Consider the situation of a small parish somewhere in the ranks of The Episcopal Church (TEC). Decades ago faithful men and women formed a community of worship in accordance with their faith, obedience, and trust in God. They affirmed and upheld the essential tenets of Christian belief, including the doctrines of Christ, the authority of scripture, and a biblical morality as affirmed by the tradition of the church for 2,000 years.
This faithful local church community gave of its time and resources. The church bought property with the money its members gave of themselves. They built buildings and planted trees. They engaged in ministry and called a rector. As the years went by, they invested their trust in God, in each other, and in The Episcopal Church. They honored the conditions of this trust, and the authority of their rector and bishop. All shared in the benefits of this sacred trust ”” generation by generation.
Then one day, this parish finds itself with a new rector and a new bishop who declare that Jesus is not the only means of salvation, scripture has authority only when we say it does, and biblical morality is outdated and must be modernized according to what we think is right. The parish is told to accept this new interpretation of Christian belief and practice. The parishioners’ trust has been betrayed. The very fabric of communion has been torn at its deepest level.
Of course, this is exactly what is happening to parishes all over the church. TEC is in the process of perpetrating an immense and corporate violation of trust. What is outrageous is the fact that the perpetrators continue to lay claim to the benefits of the covenant, namely the property that was bought and paid for by the faithful Christians through the decades who, had they foreseen, never would have given a dime to this new religious order.
TEC asserts that all property is held in trust ”” people may leave but parishes and dioceses may not. But this trust is invalid. It is a unilateral trust in which TEC receives all the benefits with no accountability. Trust means you trust us and we do whatever we please. If you don’t like it, get out, and we keep your investments.
[blockquote] What is even more outrageous is that our courts are rendering judgments in support of this coercion. What divorce court would say to a wife of 50 years that she was entitled to nothing, even though her husband has left her and now lives with another woman — he gets to keep the house and all the savings accounts?[/blockquote]
Perhaps the court that is smart enough to see that it wasn’t the husband who left the wife at all. The parishes/dioceses in question have, in fact, left the Episcopal Church for an African diocese and thus must leave their property behind.
No, no Smuggs. Only a few have gone to Africa, and that didn’t happen until well after the unfaithful husband was gone! The lies began years ago.
T
T, since we don’t live in a theocracy, the courts aren’t going to look at this through any lens but legal. If you leave the Episcopal Church, you leave, even if you mistakenly think TEC is unfaithful. The property, however, stays (in most cases).
I think Smuggs accurately represents the TEC worldview: more concerned with holding onto the property than the people. To extend the metaphor: “So, I’m abusive, so what? Don’t like it, get out!”
As a physician, I put an incredibly high price on trust and integrity. When I started my practice, I told my staff that we will have a fully truthful office, no little white lies. It is quite common in all businesses to tell such white lies: An irritating patient (or customer) calls and the front desk tells them the doctor is “out.” What if the patient is calling from their cell phone from the parking lot to drop of a message and sees me very much not “out”? Thus, my policy. Clergy must guard the trust bond between them and their laity.
Katherine Jefferts-Schori assented to the communique in front of all the primates in Tanzania as described by ABp Gomez. On her return, she tells Susan Russell that “nobody signed anything.” When pointed out that everyone verbally assented, she tries the hollow “I was only assenting to be a messenger.” I can’t decide on the adjective for this action, pathetic (my five year old’s “a ghost did it” has as much credilbility) or despicable (that she would lie to the primates of the Anglican church).
[blockquote]more concerned with holding onto the property than the people. [/blockquote]
Wrong, CT. But when the people decide that they are definitely, ultimately, going to leave, that’s when the argument about the property comes into play.
The article brought to mind Chesterton’s observation that the Church, truly considered, encompasses not only the living, but those Christians (and Episcopalians) who have come before us. The failure of the ECUSA here-iarchy to appreciate this, and the inability of the secular courts to do so, results in the profound injustice described above.
I practice law for a living, and am constantly reminded of this truth: What is legal is not always the same as what is just. What the law allows (or even demands), is not the same as what charity and love require.
When I saw the headline I thought this article was about the Dennis Canon, which, ultimately, will be deemed to have created an invalid trust in most jurisdictions.
Smuggs is right. TECUSA is not more concerned with property than with people. It is more concerned with its agends of blessing same sex unions and ordaining practicing homosexuals than it is with people.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
No one should ever give any money to trusts or endowments thinking that it will be managed according to your wishes and in good faith. Once you die, it is inevitable that people who can’t cut it in the free market (or, religiously, don’t care to do evangelism) and are almost always pretentious in some basic way about their superiority–because once they get control of the trust/endowment, they can wallow in their superiority.
This is a depressing assessment of the nature of trusts and endowments, but it is true. Ford (and the other great turn-of-the-century benefactors) would roll over in his grave if he knew what the Ford Foundation does with his money now. There are Episcopal Churches all over the northeast who have enormous endowments that are full of empty pews and a large liberal staff. And nothing can be done about it.
There is little doubt that there are strongly held beliefs on both sides, beliefs that are mutually contradictory. Smuggs no doubt finds it impossible to imagine the situation the Reasserter is in, and so s/he is incapable of generating any compassion for them. There is clearly blame (“they left TEC for Africa”) and it is all the other side’s fault… And we do the same thing.
When I was a little child there was an expression we bandied about: “This looks like war!” The idea of fighting a war seemed so noble and pure and we played army every day. Having studied WWI and WWII, I now know that wars are seldom so efficient and clean, and the participants are often the worse for having participated. With Smuggs and Co. as our discussion partners it is clear “this looks like war!” It is also clear that there will be many casualties (individuals and parishes, even maybe the Communion) and more energy and funds will be spent in litigation and battles with one another than proclaimng the Gospel. Perhaps God is pleased that we fight the good fight for the faith. Perhaps, Smuggs, God is pleased that you strangle the life out of reasserter parishes and put them out on the street with nothing. Perhaps in a sinful and broken world this is the best we can do. I will continue to stand firm and remain in conflict with the likes of Smuggs, but I find myself sadder and sadder about this situation as time goes on. And I am saddest that for alll the years of talking no one seems to have any insight or compassion for the “other side.” But maybe that is the way God wants it. Maybe He likes to hear us say “it is all their fault…”
[blockquote] Perhaps, Smuggs, God is pleased that you strangle the life out of reasserter parishes and put them out on the street with nothing.[/blockquote]
Wrong again, and so is Phil. While no one is forcing any of the reasserter churches or dioceses to bless SSU’s or ordain homosexual persons, their people are choosing to leave on their own accord simply because they are possessed of the mindset that if everybody does not think as they think, or believe as they believe, they are going to leave. Reappraisers are not strangling anyone. It’s the reasserters’ obstinance that is strangling their churches and their dicoese and which is, in effect, closing their doors.
“Then one day, this parish finds itself with a new rector and a new bishop…”
This, to me, is the weakest part of the narrative. The breach of trust in the ECUSA unfolded very openly over a number of decades: the inability to discipline false teachers (dating back at least to Bps Pike and Spong), the corruption of the seminaries, the bizarre statements and positions coming out of 815, the ambivalence of “moderate” bishops, the list goes on.
Some of us took a calculated risk, believing that we could be faithful and endure in the midst of that mire of faithlessness. Eventually, I came to the disconcerting and demoralizing realization that the culture of ecclesial corruption was poisonous for me and for my family. We left, surrendering income, benefits, and pension. It’s been difficult, but we struggle to piece together a life in another church. I’m only now realizing the extent of the damage our years in the ECUSA did to my family; I pray that God will forgive me for subjecting my loved ones to all of that. I also pray that God will have mercy and grant healing to all who have been broken by this.
I suppose there are some who are genuinely surprised by the most recent developments in ECUSA, but really, how?
Smuggs,
The reappraisers are big on the ministry of “all the baptized” and keep talking about the “Baptismal Covenant.” The first and foremost promise of the Covenant is to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship.” Can you show me in the apostles’ teaching where God blesses same sex unions and, also, show me how “tearing the fabric of the communion at its deepest levels” is continuing in the apostles’ fellowship?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
When the time comes, we should just walk away, trusting that God will restore that which was lost (and needed restoration, I suspect there may be some building worship going on) and will greatly bless those ministries that are faithful to His Word. When it is time for my orthodox parish to leave its reappraising diocese, I hope and pray that we will have the grace to simply ask for what is righfully ours. When the bishop says no (and he will), we should walk in faith alone, recommitted to our evangelistic, missionary roots and unencumbered by stonework renovation.
Okay, this is driving me crazy. Stop all the victim stuff. “Suddenly the parishes found themselves withe a Rector and Bishop…..”
For one- Rectors are elected by the vestry. If the vestries/ calling commitees aren’t asking the tough questions- then you can’t blame someone else or claim “suddenly.”
Second- Bishops in TEC are elected. It’s an open process. Everyone has a say, you can lobby, you can get on the commitees, and you can work hard to get the right people. Again, you can’t say, “suddenly” and then “broken trust.”
And- stop talking as if “TEC” or “TECUSA” is some indivdual who is making all these decisions. If you are still in the episcopal church- then you are TEC or ECUSA, or whatever. You take as much blame as anyone else.
And beleive it or not- God loves and desires a relationship through Jesus with reappraises as well as reasserters. (what ever the hell those terms mean)
16. sorry, plainsparson, it is simply not the case that asking tuff questions is all it takes. A local parish in WTn did just that, and got fine reviews from a previous parish, only to find out after the priest arrived that he had a few ideas. People misrepresent themselves all the time. That said, I do confirm your statement that the victim mentality is not appropriate. Episcopalian Indifference had a huge part to play in allowing “savage wolves to come in among [us] and not spare the flock.” (Acts 20:29) But it is also the case that people with agendas have manipulated the political processes in place at the diocesan and national level, and many folks did not know what was going on (and some still don’t)
16. Smuggs, I guess you believe that there is not a single case of oppression directed at reassereter parishes? I guess you truly believe that every single traditional believer is just someone demanding everyone must agree with them??? At any rate your response demonstrates exactly what I am driving at. I place little hope that you will provide much care or concern for anyone who does not agree with you. SO there we have it, whoever has the most power wins, rigth?
Ignoring the snide “theocracy” jab, Smuggs is absolutely correct. The secular courts will not give a hoot about theological disputes and will rule by the letter of the law. Talithajd has the right idea, IMO. This is an opportunity to suffer for your faith and provide witness to the injustices. Don’t play the victim card, just persevere in the Lord.
Plainsparson, my daughter was on the rector search committee. They had three candidates lined up for interviews, and two of them backed out with no warning and no notice. The only candidate left to us was an extreme diocesan loyalist. You tell me it was democratic. My daughter isn’t so sure; she thinks the other two might have been told to get out.
A parish in our deanery (quite “reappraiser” in sympathy, BTW) reportedly had a new rector assigned to them by the diocese without any parish input at all. The odd thing about it was that they would certainly have elected a rector in sympathy with the diocese; word is they had no problems with the choice but were hopping mad about the process.
Tell me again how democratic we are, please.
Plainsparson – I can’t believe that you don’t think that “Deployment Officers” don’t have input on the choices for Rectors and you must know that missions do not the final say in who their priest is. Likewise, the process for bishops tends to become more a beauty contest than a discernment process. Being elected “bishop” is similar to being elected President. The skills needed to get the job are not the same skills needed to do the job.
Having said that, I don’t like the victimology of either side, but that is American Culture speaking through again. Being the “vicitm” puts you in a better moral light so that you can do no wrong.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
No. 11, Father Marx, so what’s going on in the West TN Diocese? How are things shaping up? Which parishes tend to be in your camp? I think your parish is the only TEC parish that’s a member of ACN…
I am sure this must have been said before and probably better, but an old lesson from history rings true. (Note: NO inflammatory comparison is implied.)
When the liberal Commission on Ministry prevented traditional aspirants from becoming priests,
I remained silent;
I was not an aspirant.
When the liberal bishop prevented any ordinand from a traditional seminary from serving in his diocese,
I remained silent;
I was not an ordinand.
When the liberal bishop inhibited the traditional priests under Anglican shelter and deposed them in his diocese instead of transfering them,
I remained silent;
I was not seeking Anglican shelter.
When the liberal bishop and national Church came and sued traditional Anglican churches in liberal dioceses and took their buildings from them,
I remained silent;
I was not in an Anglican church.
When the national Church and house of bishops came after us few traditional churches/dioceses…
— The trend is disturbing. Complacency is not an option.
Granted, all have not remained “silent” but many have as the direction of “inclusiveness” has systematically excluded those that hold to the faith of our fathers and the teachings of Holy Scripture.
Lord have mercy on us and show us how to pray and what to do.
Smuggs writes:
[blockquote]Perhaps the court that is smart enough to see that it wasn’t the husband who left the wife at all. The parishes/dioceses in question have, in fact, left the Episcopal Church for an African diocese and thus must leave their property behind.[/blockquote]
This, of course, is quite wrong and fails to engage the author’s argument of betrayal of trust.
If you wish to win converts, Smuggs, (or just score debating points for that matter) try engaging the author’s argument honestly instead of spewing the party line.
I never cease to be amazed at answers like yours (and they are sadly all too common). TEC is supposed to be the compassionate church–it is the very heart of the false gospel its leaders and a majority of clergy are attempting to propagate. Yet where is your compassion for those who are in genuine pain and have left the church, most doing so quite reluctantly, over this false gospel that they cannot in good conscience believe?
Bif 21
Well, things in WTn are not always clear to me, I think we are in slow decline. There is not much excitement or energy (from my perspective, others disagree). We have a sort of live and let policy (except no one traditional in faith is elected to anything). There are three ACN associated parishes. There is a small parish led by a holy manof God (ASA 45) and the other parish recently lost their rector (he is now in Nashville). They are rock solid and about ASA 120 and I hear great things about their new interim. We are actually on an upswing at my parish (about +9 weekend, ASA 245). The major progressive parishes here are rumored to not be growing and in some cases have seen net loss. Not much is said in public about attendance so it is hard to know. I know there are budget concerns in a couple local parishes and the diocese is tight. Our Cathedral has suffered huge losses and are hovering around 135 ASA in a very large facility. Our bishop has maintained loyalty to TEC but is not pushing for replacing Jesus with the UN. He is personally supportive of me and the parish and is happy for the work we do, especially in areas of helping the needy. We seem to have a general malaise across the diocese. Several of the progressive clergy leaders have left which I think could be a really good thing…. Our first clergy meeting is September 27 so it will be interesting as there has been several key priests leave. My parish is focused on prayer, bible study and outreach (and we talk about evangelism but struggle doing it). You know, trying to love Jesus and love each other and make the world a better place! Many have left TEC from our parish and most left behind are of a mind to stick it out, do God’s thing (as best we can discern) and see what happens. We are kind of isolated, but I think most Episcopal parishes probably are to a greater or lesser extent. Thanks for asking… Does this ring true in other places?
My wife and I dabble in and out of St. John’s (we live in the parish – what a quaint concept!) but it just always seems to me that everybody is dancing around the elephant in the room, that being the current set of issues facing TEC. We’re both rather tired of being in Limbo and will most likely will make a final break soon.
I’m glad to know Don Johnson is not outright hostile to you. We’re generally disappointed in him however but the deck is stacked against him with Holy Communion and Grace-St. Luke’s being so apparently liberal but also the biggest parishes. He can’t afford to tick them off, that’s for sure. But I’m not sure if he would under any scenario.
All in all, we’re just really tired and don’t think this is what Jesus would want for our family. Time is our most precious gift from the father. We seem to be wasting it.
When Gary Jones became rector at Holy Communion, St. John’s had a pretty nice influx of transfers from that parish. Dunno what happened to Gary, but things seemed to have settled down. I think St. John’s is actually holding its own pretty well, but they’ve tended to be pretty conservative. They used to be an AAC parish. Not sure why they aren’t now (or ACN). John Sewell is a pretty good guy, seems to have the button stuck on ‘ignore’ though (as far as the current issues go). John is at that age where it would be really tough and take ton of courage to move that parish outside TEC, although I could see it happening under another rector if that ever became an eventuality.
One of the problems in search processes is that priests and parishes misrepresent themselves. The priest does so in some cases by pretending to be theologically compatible with the parish. Parishes do this by hiding deep-seated problems. If God were not in charge I can’t imagine what kind of carnage would happen because of the dance of dishonesty that happens in too many places.
Smuggs, I ask you: Are we reasserters supposed to “go along to get along” with reappraisers? Would you have us knuckle under and stay in TEC, even if we continue to disagree with you, and if we choose to remain Anglicans? Do you say that we have to cave in just because you say that the majority rules at General Convention?
Sorry, but I don’t buy those arguments…….just as others don’t buy them.
[blockquote] Smuggs, I ask you: Are we reasserters supposed to “go along to get along†with reappraisers? Would you have us knuckle under and stay in TEC, even if we continue to disagree with you, and if we choose to remain Anglicans? Do you say that we have to cave in just because you say that the majority rules at General Convention? [/blockquote]
Yes. You don’t have to bless SSU’s yourself but other churches who have permission may do so.
[blockquote] Sorry, but I don’t buy those arguments…….just as others don’t buy them[/blockquote]
Which is why, unfortunately, you will be buying lawyers to represent you.
Cennyd, I believe that is what is meant by “unity in diversity.” If GC wanted to have taken your bishop to the mat on women’s ordination, they could have put him on trial and he would have been deposed. Thus far, they have shown considerable restraint. Unity in diversity. Funny, and a shame, how you cannot bring yourself to do the same with people with whom you disagree.
Smuggs, I do believe you have aptly named yourself, after your last two comments. Funny, you should use the WO issue to support yourself, since WO was originally passed as optional, but later made mandatory. Some restraint! Changing of the prayer book went the same way; doing away with the 39 Articles went the same way; And SSBs are going the same way. Right now, they are “acknowledged” as occurring within the bounds of our common life within the church, as of 2003, which purposely ambiguously neither condemns or allows them. They would have been approved in 2006, but for the intervention of the Primates and Dromatine. They will undoubtedly be approved as optional in 2009, and will be mandatory by 2012 or 2015. We’ve all seen the scenario before; fool us once shame on you; fool us twice shame on us. There is diverstiy here, but there is no unity because your side will not allow diversity. It always come back to forcing “unity,” which is not unity at all.
Smuggs, it seems to me that we HAVE shown restraint……and a considerable amount of it. Yes, our bishop could’ve been deposed……but we would’ve refused to accept a reappraiser in his place, and that would’ve led to our seeking alternative oversight from another province. We know the risks, and I think we’re prepared to accept them.
Smuggs – your legal ananlysis is a joke – some states courts are deciding not to look at these matters solely because it is viewed as a theological dispute. It appears that Virginia applies neutral property law and California has not yet made up its mind- if TEC was not claiming to be a Church it would not have a leg to stand on. Typically the person/entity with the name on the Deed is the winner – only hierachical churches appear to be able to expropriate with impunity in some states.
I am cheered by the fact that Smuggs cannot win – a church revolves around souls and not buildings (TEC is in terminal decline) – unless of course the real aim of the last 30 years has been to turn PECUSA into the TEC REIT.