[i]Posted today on the Diocese of Fort Worth website[/i] [hat tip to Randall Foster at TexAnglican who had it posted before we’d even gotten this by e-mail.]
Today the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth announced its decision to sponsor five proposed amendments to the Diocesan Constitution and Canons for consideration at the diocese’s 25th Annual Convention on November 16 and 17, 2007. [PDF document below]
If adopted, the Diocese would take the first step needed to dissociate itself from the General Convention of The Episcopal Church and to begin the process of affiliating with another Province of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Since constitutional changes do not go into effect until they are approved by two successive diocesan conventions, the second, ratifying vote would come at the annual meeting in 2008. Under the proposals, the Diocese would reaffirm its position as “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, consisting of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces and regional churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”
EXPLANATION from the Very Rev. Ryan S. Reed, President, on behalf of the Standing Committee
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has always been a traditional, conservative diocese, adhering to the beliefs and practices of the historic catholic faith. This means it has often found itself in conflict with decisions of the General Convention, which has continued a series of innovations in liturgy, theology, and the sacraments. For 25 years, the diocese has attempted to differentiate itself from the actions of the General Convention and its ongoing effort to revise and redefine the historic teaching of the Church on faith and morals, as revealed in Holy Scripture.
To submit to and comply with the current direction of the General Convention would mean for us to embrace a distortion of the Christian faith that our forebears would not recognize as a continuation of “the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship.” It would mean driving an even deeper wedge between us and the rest of the Anglican Communion, as well as other Christian bodies, who do not condone recent actions of the General Convention, but rather view them as schismatic and sectarian. We cannot act against our conscience and in violation of the faith once delivered to the saints.
The full text of the announcement is here.
A PDF document with the proposed changes to the Constitution & Canons is here.
Looks like the Standing Committee is about to become the Walking Committee.
“Under the proposals, the Diocese would reaffirm its position as “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, consisting of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces and regional churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.â€
But if AofC refuses to recognize the new province or refuses to recognize churches in US and CAN tied to African provinces (like it has with AMiA), is this a good way to describe your allegiance, if it is not to TEC? In fact, wouldn’t this description also apply to TEC? Wouldn’t the diocese still be “a constituent member” of TEC? Also, to which BCP is this resolution referring 1979, 1662, 1928? This separation business is fraught with so much confusion.
(I don’t know the answer to this.) Does the Archbishop of Canterbury have the personal authority not to recognize a new province, or is this a matter for the primates as a group? He ain’t the Pope.
I don’t want to hear any belly-aching when TEC sues the Diocese over this action. They have made it crystal clear that a person may leave, not a parish or a diocese. And when an action like this provokes a lawsuit, don’t whine about lawsuits when you are the cause.
The day is coming when the revisionist leadership won’t have the rank and file orthodox membership to feed off of. Enjoy sucking up the endowments left by Christian men and women of the past who would be aghast at the changes the revisionists have made. Enjoy your lawsuits. That’s all you’ll have left in the end–empty shells of buildings and dwindling coins to dole out to left-wing causes, but the spirit will have gone out of it.
Great idea, Fred. Sue ’em into submission. Who wouldn’t be loyal to a “church” that did that?
perhaps there are enough gays and liberals to sustain the buildings after the orthodox leave….but All Saints is a pretty large church.
fred when you say that ‘a person can leave’ well that is a given isn’t it? it is just that when our ancestors paid for those buildings and are buried there, and we have always paid the bills, well shouldn’t we have a moral right to our churches?
How can this sort of thing not be a knife between the ribs of TEC? This is money and numbers and coordinated popwer. How can they not see the writing on the wall? This is so public, so obvious, so carefully prepared, that TEC should feel a real frisson of fear.
And it IS true, that if TEC pursues lawsuits to the end against dioceses, the costs will be terrible, for a dwindling membership is simply not replacing the dollars. They may win a case, but wht will the do with the buildings? They aren’t simply going to fill them, and an empty church is an upright coffin where one buries money. Larry
TEC and what army are going to “cross the boarder of Texas” to go to court. Oh yah, they will get Texas lawyers….bet me…..
All kidding aside. All this posturing by 815 can’t be sustained for the flood of litigation that is coming. I know they have deep pockets, but it seems to me, the financially healthy revisionist diocese/parishes will have a limit to how much they want 815 to spend….somewhere along the spending trail, they will get involved and not let 815 break the bank…..
Are the pension funds of deposed bishops secure? If not, TEC could pay for a lot of litigation with that money.
“The more you tighten your grip the more dioceses will slip through your fingers.” J Ikagana.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The Sept. 14, 2007 issue of the National Catholic Reporter had Rowan Williams on the cover. The question of Anglican Schism – was it likely – was the feature story. It’s worth a read and again, offering an longer-term perspective of all that Williams brings to the “mix†in his present role:
“…Ask the archbishop [Rowan Williams] whether, given the present difficulties, he does not sometimes wish in his heart of hearts for a touch of papal power and he will always say no. Then what does he think that Christian leadership consists in?
One has to look at the Gospel, he replies, to tease out the context of a concept like that. In that light, he sees his task as taking appropriate responsibility “for making things happen in the direction of God’s kingdom.†Instant results are not always to be expected. In the Anglican Communion, decisions “depend very heavily on mutual consent.â€
Bishops Pope & Iker rarely have acted in a manner that in any way resembles mutual constent. They mention 25 years as if it were a life-time – it is the blink of an eye from the perspective of the Church.
lmk, pension funds are governed by federal law and cannot properly be raided to pay for these lawsuits. The large endowments are another matter.
I am absolutely flabbergasted by this unbelievable sequence of statements and actions coming from these US dioceses.
It seems that the die has now been cast. I just cannot understand why they should choose this course.
In reply to Fred, in actual fact ‘people can’t leave’. Ecusa or Tec will not transfer individuals to another denomiation – and who wants to transfer into another Ecuse parish at this time !!!!!
Have any of you actually READ the announcement and the proposed canon changes? We’d MUCH prefer you discuss the details rather than engage in such wild speculation and increasingly personal barbs at one another.
–elfgirl
I can’t claim to speak for others in our diocese (San Joaquin), but I congratulate the folks in the Diocese of Fort Worth! And I don’t think they’ll be the last to do this.
Well, Fred, I guess The General Convention Church (TGCC) will get its panties in a wad over all the dioceses that will pull out not to mention the many, many parishes. Makes one wonder why they aren’t concerned about the actual people that are leaving – in droves. Of course, TGCC has the power to stop it all now – they just have to agree to return to the faith once delivered. Now, speaking of law suits, since TGCC claims their tenacles are attached via a trust…makes one think of Rico, don’t you know!
The Anglican communion is that group of Anglican Churches in communion with the ABC. This has always been the case. That is why the departing dioceses have to put that in their constitutional changes. If the ABC is not in communion with Fort Worth or Pittsburgh or whatever other diocese they will lose their argument that they are following their constitution. It is a bet to be sure, but they have no other option if they really want to retain their property.
May the Lord who judges fairly sit on this case and not some secular civil judge.
We don’t know that a diocese cannot leave since a diocese has never tried. However, since there is nothing in either ECUSA caonos or diocesan ones that say that any diocesan assets belong to 815, there certainly is no legal property issue.
Go, Ft. Worth!
[blockquote] [P]ension funds are governed by federal law and cannot properly be raided to pay for these lawsuits. The large endowments are another matter. [/blockquote]
As an aside, this is one of the strongest lessons I have taken away from this whole catastrophe. [i]Never ever under any circumstances should a church be given endowments.[/i] The giver has no real control over how it will be used. What was once orthodox may in the future become apostate. But legal control over the money remains. Let the church instead go forth without purse or extra pair of sandals so that it might not forget upon whom it depends.
carl
#15: well, I have the *tiniest hunch it has to do with what your organization has been advocating for years in olde Englande.
Gordian (#24) – as they say on the internet – LOL!
Yes – the chickens are finally coming home to roost…
If it were me I would drop Canterbury and think of something better to define what I mean by Anglican Communion. The intent is clear, but given actions and inactions by the ABC heretofore, I would not use that wording.
On the other hand, this might be good wording to help win in the for sure legal action, so it might not be that bad.
In Christ,
Scott
To Carl (#23) —
Amen to that. I was recently asked to serve on a committee to begin raising funds to establish an endowment at my parish. I have decided to decline, for several reasons:
1. I have been a member of two congregations with very large endowments. From my perspective, it appeared that the existence of the endowments actually depressed the sense of stewardship and responsibility on the part of the members. In each case, the congregation lived off of the income from the endowment, depending on it for roughly half of its annual operating budget. Annual pledges were far less than what they should have been, given the socio-economic background of the bulk of the members, as people assumed that the endowment would take care of things.
2. As all of you already know, the question of ownership of the funds is murky, at best.
3. Carl has already addressed the issue of how the funds may be used for something other than their intended purpose as time marches on.
The only exception I could see would be an endowment explicitly devoted to charitable works for a specific neighborhood/locale — something that takes the congregation out of itself. I agree with Carl that an endowment to support the annual operations of the church, the compensation for clergy or staff or any other such purpose is a bad idea.
Let the church instead go forth without purse or extra pair of sandals so that it might not forget upon whom it depends.
I think there was a good reason why we were told to do that. As someone above said, an endowment for specific charitable purposes could be a great thing, but one to keep the church operating without inconveniencing current parishioners or expecting any of them seems a bad thing – not good for the parishioners to rely on it, not good that it could later be put to such unseemly uses as lawsuits when it was intended for Christian purposes.
#23 & #28: The Franciscan experiment has taught the Church that embracing “Lady Poverty” works for those who have the charism and call to such complete renunciation; whereas, for the rest of the Church, making wise provision for the future of parishes and dioceses is not incompatible with the Gospel. Seems we had a Gospel passage two Sundays ago which commended those who used “unrighteous mammon” to secure a future reward!
All depends upon the intention of the heart of those who give and the honesty and faithfulness of those who receive and administer endowments.
Fred,
In America the Court system actually is the final arbitrater of the disputes regarding real property. Just because TEC says it is so does not mean it is so. It is not whining about lawsuits but critiscism of the fact that TEC would bring them. Your side has altered the faith once delivered – ya’ll should admit it and let those who believe the new faith to be a crock go in peace. I also do not believe TEC will fight to the last man last round given the scale of defections – peace with honor should be +KJS strategy – my bet is she will have neither when it is all over.
[blockquote] All depends upon the intention of the heart of those who give and the honesty and faithfulness of those who receive and administer endowments.[/blockquote]
#29 The intention of the dead is a poor counterweight to the power of the living. And TEC has more than demonstrated the folly of trusting in the honesty and faithfulness of man. TEC is a rich church living in cities it did not build, and drinking from vineyards it did not plant. Without those bank accounts, where would it be today? Those who with good intention gave an inheritance to the church gave it ultimately into the service of apostasy, and enabled the wolves to feed among the sheep with impunity.
carl
#31: Yes, indeed the current TEC fails the honesty and faithfulness tests. Therefore, it is understandable why you, or I, would not want to give to TEC.
However, to make the blanket conclusion that one should never give because of the likelihood of future uses would disqualify a lot of passing down of inheritance, and the giving of gifts to those we believe will appreciate and well-use them. Perfect giving is not clairvoint (sp?), and we must all live with the fact that those who receive well now may later use poorly. It is part of the result of the Fall!
[blockquote] [T]o make the blanket conclusion that one should never give because of the likelihood of future uses would disqualify a lot of passing down of inheritance, and the giving of gifts to those we believe will appreciate and well-use them.[/blockquote]
[#32] One should not give in perpetuity to an organization. It effectively amounts to blind giving. You say that you would not give money to TEC.
So you believe we should presently verify the integrity of the receiving organization. But if that is a requirement now, then why is it also not a requirement for the future? How can we give large amounts of money in perpetuity without some sufficient level of confidence that it will be used faithfully in perpetuity? And how can the present history of an organization provide assurance of that same organization’s doctrinal integrity thirty years hence? It cannot.
God is sufficient to provide for the needs of the future church. He doesn’t need endowments. The evils of the present day are sufficient for the present church to address.
carl
I see nothing wrong with Designated giving to someone else other than the TEC. Why send good money after that which is wrongly used.
Also regarding money for lawsuits. I recently read a blog that indicates at least 600 parishes have left the TEC and there may be more now. If this is true; does the TEC have the funds to sue all these parishes? If the parishes in question would unite and take on the TEC I wonder then where would the TEC get the money to sue?