St. Luke’s Church will make a pilgrimage from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism without leaving its historic location at 53rd Street and Annapolis Road in Bladensburg, Md.
The Rev. Mark Lewis, rector of St. Luke’s since 2006, praises the Rt. Rev. John B. Chane, Bishop of Washington, for the arrangement, in which St. Luke’s will lease the facilities from the Diocese of Washington and has an option to buy the property.
“We have a relationship that is mutually respectful,” Lewis said in an interview with The Living Church. He appreciates where I am theologically, and I know he appreciates the parish.”
Read it all.”>Read it all.
Would that this approach had been taken elsewhere!
Dale Rye — it couldn’t be because most of the parishes are departing for an alternate Anglican entity which is competition to TEC.
Schori/et al simply couldn’t allow that.
It doesn’t really matter whether or not they’ll allow it, since they can’t do anything to stop it in the first place.
In a number of these cases, the departing group simply took the property, thus circumscribing to a considerable degree the kind of conversation one can have about its ultimate disposition. It is the initial bald taking, rather than the subsequent affiliation of the departees that, in my view, drives those discussions into the secular courts. I suspect the same reaction would have occurred if the departing groups had attempted to take property to the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner, or converted to Islam or Hinduism. So I discount the idea that opposition to these property issues is driven by the destination of the departees, as opposed to the manner of their departure. In the happy instance described in this post and elsewhere, the group that left was able to find a mutually acceptable, business-like, but loving and respectful arrangement with their Episcopalian bishop.
RE: ” In a number of these cases, the departing group simply took the property, thus circumscribing to a considerable degree the kind of conversation one can have about its ultimate disposition. . . . ”
Actually in a number of these cases talks were opened up long before the parish’s departure, but they were stonewalled or it was made crystal clear that no negotiation would take place with departing Anglican congregations.
RE: “So I discount the idea that opposition to these property issues is driven by the destination of the departees, as opposed to the manner of their departure.”
I’m sure that you do.
[i]1 Corinthians 6:7 (New International Version)
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?[/i]
I hope that the leaders of TEC, who were so quick to file lawsuits against disaffiliating parishes, are finally recognizing the wisdom contained in Scripture and I hope it is not simply a pause while they consider new legal arguments. I can understand why they would be reluctant to go up against the Roman Catholic Church on this matter, especially since they may have made some claims that might not be appropriate here such as their argument that TEC should keep the church buildings because TEC is a hierarchal church. Although this claim has been successful in a few cases, it may not be very effective in this case, in fact I wonder if it might inadvertently be used as an argument in favor of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sarah: do you think the position of the Episcopal Dioceses or the national church would have been different if the departing groups had moved to the Roman Catholic Church, Islam or Hinduism and claimed the church property on their way out the door? I doubt it. My only point in this context is that the position of the national church, the Episcopal Dioceses, and the local continuing Episcopal parishes is not based on the destination of the departees, it is based on the idea that a person or persons who decide to leave create property rights by making that decision. I do not understand you to disagree with that proposition.
RE: “do you think the position of the Episcopal Dioceses or the national church would have been different if the departing groups had moved to the Roman Catholic Church, Islam or Hinduism and claimed the church property on their way out the door?”
I think the position of the Episcopal Dioceses and the national church would have been to gladly enter into negotiations with the departing groups moving to the RC church, Islam and Hinduism.
So here’s how it would have gone.
1) Departing Group [as long as a vast majority of the congregation]: “We are leaving TEC for Islam. We would like to enter into negotiations with you to purchase this property for a fair price.”
2) Diocesan Bishop: “Okay.”
Here’s how it went.
1) Departing Group [as long as a vast majority of the congregation]: “We are leaving TEC for ACNA. We would like to enter into negotiations with you to purchase this property for a fair price.”
2) Diocesan Bishop: “Uh . . . make us an offer. . . . No, this offer is not acceptable.”
3) Departing Group: “Here is another offer.”
4) Diocesan Bishop: “No, this offer is not acceptable.”
5) Departing Group: “Could you tell us where we can strengthen our offer so that it would be acceptable?”
6) Diocesan Bishop: [silence]
7) Diocesan Bishop: “Your priest is deposed.”
8) “Departing Group: “Okay. But can we negotiate for the property?”
9) Diocesan Bishop: “Get out of our property. People may leave TEC but not parishes.”
This sort of exchange went on for years.
Finally, parishes just “skipped to the end” understanding that it was policy — and clearly expressed by KJS to bishops [and this, I *know*] not to negotiate with congregations leaving for ACNA.
Just to be clear, I go through the above not because NOVA Scout needs to hear this — he, after all, already knows the facts and simply chooses to ignore them and throw up attempted distracting red herrings or pretends to be confused. That’s okay — that’s who he is and how he operates and I understand that we won’t agree on much substantive since we don’t share the same foundational worldview or values.
I go through the above simply to be clear to others who are reading.
I don’t feel particularly confused on this point and certainly wouldn’t pretend to be so.
My focus is on the thesis that there is an anti-ACNA or anti-CANA animus in the Church’s general refusal to deal properties to parishes/Dioceses aligned with those groups (Comment No. 2). My suggestion is that that position is more complex than pure anti-ACNA spleen and is intended to reinforce the proposition that departing parishioners, even if they secede in large groups, cannot take property with them and that it would be utterly incompetent stewardship to reward people who try. To do deals post-takeover with these groups also would have the effect of recklessly encouraging a business model for a start-up denomination or religion (any denomination or any religion) of populating its property rolls with buildings and facilities that it acquires for nothing. The fact pattern that has presented itself over the past few years has been that these disputes are with groups that align themselves with new forms of Anglican worship, but the hostility to the practice, and to doing deals with the new Anglican formations would be, I posit, the same if the seceding parishioners or groups were going to other Christian denominations or other religions in the same circumstances. In instances where there have been successful negotiations (and there have been several notable examples), the starting positions of the groups has been devoid of any suggestion that those who wish to leave have some sort of entitlement to the property. In those circumstances, a Bishop can have a meaningful discussion and there have been several non-litigious dispositions of property in those situations. The one described in the post is an example.
“Skipping to the end” (Comment No. 8) to claim property without compensation is a kind of radical leftist notion – “I know this guy isn’t going to sell me what I want, I guess I’ll just take it” – that one would not want to see get installed in any aspect of American life, although I have done my share of harrumphing against examples of Governments at all levels, particularly the national one, seeming to act on the principle that it can just take wealth that people do not feel motivated to volunteer. But that is another subject.
Of the church property disputes I know about around the country, I am not aware of any that conform to the scenario described in #8- departing parishioners enter into protracted commercial negotiations on price terms for purchase of the church property with their Bishop and, frustrated by inability to agree, they “Skip to the end” and occupy the property. I am aware of several circumstances, however, where departees lay claim to and occupy property and then either tell the remaining parishioners and/or the Diocese that the issue is closed or, a bit more charitably, indicate that they might consider some kind of post-seizure, heavily discounted deal to avoid litigation. If the scenario described in the earlier comment has occurred, I think it atypical of the various disputes around the country and, however widespread, it would not, in my view, undermine the notion that the Church’s opposition to doing deals is not based on destination, but on process.
NoVA Scout,
I believe that PB Schori might disagree with you when you suggest that “opposition to doing deals is not based on destination“. If I remember correctly, she testified in court that she would not make a deal with churches which wished to affiliate with other Anglican communion groups.
Can you explain how and why TEC sold an Episcopal Church bulilding to a Muslim group for Muslim worship while at the same time former church members had vacated the property, as requested by TEC, and were holding services at at another location?
It’s surmise on my part – I’m not in the Bishop’s inner circle, bettcee, but my sense of the position is that she is opposed to acquiescing in takings by or selling to ACNA/CANA groups for the reasons I stated above – that it would reward a business model that gains properties for nothing and that fosters assertions of property claims by departing parishioners. My point is that the position would be the same if the departing parishioners were going to Baptist or Muslim affiliations. I am not familiar with the details of the situation you mention, but my understanding is that the departing group left only at the point of a court order after occupying the property for some time. To have sold to them after putting the Diocese and the national church through that mill would have sent a signal that there is merit in squatting in property after one elects to leave – you might get it for nothing, but if you lose your court case, you can buy it. As to why it was sold to a Muslim group, I have no idea, but I have always thought that a horrible disposition of that particular property. I hope there was no element of spite in that decision, but I can’t be sure. If I had been the Diocesan Bishop (how’s that for an unlikely hypothetical), I certainly would not have approved that disposition, no matter how determined I was to avoid rewarding the people who seized the property when they left the Episcopal Church.
RE: “I don’t feel particularly confused on this point . . . ”
Oh I know you’re not *actually* confused when you pretend to be so at all. You never have been.
RE: “My focus is on the thesis that there is an anti-ACNA or anti-CANA animus in the Church’s general refusal to deal properties to parishes/Dioceses aligned with those groups . . . ”
Yeh — there’s merely an animus to *any* alternate Anglican entity purchasing the property.
RE: “. . . the hostility to the practice, and to doing deals with the new Anglican formations would be, I posit, the same if the seceding parishioners or groups were going to other Christian denominations or other religions in the same circumstances.”
And we know that’s not true since bishops are happily selling property to parishes going to Roman Catholicism. Not a surprise, of course.
RE: ““Skipping to the end†(Comment No. 8) to claim property without compensation . . . ”
Of course, no such suggestion was made. Nova Scout attempts to throw back in the false distraction of “without compensation” yet again.
RE: ” . . . departing parishioners enter into protracted commercial negotiations on price terms for purchase of the church property with their Bishop and, frustrated by inability to agree, they “Skip to the end†and occupy the property.”
Matt Kennedy’s parish, to name one of scores, was precisely that, except the parish did not “skip to the end” but was *evicted* while supposedly engaged in the “protacted commercial negotiations” and after receiving notice of “depart from hence, none of your offers are appropriate” the parish quite rightly claimed title in the courts. The courts awarded property to the diocese [although not — heh — one part of an endowment] and the diocese sold the property to a mosque for *less than* what they would have *net* received from the parish.
No — thanks for KJS’s deposed testimony, all informed Episcopalians understand that negotiation will not occur with congregations whose destination is an alternate Anglican entity. It is true based on her vowed statement, and it is transparently true based on the clear practice of dioceses and the national church.
This pristine example of a diocese negotiating for a congregation departing to the RC church is merely further support for what all of us already recognize as truth.
Again, none of my exchanges on this thread have to do with engaging in any sort of dialogue or meaningful exchange with Nova Scout, as I’m indifferent to his purported opinions about these matters and indifferent to making any sort of attempt at changing a mind that already recognizes the truth privately anyway.
I merely point out the facts for other readers.
If the Roman Catholic Church were encouraging, organizing, egging on Episcopal congregations to leave, seize property on the way out, and bring it on the property rolls of the RCC, I suspect you’d see the same position and same sort of litigation. The problem is not whether the new entity is another Anglican group, the problem is whether there has been an attempt to seize the property in the process of departure.
As an aside, it appears that I have a far higher opinion of Sarah than she does of me. It is possible that we are both wrong, I suppose. This happens in life from time to time. I’m not sure why the ad hominem stuff is so central to her, but, since one of the great values of this medium is a chance to exchange points of view and converse over distances both geographic and conceptual, I’ll soldier on under the burden of her opprobrium.
Nova Scout,
At what point in the negotiations do you suggest that the disaffiliating parishioners should vacate the church building, stop paying for its upkeep, and turn over the keys to TEC?
Do you really think that parishioners are “squatting†on the property if they simply remain in the church hoping that negotiations will go well?
If disaffiliating parishes had the same political power and financial resources that the RCC has, do you think the negotiations might have had a different outcome?
Bettcee: I have always thought that the moment to leave is the moment at which an individual (lay or clergy) decides that continued affiliation with the Episcopal church is, for whatever reason, unpalatable. If that decision reveals itself to a large group, the group should leave the premises. If it comes to individuals one at a time, leave when the decision becomes clear. In situations with which I had direct personal knowledge, a few lay leaders and key clergy reached the decision months or perhaps years before they left, but spent the intervening time subtly and not so subtly urging others to go with them and suggesting that if they did so, the property would be a prize. I find this morally and ethically reprehensible.
I don’t consider it squatting if a person or group is struggling with that decision and stays put. It most certainly is squatting in my view when the new affiliation is chosen, Episcopalians who have not reached the decision (lay or clergy) can no longer worship on the premises under Episcopalian leadership, and church assets are taken over by those who have decided to leave.
I think quite a few of these property disputes could have been avoided if the departing group had left as soon as their decision became clear. In some cases there was near unanimity about the decision and in many there were large majorities who were of one mind on that. Had they left without asserting rights to property (virtually all of which have come to grief in the courts), and with no overt sense of entitlement or disdain toward the group they left, Diocesan Bishops would have made some practical decisions about disposition of unsupportable properties. In some, although not all cases, deals could have been done in these circumstance. In fact, that has happened in a few instances. It is, in my opinion, the seizure and eviction of Episcopal worship that poisons the atmosphere and makes it virtually impossible to sort these issues out short of litigation.
Re your last question, I think the position of the Episcopal Dioceses and TEC would have been the same if the Roman Catholic Church had tried the same thing. I also think the legal results would have been the same – no matter the resources of the RCC, it would have lost in court. That an Episcopal Bishop can negotiate with groups like the one mentioned in the post seems to illustrate that this can be done rationally and in Christian love.
In my last comment, the word “unpalatable” was ill-chosen, I think. I was looking for something a little stronger, along the lines of “unbearable” or “unacceptable.” I am still a member of an Episcopal parish, but I do find some elements, personalities and developments within the larger Church to be not at all to my tastes, preferences, and dispositions.
Regardless of our differences, the Bible tells Christians not to resort to lawsuits and if the TEC leadership had heeded that advice, the Episcopal Church would be a stronger church now.
I have heard some parishioners express their opinion that “the church has left us, we have not left the church” and I can understand why they feel that way when Presiding Bishop Schori, and others in authority, give sermons, interviews and press releases in which they verbally disaffiliate themselves from Christianity as we know it and as it is expressed in both the Bible, and the Book of Common Prayer.
This is the United States of America, not mediaeval England and it seems to me that individuals who believe that it is their Christian duty to defend the Christian faith and who have the courage to present their beliefs and disagreements should feel welcome to speak freely, regardless of the discomfort it might bring.
It should not be simply a matter of love it or leave it.
Generally agreed, Bettcee, in broad outline, although I don’t agree that there has been a virtual disaffiliation from Christianity by TEC or its leaders. I think there has been a lot of sloppy talk that one doesn’t expect from the upper reaches of the Anglican presence in America. Nonetheless, I’ve seen no situation in which people have been unable to express disparate views on these subjects – there seems to be a robust discussion at virtually all times.
The lawsuits have been, as far as I know, completely defensive reactions to takings of highly questionable legal basis. If there had been no takings, there would have been no lawsuits, in my estimation. The judicial scorecard thus far is overwhelmingly against these takeovers. I don’t know how else in this country one protects a property right.
Nova Scout, I did not use the word [i]virtual[/i], I was speaking only about what has been communicated [i]verbally[/i].
Thanks for the correction. Sometimes my fingers seem to type homophonically, and I end up typing a near-miss word. It doesn’t change my comment, but I apologize for the error.