I resolved to stay away from ECUSA’s litigation troubles during this season of the nativity, but I still have to report to my readers breaking news, if it is important. And this is important news: the federal district court in Fort Worth today issued a one-page order staying all further proceedings in the trademark infringement action brought by the rump diocese of Fort Worth and its “corporation” (which does not actually exist, for reasons I explain below). The stay will remain in effect until the court resolves the pending motions by the real diocese of Fort Worth and its real corporation to intervene in the case to protect their property rights in their name and corporate insignia.
With an apparently unlimited litigation budget in Texas, the Episcopal Church (USA) and its puppet diocese of Fort Worth have tried all manner of strategies to accomplish an end run around the courts of Texas and achieve a quick victory in their dispute with Bishop Jack L. Iker and his Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth….
I find it hard to understand how TEC , with its many budget woes and financial shortcomings, can justify the cost of the lawsuits it is pursuing against various dioceses and parishes. If their focus is supposed to be on the mission of Christ (as they would have us believe) then it’s a travesty to spend so much more than the worth of various properties to gain possession of the same, especially since other churches are being closed for lack of funds.
I believe that the most telling “fact” is that those who have withdrawn from TEC are not attempting to stop that entity from anything whatsoever; whereas TEC is doing its best to stop those who withdraw from even existing.
She Who Must Be Obeyed doesn’t know when it’s counterproductive to attack, and keep attacking. Her reign will will go down in church history books as one characterized by futile gestures, Pyhrric victories, and lost opportunities for graceful leave-taking.
TEC has set it’s course, and is committed to it. They cannot allow a competitive church with the same “brand” to coexist, as their course has abandoned that which makes salt salty.
The lawsuits cannot halt TEC’s continued decline, but victory could buy them a little time. All they can do now is try and hold off the inevitable while they try to gain some traction with their secular mythology.
It does seem that they are wasting their time and assets contending in Texas, though.
No.3{ I don’t think the issue has much to do with branding. Most of the people who left have joined a different church and I doubt that there’s much confusion about which one is which, even though they are both “Anglican” The problem for TEC is that it cannot acquiesce in this leftist/radical idea (perhaps the only leftist/radical idea that it can’t give at least some consideration to) that people (individuals or groups) who leave get to take property on their way out. I agree with other commenters that the fiscal impacts on the Church are horrendous (for the those who secede as well), but there is no support in the governing rules of the Church at the national, diocesan or parish level or in any commonly understood sense of ethics or morality that a member or group can just walk out the door with property when he or she reaches a point that continued membership is for whatever reason, deemed unacceptable. If the national church or individual dioceses were to let that issue go by uncontested, there would be chaos for a very long time. The principle is so radically destructive that it’s very difficult even to imagine a scenario where it could be partially accommodated through settlement with large groups threatening to leave. It is a shame that all this money is getting poured down lawyers’ gullets, but it would be a far worse result if the church or a diocese simply rolled over on this point. To say that the point should just be surrendered because it’s costly to defend really doesn’t address the heart of the problem. How could any PB (or diocesan bishop, for that matter) justify the position that, in the face of people electing to change affiliations, he/she just decided to let them have whatever property they desired on the way out? I think the national church is simply locked into a problem that it cannot escape. It must oppose these property raids. I say this acknowledging that a fair amount of provocation has occurred to set these tendencies in motion. Nonetheless, the bedrock issue remains: why do not people who leave simply affiliate with another church that can provide structures for worship, or, alternatively, build/rent/borrow their own facilities.
NovaScout. The big problem is the people who leave ARE the ones who own the property. TECUSA trying to take peoples property is a scandal.
RE: “If the national church or individual dioceses were to let that issue go by uncontested, there would be chaos for a very long time. The principle is so radically destructive that it’s very difficult even to imagine a scenario where it could be partially accommodated through settlement with large groups threatening to leave.”
Right — like you know, all that “chaos” with the ELCA. And the Baptists. And the ACNA. I mean . . . it’s just “radically destructive” to allow parishes to leave with their property. As so many other denominations who don’t have a problem with people keeping their property demonstrate.
No, Creedal is correct. This is about the brand. Current TEC revisionist leaders *simply cannot allow* the Falls Church to be held by a rival Anglican brand, in large part because the historic buildings are about all they have, now, to distinguish themselves from the Unitarians.
But what *great* news for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth! I’m thrilled for them.
[blockquote] I don’t think the issue has much to do with branding. Most of the people who left have joined a different church and I doubt that there’s much confusion about which one is which, even though they are both “Anglican†[/blockquote]
The conservatives in Fort Worth have not left, they are in the same church with the same Bishop. They have chose nolonger to be part of the Voluntary association that is TEC.
[blockquote]The problem for TEC is that it cannot acquiesce in this leftist/radical idea (perhaps the only leftist/radical idea that it can’t give at least some consideration to) that people (individuals or groups) who leave get to take property on their way out.[/blockquote]
It was their property to begin with. This is a whole diocese and whole parishes.
[blockquote]I agree with other commenters that the fiscal impacts on the Church are horrendous (for the those who secede as well), but there is no support in the governing rules of the Church at the national, diocesan or parish level or in any commonly understood sense of ethics or morality that a member or group can just walk out the door with property when he or she reaches a point that continued membership is for whatever reason, deemed unacceptable.[/blockquote]
Until the Dennis Canon, there was nothing that said that a parish or diocese had given their property to the TEC. TEC voted to impose a trust on property that was not theirs. Can I impose a trust on your house without your consent?
[blockquote]If the national church or individual dioceses were to let that issue go by uncontested, there would be chaos for a very long time. The principle is so radically destructive that it’s very difficult even to imagine a scenario where it could be partially accommodated through settlement with large groups threatening to leave. [/blockquote]
What chaos? Are you saying that people/parishes/dioceses are only staying part of TEC because they are afraid they will lose their property?
[blockquote]It is a shame that all this money is getting poured down lawyers’ gullets, but it would be a far worse result if the church or a diocese simply rolled over on this point. To say that the point should just be surrendered because it’s costly to defend really doesn’t address the heart of the problem.[/blockquote]
The heart of the problem is TEC is changing the religion and trying to hold members hostage.
[blockquote]How could any PB (or diocesan bishop, for that matter) justify the position that, in the face of people electing to change affiliations, he/she just decided to let them have whatever property they desired on the way out?[/blockquote]
It is their property, how can you let someone have something that is already theirs. If the parish bought it and it’s in their name, it is theirs. If anyone tries to take anything that TEC bought and has in their name, then fight for that.
[blockquote]I think the national church is simply locked into a problem that it cannot escape. It must oppose these property raids. I say this acknowledging that a fair amount of provocation has occurred to set these tendencies in motion. Nonetheless, the bedrock issue remains: why do not people who leave simply affiliate with another church that can provide structures for worship, or, alternatively, build/rent/borrow their own facilities. [/blockquote]
Why should they pay for something they bought? What action did they take to give it to TEC?
You think that when TEC voted to impose a trust on property they didn’t own, it was legal. I don’t think so. The courts will decide.
TEC has (at least) two choices, spend the money on litigation or spend it on evangelism. If TEC is being led by the Holy Spirit, whatever was lost by a few members leaving with the property they bought, would quickly be replaced and exceed by new members, building new churches. Obviously, TEC believes so little in its message that they know they cannot replace the members they are losing.
Nonetheless, the bedrock issue remains: why doesn’t TEC simply let people leave with their property and get new members, that can build/rent/borrow their own facilities. Hint: it’s because TEC can’t.
No. 8, I think you are assuming a great deal that is in dispute. In my mind, at least, it is somewhat more complicated. If it were clear whose property these things are, there would be no controversy. My view on the Denis canon is that in most cases, it will not be dispositive and that the history of dealings, and the internal rules of governance of the church, with or without the Denis canon, will militate in favor of the position that people leaving do not acquire property rights when they leave. I am aware of many situations in which the decision to leave was not unanimous, and I do not discern any principle, legal or ethical, by which those who leave can extinguish the rights of use and possession of those who stay. It is not clear to me that departing members (at least in the cases of which I am aware) “bought” the church and those who did not depart did nothing. Nor am I aware of any effort to block people from leaving. Many have good reason, and they should leave. That is not the issue.
Sarah: Unitarians have historic buildings too. I’m not sure why that would be a distinction. If you don’t believe me, take a tour in the lovely areas surrounding Boston (but wait for warmer weather). But I see little commonality in Unitarianism and Episcopalian worship. My viewpoint may be narrow, but my Episcopal parish is very “trinitarian” in its liturgy and the liturgy hasn’t changed in that respect over the past several centuries. Your reference to the Baptists and ELCA puzzles me, perhaps from my own ignorance. I did not understand Baptists to be organized in the kind of diocesan. bishop-led structure of the Episcopal church. If you are saying that groups of people leave Baptist churches and take over property rights to the real and personal property of the congregation, I’ll take your word for it, but I don’t think that model travels well into our church structure. If there are canons that govern separation and transfer of ownership rights, I’ve not encountered them.
They did not depart. They are the same congregation, worshiping the same way in the same place. They just chose AS A CONGREGATION to associate with a different group (or no group). In most cases the congregation bought and maintained the property and it is their name on the title. TEC did not buy, pay for maintenance, or have its name on the title. If you are claiming that since members of the congregation change, it is not the same entity, and therefore are not the owners. It follows to reason that members of TEC are also changing and are not the same as before and therefore they do not own the property either.
The TEC Canons are religious rules that congregations and diocese must follow IF they want to be part of TEC. If they decide not to be part of TEC, they are not governed by the TEC rules.
Who owns the property of a congregation that is in TEC?
Again, No. 10. your experience may differ from mine. In the instances of which I am aware, some chose to leave, some chose to stay, and none of these cases involves a fact situation like you describe, where the persons who “bought” or “paid for” the property are exactly the same set of persons who decided to leave. In fact, many of the churches around where I live go back a couple of hundred of years or more, so the people who “paid for” the church include a numerous class of folks who had no view one way or the other on the hot issues of the present. I do agree that if people leave the church, they are no longer governed by the canons of the church they left. I’m not sure where that gets us, because the process of leaving and taking property certainly is governed by those rules. I have not found much guidance in our Diocesan canons as to how a group of people (however numerous) in a parish extricate not only themselves (that part is easy – just walk away), but the church property itself from Diocesan control, particularly to the detriment of those who do not leave. If you live in a Diocese that explicitly provides for such an exit, I would have more of an appreciation for your position. But I don’t think there are such places in the Episcopal or any other similarly structure church. Getting back to my comment, and the post, I have no problem with the stay in Ft. Worth – it makes procedural sense to me. My point is, however, that I don’t see that any PB or Diocesan Bishop at any point in history could responsibly just acquiesce in individuals or groups laying claim to property when they disaffiliate. It is a tragedy for all concerned, to be sure.
They are not leaving or departing, they are going nowhere.
The congregation or diocese decided to disassociate from TEC, not individuals.
The congregation/diocese made this decision they way any group does, voting and/or following their by-laws.
The congregation/diocese owns the property in the first place; they cannot take what is already theirs.
I’ll followup any future post via private message.
I see this functioning on several levels. I have to agree that there is really no right for a congregation to take the building with them. On the other hand I don’t see the current standing on rights, by any party, to be fruitful to the work of the spirit. A lot more mercy could be shown, and a lot less bitter rhetoric cast about.
At the diocesan level the “rights” issue gets a lot murkier. I find myself repeating the point that Anglicanism, for its own legitimacy, has to admit that a group of bishops can choose to separate themselves from others.
Re: #13
“I find myself repeating the point that Anglicanism, for its own legitimacy, has to admit that a group of bishops can choose to separate themselves from others.”
A weak reed to rely on, then, for neither in 1532 or 1559 did the English (i.e., “Anglican”) “group of bishops” make such a choice. One may argue that all but one of them ultimately acquiesced in what was imposed on them in 1532-34, but even that argument will not work for 1559, when all but one of the 17 surviving (out of 26 dioceses) bishops refused to acquiesce in a parliamentary stature which they both rejected in the church’s Convocation and opposed in the House of Lords, and were deposed and replaced by more compliant creatures. (Well, you could perhaps claim two bishops if you include Thomas Stanley, Bishop of Sodor & Man, but it seems that, Man then not being parcel of the realm of England, he was not required to accept the Royal Supremacy, merely not to speak against it, and since he never once visited his diocese during his long episcopate from 1510 to 1546 and again from 1556 to his death in 1569, this does not appear to have presented any difficulties for him.)
Regarding ELCA, Baptists, and some pentecostal denominations and non-denominational congregations:
NoVA, I thought this was made clear much earlier. There certainly have been various posts and threads where this has come up already.
In just one case, let’s take the ELCA. Built into the ELCA rules and bylaws is the explicit permission to remove oneself, including the property and facilities, from association with the ELCA. At this point the reason this rule is in place is not important, just that it is in fact an operative rule. I’m not clear on whether a contingency is in existence re: removal to some other Lutheran body. Putting that aside, though, an ELCA congregation may remove itself following a vote by the congregation, and then another vote to confirm the first 90 days later.
If there is any immediate chaos involved in this permissable ordering, it is within the congregation itself as it begins to dawn on members what might happen to their personal relationships in fellowship after the second vote (whether the 2nd vote affirms the 1st or not), including the question of viability of the congregation itself.
The institutional/denominational chaos that might ensue would be if a critical mass of congregations should leave a district, and the ramifications of loss of income include personnel lay-offs and shutting down of favorite and / or even actually effective ministries.
Relating that back to TECUSA, if all law suits were dropped against departing congregations there would be grief for a time, the setting aside of all contingency plans for recapture of lost funds with the sale of some properties, and that’s about it.
When you say “chaos” you might actually mean “dis-belief”.
[blockquote] Relating that back to TECUSA, if all law suits were dropped against departing congregations there would be grief for a time, the setting aside of all contingency plans for recapture of lost funds with the sale of some properties, and that’s about it.[/blockquote]
[i] [b] “That’s about it”[/b][/i]
The grief will be there either way. The term “contingency plans” implies possible alternatives. Having followed the Curmudgeon’s excellent discussions of the legal costs incurred by TEC, and the shenanigans involving the refinancing of TECs line of credit backed by a mortgage on 815, it is evident that TEC has bet the farm. There are no viable alternatives, other than perhaps a rather unlikely institutional repentance.
Without an overwhelming legal victory followed by the sale of significant recovered properties so they can pay back that mortgage, TEC will be forced into reorganization. What this means is that whatever happens, The buildings are gone, TEC has already lost those who would not follow the slide into apostasy, and unless they can control and sell their properties, they will be insolvent, presuming they can’t figure out how to raid trust funds and pensions..
They have already suffered a significant and unrecoverable financial hit. In neither case will TEC get the buildings back, and they will not continue to be an asset to TEC’s “mission”. Preventing the departing Anglicans from conspicuously and competitively continuing to worship in their historic buildings is the only potential victory that TEC can salvage, even if it would be a meager one.
Creedal,
I believe we’re on the same wave length.
I am specifically articulating the response from those in leadership in a diocese such as mine, where so much build-up has been made for the recovery of facilities and properties currently being litigated, thus a microcosm of the larger leadership group in TECUSA, and for the denomination as a whole.
In your position, and in mine, the observance of grief is still the mode of day for so many people. I was saying that there would be a specific grief from “giving up” those lawsuits of control, and the “contingency” of being able to find funding for a weak institutional budget and the replenishment of funds lost to litigation, in the sale of returned properties, would be gone.
At that point, it would be back to life as it exists right now (except for the constant urgency of litigation), no more, no less, and thus, ”that’s about it.” No other chaos denominationally than trying to get to what we do with ourselves after that is what should have been happening before that: evangelism, teaching, worship, outreach, etc., in the proclamation of the Word of God.
It is the chaos in the local congregation – as I know you have seen and tried to help mediate, I’m sure – that is the killer.
I suppose I should have made more clear that my comments address only those situations where some (a majority, but not all) members of a parish determine to leave a Diocese and/or the national church and lay claim to property against those who stay. That has been the situation we have faced in our Diocese. I agree that the thought process changes when one confronts a Diocese purporting to leave intact, although in sorting that out in my own mind, I continue to search for guidance in the canons about how that happens. One possibility I have not yet found grounds to reject is that “the Diocese” continues to exist, however de-populated it may be by the fact that individuals who formerly led it have found new church homes elsewhere. I haven’t had to face that situation directly, although I have followed it in other jurisdictions. My mind is not closed on the subject.