Two years ago this week, the Diocese of San Joaquin seceded from the U.S. Episcopal Church, launching a legal battle over church property that is now headed toward a decisive showdown.
The rebel diocese changed its name and became a founding member of a new church, the Anglican Church in North America. But religious and legal experts say holding on to its property — including real estate and cash — will prove to be far more challenging.
Already, a Fresno County Superior Court judge has handed a critical victory to the national Episcopal church, which sued not long after the San Joaquin diocese voted to break away. The diocese is appealing that July ruling.
Several legal issues in the case remain to be decided. But even the breakaway diocese acknowledges it will likely lose if it cannot persuade the 5th District Court of Appeal to overturn Judge Adolfo Corona’s ruling.
The Fresno Bee has found out how to bypass my pop-up blocker to try to sell me (at least) a screen-saver. I wish I knew how they do that, so that I could stop it.
That said, the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has come along too late to help my 94-year-mother, who now believes that Satan has entered the whole church and does not trust any one of them. This came about by a combination of the pernicious turn of the Episcopal church away from the gospel and the pernicious sermons of certain late-night “bible” preachers.
Once trust has been comnpromised, it takes a long time to re-establish it.
I sure understand someone deciding to leave, whether it be a matter of convenience or conviction. I even understand several or a lot of people leaving. But I remain utterly flummoxed by the ethical orientation that suggests to any individual or any group of individuals that a decision to leave carries with it a right to hold or claim property. The times I have left a business or a church are relatively few in number, but I always had the mental attitude that I just wanted to get going, and I would not have been comfortable tussling with the guys I left about whether my decision to leave entitled me to take things with me.
The right comes, I suppose, from their belief that the parish was bought and paid for by the local members. I agree that if a diocese sponsored a mission, there should be acknowledgement of the claim of ownership and investment in the property. Had TEC been more up front about the creation of the Dennis Canon, I would share your sentiments. However, as the Bishop of VA’s testimony revealed, they (bishops and Standing Committees) downplayed the passing of the Dennis Cannon and the chose not to have churches amend their titles to reflect its passing because it likely would never have passed/caused more trouble than it was worth/caused a revolt in the pews/etc. Duplicitous action is now coming home to roost in some places (and that goes on both sides). What will be interesting to watch will be whether the Supreme Court chooses to intervene as the various states’ rulings come down and differ. Paul warned about that too, but neither side seems inclined to heed his teaching on that — lol.
[blockquote]More is at stake than cash and property. Because some congregants may care more about staying with their parish church than its affiliation, whichever side wins the property war may also gain members, some Episcopal church leaders say.[/blockquote]
This is a false assumption. Bishop Lamb believes this and his hope is to repopulate the buildings if TEC wins the lawsuit because the people go with the buildings. It is telling because he, like the other TEC leaders, believes that God’s Kingdom is bricks and mortar.
As a former parishioner at Holy Family, it is tragic how the church was taken over by “Remain Episcopal” activists who voted in the dark of night to engage in a TEC lawsuit against their own Bishop. The rector who went against good council to join the lawsuit was used by TEC and is no longer at Holy Family. Holy Family Church which had no debt, now is obligated to TEC for the “loan” from TEC to sue Bishop JDS. The Lamb Diocese could not exist financially if it were not propped up by TEC loans and a Bishop who works one day per week. The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin will not live any longer than the life of the lawsuit. The lies that were told to the vestry and parishioners and the false rationale for joining the lawsuit (we need to protect our property from JDS) are a travesty.
Re no. 3, in all these cases folks on both sides of the schism “bought and paid for” the parish. I guess one has to include the fact that a lot of people (past generations) who knew nothing about the dispute also “bought and paid for” the parish. So it can’t have anything to do with pledges. If so, the guy who leaves because there’s another church closer to his house would have a right to take the church. I suppose if there were a church that was recently formed and everyone (i.e., every single person) who formed it and remained a member over its span or existence was still living, still a member and decided to leave, I’d acknowledge that there might be merit in working out a way to honor that cohesion. But none of these disputes are like that. People who decide not to leave are forced to leave, and people who decide to leave stay. It just doesn’t seem right. As you suggest, the ultimate outcome is that the secular courts will end up sorting it all out eventually, but I still cannot comprehend the ethics or guiding principle of it.
#5. NoVA Scout,
[blockquote]I guess one has to include the fact that a lot of people (past generations) who knew nothing about the dispute also “bought and paid for†the parish.[/blockquote].
The idea that KJS is trying to preserve a legacy with these lawsuits is a cruel joke. TEC has sold the property to folks who have used the churches for other purposes. Additionally, this is the only area that TEC is looking back since it has not paid attention to the faith handed down and continues in its innovations.
#5:
Not at all. In your example, the man is choosing to leave. In what we are doing to churches, people feel their churches are being taken from them. Had TEC wanted this done legally and morally correct, they simply needed to tell the parishes to transfer the deeds to them upon the passage of the Dennis Canon. Instead, as the bishop of VA testified, they felt that doing that at that time would have caused great furor and uproar and likely accelerated these events. So, typical of churches, they put their heads in the sand hoping the problem would go away. Now we a generation or so later get to deal with the fallout of that dumb decision, and it will be dealt with case by case, state by state until the Supreme Court decides to get involved.
I am loathe to consider either sides thieves, in so far as I believe that there are people acting in good conscience on both sides (and there are people after power on both sides too). I can see why some would feel that the diocese should have no claim as it never shows up to help when there are budget shortfalls in many cases, and I can see why people think it should go with the church always.
As for me, I would like simply to see a parish by parish vote and be done with it. If we are empowering our laity and discerning the Holy Spirit through votes as some of leadership claim, then let’s vote on it and be done. Parishes that vote to stay in TEC amend their deeds so that we are done with this for future generations, and parishes that vote to leave go and form whatever they are going to form. God will bless whichever is about His business.
As to the guiding principle, who knows? American arrogance? Individualism? Distrust of authority? Two-year-old mentality (everything is mine)? There is probably a good doctoral thesis there or two for future sociologists.
I can only speak to my church. A large number (approaching or exceeding a majority of the adult 16 and over or 18 and over) voted to leave. A large number of us affirmatively voted to stay and witness, and a much larger number yet didn’t vote at all (which under our secular law counts as a vote to stay). In any event, there was no unanimity, even among the living. No one from the national church or the diocese had imposed restrictions on our worship or our principles.
I respect and understand the decision to leave. I do not understand the decision to leave, but to lay claim to the physical property of the church. Many parishioners of decades of worship were evicted because of their desire not to leave. That cannot be right.
NoVA Scout,
1. Your description of the vote breakdown is confusing. All three groups are described as “large” or “larger”.
2. “there was no unanimity, even among the living”. What does this mean. Did you ask the dead to vote also?
3. “I respect and understand the decision to leave.” I do not understand the decision to leave.” This statement contradicts itself.
4. I personally believe your statement that parishioners who wanted to stay in TEC were not “evicted”.
[Comment deleted by Elf – Comments instructing, encouraging or suggesting that people leave, join or split from any particular church or denomination are against T19 comment policy – please also be careful of aggressive commenting]