The restrictions have much more to do with ensuring that there is no encouragement for people who think that a decision to leave the church includes a right to transfer property. If the departing factions had been attempting to take property to the Roman Catholic or Baptist churches, the restrictions would be against affiliation with Roman Catholic or Baptists. There were, oddly enough, many instances where clergy and lay leaders lingered long in the Episcopal Church after they had reached internal personal decisions that they wished to leave and join new groups built around not only what they perceived to be more correct doctrinal positions, but also the physical property they had occupied when part of the Episcopal Church. I see the restrictions on affiliation that have now cropped up in at least three of these settlement instances as sending a signal that the group most obviously fomenting these property claims cannot expect to benefit, at least in the near term, by the receipt of property rights.
I suspect (although I do not approve of it) that there are too many people in the Episcopal Church who don’t particularly care whether it is in or out as a province of the Anglican Communion. More of us do care than don’t , but this indifference in some quarters is one of the reasons that I doubt that status within the Communion has anything to do with the property restrictions now showing up in settlement agreements. In any event, if the motivation were to impede recognition of ACNA as a province, I doubt the restrictions would have any impact on that one way or another. The problems of recognizing ACNA as either a joint or alternative province are far greater than whether a handful of individual parishes elected to not join as a condition of gaining access/possession/ownership to church property.
NoVA Scout wrote:
[blockquote] “I see the restrictions on affiliation that have now cropped up in at least three of these settlement instances as sending a signal that the group most obviously fomenting these property claims cannot expect to benefit, at least in the near term, by the receipt of property rights.” [/blockquote]
Do lets be serious. The amount of property claimed by TEC is a miniscule part of ACNA. Much of ACNA was never part of TEC (in which I include the many churches established by refugees from TEC in the early 2000s). Furthermore, ACNA has established probably about 200 new church plants in the last 18 months (I note 110 on the Anglican1000 web-site, and there is anecdotal evidence of a lot more).
These property disputes are important to individual congregations and dioceses who have moved to ACNA. They don’t want to see their properties that have such a long tradition of being used for the glory of God turned over to the liberal apostsy of Katherine Schori and her minions. Fair enough.
But the fact is that the ACNA congregations can worship elsewhere if they need to, and ACNA as a province will hardly notice the loss of these properties (if that ever occurs).
[blockquote] In any event, if the motivation were to impede recognition of ACNA as a province, I doubt the restrictions would have any impact on that one way or another. The problems of recognizing ACNA as either a joint or alternative province are far greater than whether a handful of individual parishes elected to not join as a condition of gaining access/possession/ownership to church property. [/blockquote]
Very true. ACNA as a province is already in communion with the Global South, as are those parishes and dioceses of TEC who remain faithful to the faith once delivered. By contrast, those parts of TEC that follow the apostasy of Katherine Schori are not, regardless of which names appear on some list gathering dust in a drawer at the ACO!
This shows that TEC are in a panic about being replaces as a provence of the Anglican Communion.
The restrictions have much more to do with ensuring that there is no encouragement for people who think that a decision to leave the church includes a right to transfer property. If the departing factions had been attempting to take property to the Roman Catholic or Baptist churches, the restrictions would be against affiliation with Roman Catholic or Baptists. There were, oddly enough, many instances where clergy and lay leaders lingered long in the Episcopal Church after they had reached internal personal decisions that they wished to leave and join new groups built around not only what they perceived to be more correct doctrinal positions, but also the physical property they had occupied when part of the Episcopal Church. I see the restrictions on affiliation that have now cropped up in at least three of these settlement instances as sending a signal that the group most obviously fomenting these property claims cannot expect to benefit, at least in the near term, by the receipt of property rights.
I suspect (although I do not approve of it) that there are too many people in the Episcopal Church who don’t particularly care whether it is in or out as a province of the Anglican Communion. More of us do care than don’t , but this indifference in some quarters is one of the reasons that I doubt that status within the Communion has anything to do with the property restrictions now showing up in settlement agreements. In any event, if the motivation were to impede recognition of ACNA as a province, I doubt the restrictions would have any impact on that one way or another. The problems of recognizing ACNA as either a joint or alternative province are far greater than whether a handful of individual parishes elected to not join as a condition of gaining access/possession/ownership to church property.
NoVA Scout wrote:
[blockquote] “I see the restrictions on affiliation that have now cropped up in at least three of these settlement instances as sending a signal that the group most obviously fomenting these property claims cannot expect to benefit, at least in the near term, by the receipt of property rights.” [/blockquote]
Do lets be serious. The amount of property claimed by TEC is a miniscule part of ACNA. Much of ACNA was never part of TEC (in which I include the many churches established by refugees from TEC in the early 2000s). Furthermore, ACNA has established probably about 200 new church plants in the last 18 months (I note 110 on the Anglican1000 web-site, and there is anecdotal evidence of a lot more).
These property disputes are important to individual congregations and dioceses who have moved to ACNA. They don’t want to see their properties that have such a long tradition of being used for the glory of God turned over to the liberal apostsy of Katherine Schori and her minions. Fair enough.
But the fact is that the ACNA congregations can worship elsewhere if they need to, and ACNA as a province will hardly notice the loss of these properties (if that ever occurs).
[blockquote] In any event, if the motivation were to impede recognition of ACNA as a province, I doubt the restrictions would have any impact on that one way or another. The problems of recognizing ACNA as either a joint or alternative province are far greater than whether a handful of individual parishes elected to not join as a condition of gaining access/possession/ownership to church property. [/blockquote]
Very true. ACNA as a province is already in communion with the Global South, as are those parishes and dioceses of TEC who remain faithful to the faith once delivered. By contrast, those parts of TEC that follow the apostasy of Katherine Schori are not, regardless of which names appear on some list gathering dust in a drawer at the ACO!