible use of resources to fundraise for extraordinary costs? In the SC case where the Diocese and All Saints Pawley’s Island were involved, how did the Diocese pay? Did they raise money? If not, did they take money from trusts? Were those trusts earmarked for litigation? Stop being two-faced on this.
[i]A few weeks ago, St. George’s Anglican Church — a congregation that started as a breakaway group from the Episcopal church — asked its members for a one-time family donation of $1,500 each to defray about $750,000 in legal costs, as well as tens of thousands in fees that were assessed as part of a settlement.
St. George’s rector, the Rev. Donald Armstrong, said Tuesday he’s optimistic that the church will pay off its debts within the next 60 days.[/i]
From a linked article on T19:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/grace-62535-ago-lawsuit.html
Heck, at least the people at 815 asked for money from an attorney. Is the attorney who received the letter somehow upset that his/her chosen profession bleeds people dry?
When SF says ‘permission’ was granted, whose permission would that be? (Not that permission was necessary after the private communcations of reasserters were published a while back – but let’s not feign civility, shall we?)
Suppose the diocese or national church broke into the buildings, changed the locks and physically took direct control of the properties(which they purport to be able to do legally, if they own the buildings.)
Would it be appropriate for the breakaway congregation to initiate a lawsuit?
The break-away parishes are trying to defend themselves; 815 is simply too ignorant to make deals instead of wage war. This is what is so horrible.
And why are they raising money on the TEC website for this and other purposes? “Give to the Episcopal Church” is one of the first things you see. Now they are competing with the parishes and dioceses that raise money and are forced to pass it along to TEC. I hope they expect support from the dioceses to continue to drop; actions like this invite that response.
New York’s Episcopalian lawyers got a similar appeal about a year ago, but it was on the letterhead of the “Office of the Presiding Bishop”… although not signed by Schori.
RE: “When SF says ‘permission’ was granted, whose permission would that be?”
I believe that would be the permission of the person who received the letter and merrily sent it on to the webmaster of SF.
RE: “Why is this in any way sad?”
Hey Brian — in the same way that sending out an appeal for donations to provide abortions is “sad.” Now granted, liberals don’t believe that what 815 is doing is intrinsically wrong in attempting to impose trusts on parish property. But conservatives do.
So appealing for donations to law firms in order to be able to enforce imposed trusts on local parish money is considered “sad.”
Again, I understand why a liberal wouldn’t think that sad, any more than raising money to provide abortions would be “sad.” But I’m merely describing the perspective of a conservative Episcopalian.
Sarah1 – why is this a liberal/conservative issue?
Thinking a bit more about it, I think the lead on this post is a little off the mark. The monies are not really being sought to “sue Christians” are they? I’m sure that if Muslims, Hindus, or Zoroastrians took over property that formerly had been within the Episcopal Church, the reponse by TEC would be very much the same. Similarly, if someone decides to leave an Episcopal Church, but asserts rights to bits of property on the way out, the response would be the same – and the motivation is not that the absconder is a Christian. If the departing member asserted that he was immune to replevin of the property because he is a Christian, I doubt that anyone would take him seriously. The hypothetical doesn’t really change when our notional departer is joined by large numbers of like-minded folks, even if they also are Christians.
What we have here are two Christian factions in an advance state of schism, each blaming the other for the conditions that led to the break, amid general disagreement as to whether the disruption of the existing church structure is justified, appropriate, or necessary. We are finding out that the various laws of the various jurisdictions are not particularly clear on how the secular authorities should react to these property disputes that attend the spasms within the Christian community. It will take several years yet for a clear general rule to be established. My hope is that a few intelligent, fair-minded and sensible people on both sides are thinking hard about alternatives to litigation and that a miraculous settlement will take place. However, the distance between the principled positions of the factions is vast and not obviously reconcilable. The monetary cost of using the litigation mechanisms, however, is so crushing for all concerned hat abandonment of principle might, alas, be the greater good at this point. A great many new Churches and missions could have been established with what has ended up in the lawyers’ pockets on both sides. A pragmatic abandonment of principle is a tough thing for Christians on both sides who feel they are doing God’s work. Probably a lot tougher than for businessmen fighting over a piece of land. But in this case, God might understand. Then again, I do not presume to know the mind of God. It’s just as likely He wants us all to stew in this mess for a while to understand how stiff-necked hostility within our community of faith leads to ruin for all.
RE: “why is this a liberal/conservative issue? . . . ”
Easy. Because the vast vast majority of aware [acknowledging that there are plenty of Episcopalians who don’t even know about Gene] liberal Episcopalians support 815’s attempted imposition of trusts on local parish property.
And the vast vast vast majority of conservative Episcopalians do not.
Take, for instance, you and Brian.
Take, for instance, me.
And I was answering Brian’s question about why it was “sad.” Obviously it’s not “sad” for liberal Episcopalians. But it is for conservative Episcopalians, and indeed many of the moderates with whom I’m now speaking. They’re appalled.
So Sarah, it is only subjectively sad and not objectively sad. I can live with that.
BTW, I find abortion ‘sad’ too.
Well . . . depends on who is assessing it as “sad.” ; > )
As a human being, all of our emotions are “subjective.”
In the case of God, His emotions are also congruent with the objective truth — a marvel, and who can comprehend such ease and health.
One cannot know whether Kendall was postulating that this was a sad thing in the eyes of God, or merely in the eyes of conservative humans. ; > )
Perhaps he will share it with us. . . .
This is part of the missionary strategy of TEC. They are turning parishes into missions.
Sarah: I don’t know about Brian, but I assume that you and I both are “conservatives” in any commonly understood meaning of the term. Yet I think you and I have different views of this issue. So where is the dividing point? My sense is that liberal/conservative terminology doesn’t work very well to address these issues.