Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York. (Been there many times. About one hour south of Ithaca and Cornell University.) One of the few growing and thriving Episcopal parishes in the diocese heck in the state. They left the Diocese of Central New York. They tried to keep their property. They were sued. They lost.
The family was abruptly evicted from the parsonage. The church building was closed. (People who came looking for the soup kitchen hoping for something to eat had to look elsewhere. That is an important point. I will come back to this.)
The Episcopal Church sold the building to Muslims.
Who paid one third what the Church of the Good Shepherd was offering. (There is some question about whether they had the funds to make that offer but that is not the most important issue here.)
To Muslims.
See those nasty traditional Anglicans do not believe in same-sex relations. They do not believe in women in ministry. Oh wait they do because the rector’s wife was associate pastor so I guess they do believe in women priests….
Yes, “see how they love one another”! Evangelism, EcUSA/TEc style.
The only question is whether or not the Diocese counts attendance at the site in its annual numbers or not. I’m not usually a betting man, but dollars to donuts, it will. I don’t know of a canon that forbids such truthiness, or if it exists, why it should have any more traction than any existing canon. They are all, like the EcUSA/TEc, deconstructed.
There are still some godly people in the Episcopal Church, some whom are quite prominent. But there is a staggering number of leaders who behave quite spitefully. actions like this hammer that point home.
Leaving aside whether such behaviour is how we are called to behave, why would anyone leading any organization think that so doing is a good idea?
It is wicked and exposes a spiritual reality in my opinion
One rationale I can think of might be ‘branding’. By allowing them to purchase the assets might be confusing to others. Imagine a franchise restaurant that decided to terminate the franchisee/franchiser relationship. The individual unit wants to change its name slightly, but otherwise continue to operate in largely the same fashion. Corporate sees this as a problem, because they may want to continue to have a presence in the community. Of course, this arguments breaks down rather quickly. How many TEC ‘franchises’ have been opened of late? The ‘chain’ is floundering, and desperate to retain its few profitable units. To have dynamic, growing, orthodox congregation in the midst of TEC would be confusing. Again, back to the restaurant analogy, would you want a unit to server good food when the remainder of the chain sells slop? People might ask, why are they not dying along with everyone else. It would make the argument about the economy, social change as the cause of decline into question.
The more obvious rationale to sue and evict is to make an example of a parish, serving as a dampener to keep others from contemplating similar moves.
Key phrase: “… most normal people with a sense of decency …”
/does not describe anyone at 815.
“Why the Episcopal Church’s obsession over poverty?”
4 Words: Affluent White Liberal Guilt.
I saw this so many times in seminary. It made me absolutely sick. Whenever the trustees of the seminary came to town, they all showed up in $35000+ automobiles and then railed against racism and poverty. I suggested to them once as a student government officer that they actually go work at a soup kitchen and not waste tons of money on wine and cheese parties while at seminary.
Talk about crickets chirping…
If the Episcopal church would deny the sale of a church to Christrians who believe homosexual practice is a sin, why would they turn around and sell it to a religion that believes it is a capital offense?
Answer: Spite, and the actions of something evil.
I find it revealing that the writer is appalled that the building was sold to Muslims. In fact he italicizes Muslims. To [i]Muslims[/i].
Archer, this reminds me of the phrase “The Church OF the rich, BY the rich, FOR the rich;” a phrase which for so many years perfectly described PECUSA, and still does in many ways and in so many places. A Church of MONEY and PROPERTY…….both personal and corporate.
I suppose I should feel some relief that members of the Episcopal Church can still feel guilt about anything, seeing our complete morass in the field of coherent moral theology about anything.
I often ask myself, “Why do I expect anything different from TEC”? Honestly, these are unredeemed people and therefore will act unredeemed. Its like going to Home Depot to buy milk. You just won’t find it there.
#7 Undergroundpewster you have nailed it! And Dan Ennis #8 what is your point? Muslims are a heretical sect that is bent on silencing the “faith once delivered”, and the death of those faithful to the saving Gospel of our Lord. They teach that Jesus is not God, did not truly die, did not rise, and is not Lord.
And #11 trimom I concur with you.
Why the surprise over a grab for land and property ? It’s in their
historical and ecclesiastical DNA. Remember the Dissolution of
the Monasteries ? For Henry VIII, now read TEC. In order to
promote his view that divorce was not a sin, he seized the
monasteries using questionable legal machinations and dangled
before the aristocracy the sale of monastic land and properties
at knock-down prices. In order to promote TEC’s view that
homosexuality is not a sin, the land and property of stalwart
Episcopal congregations is being sold out from underneath their
feet. If it worked for King Henry, hey, it gotta work for TEC.
Why not grab the property and sell it to Muslims at a
knock-down price ? Same template, just different actors.
There is a text somewhere about the love of money being the
root of all evil.
#8, you are right. It should have also been in bold letters.
Apparently the point was not a rail against Muslims, but against selling the church to a different religion altogether.
If they sold it to Satanists, would you still be making the same “observation”?
Yes, the diocesan action is appalling and ridiculous to boot. But when speculating about the motivations for such an irrational action as selling the building to Muslims when the ex-TEC parish was offering three times more, I think there is a key motivation besides spite or hate. And that’s…
Intimidation.
It’s all a bout trying to intimidate other conservative churches from daring to leave TEC (and take their money with them).
And then there’s…
desperation. The Diocese of CNY already has more than one vacant church building, evacuated by departing conservatives, that remains unsold. Church properties aren’t easy to sell, you know. And the struggling, declining diocese is very short on money, so maybe they were just desperate.
But that still wouldn’t explain turning down Good Shepherd’s offer to buy the property back for three times as much as the Muslims offered.
So yes, I think it all comes down to spite. And the attempt to intimidate and manipulate orthodox Epsicopalians elsewhere to keep them from leaving too. Which leads me to my final suggested motivation here, namely…
Fear.
That is, fear of competition. Since TEC has an inferior product, they can’t tolerate a rival.
People who are scared and desperate do dumb things.
David Handy+
#15 Fr. Handy [i]”Church properties aren’t easy to sell, you know.”[/i]
Well now that the Muslims have been able to obtain a building and property for below market price do not think for one minute that the word will not travel rather fast to the rest of the Muslim sects and before you know it….a majority of heavy handed grabs of property by TEC will be owned by Muslims….It is a niche market!
#15, you are spot on (as the Brits say) on your last analysis – fear of competition. Many months ago, Ms Shori stated that no church property would be sold to an Anglican church or organization, but any church property could be sold to any other organization but an Anglican organization. She made that very clear. I think Mr. Skip was only following his 815 marching orders, and he had no other offers – and then your desperation motive came in.
#17, which goes to why the writer italicized [b][i]Muslims[/i][/b]: Let’s stop to process this: TEC would rather sell property to an un-Christian, Jesus-hating religion than another group of Christians which, apparently, they despise.
So much for the Great Commandment to spread the Gospel to “Jerusalem and Samaria to Judea and to the ends of the Earth.”
My speculation is that not only would TEC not sell it to the congregation, but they knew that the other likely Christian bidders for the building would be Bible-believeing non-denominational evangelical churches, since, at least in my area, those are the churches that are growing and are always looking for space. I have to believe that would be equally unacceptable to TEC as selling the building to orthodox Anglicans.
Why would one be surprised? Have you not been paying attention the last 40+ years?
Intercessor
I wonder who might have legal standing to sue the diocese for failure of fiduciary duty to conserve the value of the property.
#21. TomRightmyer,
[blockquote]in October 2007 the Presiding Bishop gave deposition testimony in the Virginia litigation against several congregations, saying, “I have a responsibility both in a fiduciary sense and an ecclesiastical sense to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church and to protect the integrity of the Episcopal Church†and also that “I believe I have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church.â€[/blockquote]I do not believe what TEC has done in this case in any way meets her own standards of fiduciary responsibility. In fact, it is counterproductive.
[blockquote]Parishes and dioceses hold the property “in trust†for the Episcopal Church[/blockquote]
I may be naive but I thought that you were obligated to act in the best interest of that person or organization whose property you hold in “trustâ€.
This property sale certainly can not be construed to be in the best interest of The Episcopal Church.
#21 I have also wondered on occassion, and when the VA case was hot mentioned on the blogs, if this seeming ‘restrictive covenant’ is enforceable. See Shelley v. Kraemer 334 U.S. 1 (1948) for the Supreme Courts regarding covenants about race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer.
Peace,
-ms
Am I the only person who is troubled by the author assuming away the question of whether the former parish group could afford its offer? This is a very important question, and the answer makes a big difference. If the group could not, in fact, afford its offer, this article falls, and the question becomes, who else could buy and for what? We don’t know enough to form a reasoned opinion, and should insist on the information we do need.
#25. sfaficionado,
[blockquote]Am I the only person who is troubled by the author assuming away the question of whether the former parish group could afford its offer?This is a very important question, and the answer makes a big difference[/blockquote]
It would be an important question except TEC has a policy not to sell to any former congregation which renders your question moot. I think you are implying that they in fact did not have adequate funding.
Dan Ennis (#8)
I, too, find it revealing. It reveals that the author:
1) Is aware of the hypocrisy of suing someone for their property in order to preserve said property for the TEC and then flipping it over to a third party who is in no way connected to TEC.
2) Is aware of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam– the first of which professes that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, come for our salvation, the second of which denies both Christ’s deity and his uniqueness as the way of salvation. To a Christian, this is kind of a big deal.
Put the two together and you have TEC who would rather see [i]Muslims[/i] in the building than the original congregation, because spite slaked is apparently more important than the maintenance of a gospel presence.
Although I pray that I’m not becoming jaded to any actions by 815 or its minions, this kind of behavior just seems to go hand in hand with this form of “ecumenism:”
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/25758/
#25 Given that the people of the Good Shepherd lovingly maintained the building, cleaned the building and worshipped in it. Given that any struggle in funding would only arise because the Diocese had siezed their funds- given by people to parish not Diocese note. Given that the Diocese had no use for the building (clearly) but the parish did…..then you would imagine any CHRISTIAN organisation would be motivated by love and understanding and not just filthy lucre. Furthermore we note they accepted a vastly reduced figure from the Muslims….was this reduced figure offered to the parish? I think not. And could the parish not have leased the building on a peppercorn rent.
Sorry there is NO justification. This is a cowardly, mean spirited and despicable action from a small minded, fearful and wicked people. How ANY believer can stay with a Church that does this is beyond me. Why feed the hand of those who would rather gift churches to Islam than see them used to the glory of God?
KJS says: ‘Allahu Akhbar’
From their new premises down the road, the Church of the Good Shepherd says: ‘Jesus saves’
Says it all really.
The Episcopal Church – spreading the Muslim Faith since 2010.
Interested in Islam? Contact the Office of the Grand Ayatollah for details of new mosques in your district.
For anyone who is interested: TEC has been closing churches for more than forty years, and in addition, small back country and rural parishes and missions……particularly in the Northeast (Diocese of Central New York), where I came from……have been especially affected, with many having simply never grown much beyond their founding numbers. What are these properties worth to TEC? Not enough to justify keeping them running, except for the few Episcopalians in the area would be my guess, and that’s why TEC keeps them open.
So an allegedly Christian church litigates and kicks out the traditional Christians and sells the building to Muslims.
Traditional Christians can’t worship in the Christian buildings, but Muslims can.
I’ve never done drugs, and don’t want to, but do I need to smoke some reefer so this all makes sense?!!
It’s in the blog text, but I will also point out for the commenters here that Muslims do not believe in same-sex relationships either, especially not sodomy. So, on that score, they are in the same “place” as traditional Christians.
But, they now own the building, instead of the traditional Christians, who apparently also offered to buy the building, for more money.
Adams truly has no shame, but he also has no reasoning, either, even when it comes to $. Congratulations on the Pyrrhic victory.
I would say “DUH” if it wasn’t all so sad, in many ways. But, prayers for the Kennedys and their church, which is thriving down the street.
Let me be clear on what I said in # 25: I have no idea if the church group could afford the offer they gave. My criticism was of the incompleteness of the article, not the of church group.
Hi sfaficionado,
Thanks be to God, one year later, we have secured financing and purchased a building for more than twice the asking of our former building. We could have afforded it easily.