ADV Chairman Jim Oakes has released the following statement in response to this news:
“We are saddened that our ADV member parish, Church of Our Saviour, was put in such a difficult position. As we have said all along, this litigation has been a tragic distraction from the good work these churches are trying to undertake as servants of Christ. For many months, we have encouraged our congregations to pray for an end to this costly litigation. There has been a great deal of discussion and soul searching and we will continue to pray that His will be done. No matter the path Church of Our Saviour has chosen, they will remain our brothers and sisters in Christ and we pray for the opportunity to have continued fellowship together.”
So the congregation get all the cash and TEC get a small, expensive, remote building!
This appears to be nothing more than a sly and sneaky new tactic on the part of TEC to grab control of what they claim are [i]their[/i] properties. And how [b]DARE[/b] they attempt to tell these congregations who they can associate with! This is a violation of their right of Freedom of Religion. I’m shocked that any judge would allow such a thing!
The forced disaffiliation strikes me as the worst part here. Not only does it seem illegal (but I’m not an attorney) but it is further evidence to me that TEC doesn’t really care at all as long as the departing asset does not end up with the Anglicans.
Cennydd, the departing people can associate with anyone the wish. No one has ever said otherwise. But this group is being allowed to lease Diocesan property for a period of up to five years. A lease to a particular group is of some interest to the reversionary owner of a property. The departing elements would not have agreed to this if they found it too onerous a condition.
According to the Washington Post, the non-affiliation clause is in effect only as long as they are using the building, and their rector says they will immediately start looking for a new place to worship. The article also noted that the parish has spent over $400,000 in legal fees for a property that’s worth only $315,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/20/AR2011022004136.html
The condition [b]IS[/b] onerous, and it’s onerous because the clause telling them who they can associate with during those five years was written into the agreement [b]in the FIRST place![/b] That clause never should have been allowed.
#6, this is actually nothing more than a non-compete agreement, which are legal everywhere, and are upheld to one degree or another in every state. This is not an adhesive agreement that restricts any alleged right of association – it only restricts a right of contract for which TEC is paying a consideration – a submarket open-ended lease and a release from expensive litigation, to an organization that TEC knows is going to actively look for another place, which restricts TEC from doing anything with the property, as well, other than allowing a group that is leaving to use it for up to 5 years. TEC is at some risk in making this deal, in that it is allowing this congregation to stay together in its original church, until it finds or builds another place, so that it may very well be able to take the Anglican/Episcopal label in the area away from TEC. Remember, TEC can’t begin to rebuild a TEC church in this building until the reasserters leave – and they aren’t leaving until they have obtained another place where they can be successful.
I agree it is not a settlement desired by the Anglicans who will be leaving, but it is a contractual settlement, and as an attorney, I see nothing overbearing or onerous about it.
Seems like I recall Jesus advising his followers about franchise rights and trademark and distribution agreements. Something about loving money and how much treasures in the world are worth compared to ones awarded in some far off, imaginary place called heaven.
Focus on what’s important.
This is such a raw deal. If they are already have payments for a lease, in this case to TEC, they should instead immediately cancel and use the same budget for a storefront lease somewhere so they can associate with whomever they want. But the fact they can’t associate now with other Anglicans is onerous anyway and afront to Freedom of Religion.
9. [b]EXACTLY,[/b] flaanglican! While it may be legal, it sure isn’t right!
For me, Church of Our Savior isn’t off the hook either. What in God’s name, would possess them to agree to a deal that let’s them remain on their soon-to-be-former property but then re-nounce who they are and thereby their beliefs? I’m all for parishes trying to retain their property but if it looks like they cannot, and they’re going to walk away anyway, why agree to this? Why not walk away now, “shake the dust off their feet”, and establish a congregation elsewhere with the same budgeted funds in a storefront lease or something similar?
“Our Saviour is one of nine congregations that sought to keep its church property after leaving the Episcopal Church in 2006.”
This settlement to me is a greater reason the Church who wish to stand for the truth need to count the cost of following Christ even obedience means leaving all property behind. If they go for this then it shows sadly where Our Saviour Church is really at. Attachment leading to compromise becomes a stumbling block.
I have no stake in this fight, but how is this different from what the Parish leadership, in this case, or the Diocese leadership in the case of Pittsburgh and Forth Worth did to the parishioners who did not want to follow them when they broke away from the TEC. There were many parishioners who wanted to remain with TEC. Were they not told you are free to remain with the TEC but if you want to worship in this building you will need to dissociated with TEC and associate with the ACNA?
Are ACNA Fort Worth and ACNA Pittsburgh allowing parishioners loyal to TEC to continue to conduct services and have the use of buildings occupied by the ACNA? Or were those parishioners told if you wish to continue your association with TEC you will need to find another place to worship?
No, MCPLAW, that’s not so…..at least in my church. Several of our people who worship regularly here have remained Episcopalian.
#14 I don’t think that is exactly the same thing; but if it is there is no issue here at all, as I am sure that if the Church of our Savior rejoined TEC, ACNA members would be allowed to attend services without any obligation to renounce the ACNA.
#7. What a sensible, thoughtful and factual comment. Thank you.