Here is the main portion of one of the three resolutions proposed for the Diocese of Fond Du Lac Convention this coming weekend. You can read all the resolutions here.
Resolution 2007-03 “Anglican Pastoral Scheme”
Submitted by the Rev. Dean Einerson, the Rev. Paul Feider, the Rev. Jim Fosdick, the Rev. Malcolm
Hughes, the Rev. Tom McAlpine, the Rev. Ian Montgomery, the Rev. Ken Okkerse, the Rev. Wilson
Roane, the Rev. Ray Ryerson, the Rev. Ed Smith, the Scott Thompson
Whereas, the Primates of the Anglican Communion sought to give temporary relief to the minority in
the Episcopal Church, who dissent from the decisions of recent General Conventions, and
Whereas, the House of Bishops in March 2007 rejected that pastoral scheme, and
Whereas, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church in June of 2007 similarly rejected such a
scheme and sought to make General Convention 2009 the sole body able to make an appropriate
response, and
Whereas, there are several lawsuits to which the National Church is a party, which is expressly
addressed by the Dare es Salaam Communiqué, with the request that these cease,
1 Be it resolved, by the 133rd Annual Convention of the Diocese of Fond du Lac, that
The Diocese of Fond du Lac, expresses its regret that the leadership of the Episcopal Church has rejected this pastoral scheme, and
The Diocese of Fond du Lac, asks the leadership of the Episcopal Church to provide meaningful pastoral support and oversight to the dissenting minority, having involved persons from that 6 dissenting minority in discussion, and
The Diocese of Fond du Lac, asks the leadership of the Episcopal Church to accede to the requests of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué.
The Diocese of Fond du Lac, asks that the National Church cease its participation in the litigation that is at present before the courts and any future such litigation.
We further call upon our congregations not to call the police or sue if they believe that their clergy, a member of their vestry, an employee, the National Church, or the diocese has taken property that properly belongs to the parish.
Indeed, we urge them to post signs by their unlocked doors with a picture of a burglar and “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You!”
My point is that [i]everybody[/i]—except perhaps an absolute pacifist who is opposed to any use of force, even in self-defense or the defense of others—agrees that there are appropriate circumstances for bringing civil or criminal litigation. The alternative is a completely lawless society in which everyone can do exactly what he or she pleases without fear of consequences… sort of like the emerging state of the Anglican Communion.
Dale, in response to your addendum, I think that a vote of all members of each congregation should be taken. The assets of each congregation choosing to secede should be divided up between those who wish to stay and those who wish to remain part of TEC. If the vote is, for example, 70/30, then the assets, or financial remuneration should be divided up 70/30.
Perhaps a resolution is in order to be in keeping with the Primates desire that congregations “stop alienating property from the Episcopal Church”. That will certainly stop the lawsuits.
Doug: And to hell with the wishes of the minority? I thought reappraisers were for a democratic church?
The problem with the church using the civil arm to enforce its own discipline is that it further erodes the “wall of separation” between church and state. In Medieval and Reformation days the church used the state to enforce its laws against heretics by handing them over for execution in order to save their souls. That was a devilish business. If there is virtue in a complete separation this should not be compromised even for the sake of real estate.
If we have reached the point, as we have in many areas, where Canon Law cannot be enforced by the church and its own courts, then the problem is internal and needs to be addressed internally.
Dale Rye (#1, #2), as uncomfortable it is for both reasserters and reappraisers, St. Paul [url=”http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=59390549″](1 Cor 6:1-8)[/url] expressly forbids taking other Christians to court. He says that it is better to be defrauded. In your case #1, yes, that’s right: if the Bishop breaks in and takes over, we can complain, but starting a lawsuit is wrong. I can understand why people like Bishop Lee would ignore St. Paul, since they don’t follow his teaching on sexuality either. The problem I see is for those reasserters who claim to strive to follow what the New Testament teaches (say in [url=”http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=59390861″]1 Cor. 6 9-11[/url]) but then ignore what he wrote just before. It’s a scandal.
wvparson, what you say is excellence advice, and most Christians would agree, but only to a point. They are okay with Caesar’s flag hanging at the church’s altar, something early Christians and Jews would have considered blasphemous. They want the state butting out of their taxes (tax exemption), but are okay with the government policing the sacrament of Holy Matrimony and the specter of gay marriages. Can you imagine the uproar if government regulated the Holy Eucharist? We’re hypocrites.
I think the ECLA Lutherans (a liberal church) have it right – a congregation can keep its property if it goes from one Lutheran Church to another- ie to the Lutheran Missouri Synod. A far more Christian approach – and entirely opposite of +KJS’s statements regarding the El Paso Pro-Cathedral.
Great idea, and charitable spirit, Chips.
Unfortunately, #10, this spiritually generous approach is not what one will have a snowflake’s chance of being adopted by 815. Our parish’s experience was that the diocese not only took our property when we split, but actively intervened to deny us worship space in other venues. It is more important to TEC to make sure the departing souls not have the building ([b]any[/b] building) than it is for them to have it, much in the way armies burn crops and poison wells as they depart a plundered village.