From Phil Ashey–
I’d like to share with you a letter from the Bishop and Diocesan Council of The Episcopal Church’s (TEC) Diocese of the Rio Grande. But first, a little background so that you can appreciate the letter in all its fullness.
This time two years ago, approximately 80% of the parishioners of St. Mark’s on-the-Mesa (TEC) left the parish and formed Christ the King Anglican, Albuquerque, NM (Anglican Church in North America). When those parishioners left the parish, the Diocese of the Rio Grande, and the Episcopal Church, they left everything. They left the property, building, endowments, bank accounts – even paperclips and pencils. They did so in good conscience, with generosity, and with love for those who in good conscience could not leave The Episcopal Church. Based on their reading of scripture, these parishioners did not want to fight over buildings and property in civil courts. Instead, they walked away and began a new life together as Anglican followers of Jesus Christ at Christ the King Anglican Church. Not only did the new parish draw former Episcopalians, but also Christians from other denominations who wanted to worship and serve at Christ the King Anglican.
Fast forward two years to August 31, 2011 (about three weeks ago). The congregation’s rector, the Rev. Roger Weber, former priest at St. Mark’s, received this letter from TEC Bishop Michael Vono of the Diocese of the Rio Grande…
Hubris? Franky I think it is sour grapes, amazingly silly and maybe a check for one penny is in order.
Wow.
It’s just . . . [i]breathtaking[/i].
It opens up such a window into the mental illness of so many TEC bishops and the people who enable them on their Standing Committees.
Because such a letter is just redolent with all the hallmarks of the mentally ill*:
Confused thinking.
Detachment from reality.
Believing that you’re better than others
Trouble keeping healthy relationships
Setting unrealistic goals
Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Taking advantage of others
Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you
Having a fragile self-esteem
A couple of other things.
Imagine being the 20% of those left behind. Imagine what they must be thinking when they go to the diocese for “forgiveness” — [never mind that the diocese forced out the 80% leavers through their own idiocy post-Steenson] and the diocese says “hey — we’ve got a great idea! Rather than forgive your debt from two years ago due to the catastrophic loss of so many people fleeing us, we’ll write a little letter to those who left you and us in the dust and try to manipulate *them* into helping you out.”
Finally — the Diocese of the Rio Grande has *got* to be in awful — perfectly awful and desperate — financial straits to do this. Even with the accompanying mental illness, for this to even cross your mind as an “option” just reeks of desperation.
They really just can’t let people go, can they.
[*Most symptoms taken from listing for narcissistic personality disorder.]
This is a bishop and a Diocesan Council seemingly without wisdom, or at least without strong, mature resistance to normal flippancy. Now, in my experience, what Council doesn’t have some sarcastic person as a member who would suggest such an action? I might have even said the same myself if I were at that meeting; but I also would have been adamantly opposed to any attempt to move such an immature resolution.
Now on the other hand, have we not seen already a variety of opening salvos by a diocesan bishop made directly to a formerly TECUSA congregation/priest that seemed full of such hubris? Is there some legal groundwork that has just been laid?
Otherwise, this is exactly the opposite direction of reconciliation.
“Confused thinking.
Detachment from reality.
Believing that you’re better than others
Trouble keeping healthy relationships
Setting unrealistic goals
Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Taking advantage of others
Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you
Having a fragile self-esteem”
Yes, or in another nutshell, I’ve said to a lot of psych types(professionals or patients) that the ones who do the most damage are those who refuse any form of self-awareness whatsoever.
This is beyond NPD, it’s simply asinine.
So now, church members are basically supposed to pay to LEAVE?!! Here would be a related scenario–church member pledges generously at a church, then becomes disillusioned with what’s going on; relocates and, in essence, “defaults” on his pledge. Now, priest or finance committee or vestry type MIGHT send a letter to said person ENCOURAGING him to pay his pledge; but threatening a former member and/or retaining counsel is not going to achieve the desired end. It’s not like I’ve ever seen a church send a former member a bill and then turn it over to a collection agency if it’s not paid; most priests and vestries take the high road on these issues and try to make up the budget deficit with requests for special gifts, one-time offerings or “loose plate”. Not to mention, in this case, too, it’s not like we’re even talking about money that was PLEDGED.
I’ll paraphrase a saying in TX–“If insight was lard I wouldn’t be able to grease one pan with this bishop”.
Does he really think this is going to do anything else except start a war? They took the high road and tried to avoid it, but I’d advise the Anglicans to retain counsel. I doubt they owe anyone a single red cent.
Can’t wait to see the ++Duncan response…
Come on – this is a spoof, right? Right?
Wouldn’t it be better simply to ignore the letter? No response. Nothing. No lawyers.
Obviously, it’s an historical document worthy of preservation. Otherwise, I’d be tempted to wipe something with it.
If this weren’t TEc, I would think it was a spoof. Since this is TEc, you should know to expect clowns to do what clowns do, and that is to amuse.
This letter migt help explain the horrid 2002 through 2009 experience with declines of 25.1 percent of Members , 33.3 percent of ASA, and 39.4 percent of inflation adjusted Plate & Pledge. (I ranked the dio at 95 of 95 considered.) And declines of 47.8 percent of Marriages and 54.2 percent of Infant Baptisms. And this diocese is worried about a lousy $20K !! A one word response might well be …… “Nuts”. Statmann
Ralph – you bring to mind a quote (attributed to G.B. Shaw and to Max Reger) that I think Rev. Weber ought to paraphrase:
I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. Your resolution is in front of me. Shortly it will be behind me.
Does it bear any comparison to the fact that the IRS requires American citizens who no longer live in the US to file US income tax returns, many of whom have taken citizenship elsewhere? And now they’re trying to work a deal with Canadian banks to deduct fines from the accounts of those living in Canada who have not filed.
I think Vono is channeling Tom Shaw from a few years ago when he tried to sue parishioners for pledges when they left TEC. As I recall, that was either thrown out of court, or his own lawyers talked him out of it.
I would not want to be the leadership of TEC when the bill comes due for the Church they stole away from its rightful owner.
Remember: Bishop Fry, former conservative and leader in the fight, is right there with TEC helping to lead the fight against those who have left and letting down all the clergy he raised and now betrays.
Does the fact that he cc:s the letter to Most Revd. Robert Duncan mean that diocese recognizes/acknowledges him as a primate?
Jackson (#12) – that was what struck me, as well. There is an [i]iota[/i] of grace in this – in that ++Duncan is addressed as [i]”Most Rev’d”[/i], rather than “Rt. Reverend” or even “Robert” Duncan; I would have expected the latter from 815 and from many other dioceses.
May I be a dissentient voice from the above? Assuming that the letter is not a prelude to legal action, then actually it is a mark of humility. The diocese acknowledges publicly that the bulk of a parish’s people have gone. It admits that it cannot make ends meet in the way it used to do. It appeals for the departees for help, which indicates that this is not a power play, but a word from a needy party appealing to the highest instincts of another party that it respects. Yes, as our Jewish friends would say, there is an element of chutzpah, of daring cheekiness, but the approach comes respectfully and with an element of humility. Why not respond to it on that basis?
Terry Tee, whilst I appreciate your efforts to put the best possible face on this letter, if the action were taken in humility it would best have been done in person. Should TEC “win” in Virginia I fully expect it will be followed by lots of rationalizations about why the evicted congregations need to pay “80 percent of the coming roof repair” or “90 percent of the cost to replace the carpet”.
I assume that the request is a futile gesture, and I certainly would have been among those (there must have been some) who advised against it. I can’t believe the Bishop enjoyed writing the letter that his Council foisted upon him. However, reading the letter, it seems to posit that the obligation for diocesan contribution spanned the entire year of 2009 and that the obligation fell in part on the elements of the congregation who departed within that year. While I’d be very surprised to see the departees pony up, I get the concept. Having said that, the problem here seems to be
RE: ” . . . it seems to posit that the obligation for diocesan contribution spanned the entire year of 2009 and that the obligation fell in part on the elements of the congregation who departed within that year.”
But we know that can’t be true from the perspective of the current revisionist leadership of TEC because it is *they* who have consistently chanted that [i]parishes can never ever leave[/i] — only the people — and the pledge to the diocese is made by [i]the parish[/i] and the parish is [again, according to the current revisionist leaders of TEC] still right there, albeit rather significantly lessened in people.
I don’t think Archbishop Duncan thinks much of this at all, and in fact, I think he’ll simply ignore it. It deserves no attention beyond that which it’s already received, in my opinion. [b]Short shrift? Well, of course![/b]
I’d caution against them paying even a cent to the Dio of Rio Grande. This is how adverse precedent gets set.
In fact I would write a letter to standing committee of Dio of Rio Grande requesting refunds of all donations I had made to the Parish and Diocese. If the Diocese wants to open the door to past financial dealings, it should hit both ways.
We have seen parishes make payments to their former dioceses for a few years in cases where an agreement is made to allow them to keep the property. Trying to get money from people who have simply walked out, leaving property entirely behind, is nuts. They already gave the diocese a gift in the form of a litigation-free surrender of every paper clip.
Makes you wonder why they’d ever want to leave the TEC.
Oh, I could think of a lot of reasons……and every one of them a good one!
Thank you for your post, Statmann–something about German and American generals, correct?!! :-/
“But we know that can’t be true from the perspective of the current revisionist leadership of TEC because it is *they* who have consistently chanted that parishes can never ever leave—only the people—and the pledge to the diocese is made by the parish and the parish is [again, according to the current revisionist leaders of TEC] still right there, albeit rather significantly lessened in people”.
Of course, they want the buildings not the debt. Well, waaaaahhhh…can’t have it both ways. Got debt? Sell the buildings, fix your debt if you can. Still have a small but functional congregation? Oh, well; guess you’ve got some rebuilding to do.
Statmann: I am always interested to see where you have ranked particular dioceses in your listing–would it be possible sometime for you to post the enter list, in order of rank?
When I left my Episcopal parish several years ago, one of the members of the finance committee came to see me to ask if I wouldn’t consider pledging for the following year since my departure was unexpected and they had planned on receiving my pledge. My answer was similar to what most of you have suggested. One of the major reasons I left was to no longer help fund litigation against parishes and dioceses who felt the same need to leave as I felt. Sorry, but TEC will need more than luck running that scam on me or anyone else including the folks of Jesus Christ the King.
The Episcopal Church no longer teaches anything about marriage, but certainly believes in alimony.
Permit me a few thoughts on this.
1. Sarah, in post #17 points out why this letter is so blatantly contradictory to TEC’s claims elsewhere. As she point out, TEC’s refrain has always been “parishes can never leave, individuals can leave the parish, but the parish can never leave”. Our dear friend NoVA Scout has repeated this claim time and again across many blogs defending TEC. But as Sarah also points out, it is the PARISH and not the individual parishioners which owes the annual diocesan tax. When TEC claims that individuals can leave the parish but they can’t take anything of the parish with them, that includes the parish debt. Once a parishioner leaves, they are under NO further obligation to voluntarily contribute to their former parish. The annual diocesan tax is a parish debt, and the parish (as TEC and its minions are so quick to point out) remains. The fact that the parish is no longer financially able to pay its debt (despite all the newcomers flowing in due to TEC’s increasing liberal theology, yet another TEC claim) is of no concern legally or otherwise to that parish’s former parishioners.
For a TEC bishop to write this letter and basically say “the parish split, and we would like you to pay up x% of the diocesan tax for the year you left, since that is the proportion of the parish you took” is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY contradictory to all TEC’s previous claims. They are now claiming that the parish actually split.
2. I have little doubt that the TEC bishop is well aware that there is no legal obligation on the part of former parishioners to pay the bills for this parish, so it made me wonder why this astonishing letter would have been written. I think there is more to it than meets the eye. Consider the following SPECULATION (the initial facts I believe are true, but the conclusions are guesswork):
a. The Diocese of Rio Grande was, until recently, from everything I heard, a diocese with a slight conservative majority and a strongly activist liberal minority. In other similar situations in which they have been the minority, the liberals most likely had developed a bitter and angry attitude (witness the strong evidence of such in the Diocese of San Joaquin), and had also developed a strong blood lust they longed to vent against conservatives. Again, witness to how Rob Eaton was treated in the DSJ by its new liberal leadership.
b. Then a couple of years back, it appears that the balance of power shifted in the DRG, which led, amongst other things, to the vast majority of the large parish of St. Mark’s leaving. The bitter, angry liberals with a blood lust for conservatives took the reins of power.
c. Note very carefully that St. Mark’s split – the proportion doesn’t matter so much as the fact that the 20% that remained behind were (as I recall) conservative. This is VERY IMPORTANT to note. The remnant is NOT a liberal Potemkin plant, but rather a true conservative remnant.
d. The new vengeful liberal majority in the diocese is very unlikely to want to give any break to any conservative parish, especially not one like St. Mark’s that they most probably think of as being the great thorn in their side for so many years. This is especially true now that so many conservatives have left and taken their pledges with them, and the liberals are frustrated that their new kingdom is woefully underfunded.
e. The new vastly reduced St. Mark’s is unable to pay its diocesan tax for the year so many of its parishioners left. I am sure that the tax is assessed on parish numbers at the beginning of the year, and there is no avenue for reassessment if say 80% of the parishioners up and leave.
f. The liberals no doubt greatly covet that diocesan tax, and are very unwilling to let their formers nemesis off the hook very easily. Thus NO WAY will they agree to just forgive the tax.
g. The new bishop probably realizes that there is no way the shrunken St. Mark’s can hope to move forward under such a crushing burden of debt.
h. So there is a standoff. The liberal majority wants a blood letting of St. Mark’s, while the bishop realizes that he has few enough functioning parishes as it is, and he realizes that there is ZERO chance of St. Mark’s being able to pay off the debt anyway, so why not take the INTELLIGENT decision and forgive the debt.
i. So either the bishop of some other “moderate” member of the diocese gets the bright idea. How about this for a compromise, they say? We don’t forgive the debt, but we only charge 20% of it to the remaining TEC congregation and send a bill for the other 80% to those nasty Anglicans. We all know that those nasty Anglicans really owe the money since they didn’t stay, and this letter will heap burning ashes on their head of shame. The liberals buy into this and agree.
j. Nobody thinks of how such a letter will look to the rest of the world…
Kevin Babb: For 2002 through 2009 here are the top 30 from 1 through 30. S Carolina, Tenn, E Carolina, W N Carolina, Utah, Washington, N carolina, Upper SC, Texas, Delaware, E Tenn, Easton, W Texas, Kentucky, Maine, Hawaii, Fond du Lac, Missouri, Arkansas, SW VA, Atlanta, Alabama, Georgia, New York, Indianapolis, Alaska, Nevada, Ariz, Louisiana, and Cen Gulf Coast. Statmann
Kevin Babb: Here are the bottom 30 starting with 66 and through 95. Colo, W Mich, Iowa, Spokane, Nebraska, Cen Florida, Virginia, W Tenn, San Diego, NW Penn, Kansas, Springfielsd, Rhode Is, Bethlehem, Milwaukee, Wl Camino, Dallas, Mich, N Calif, Rochester, w Kansas, Cen NY, n Indiana, NW Tex, Ohio, n Mich, Florida, E Mich, W NY, and RIO GRANDE. Statmann
Kevin Babb: Ironic to note that SC is “best” and Rio Grande “worst”. And TEC is after…….. SOUTH CAROLINA !!! Statmann
“The Diocese of Rio Grande was, until recently, from everything I heard, a diocese with a slight conservative majority and a strongly activist liberal minority”.
I knew a priest in said diocese that, 10-12 years ago, was asked to leave his parish just because he got divorced and his parish didn’t want a divorced priest. How quickly things change…
“Thus NO WAY will they agree to just forgive the tax”.
Point taken, jamesw, as is your whole post. But, as you know, how silly, because unless the diocese is willing to attempt litigating for the money, I don’t know how they’d ever hope to get it. I would think such a suit would be dismissed or laughed out of court. The letter itself would be laughable, if it wasn’t so sad. The Anglican church must be quoting Dr. Phil by this point–“What, are you KIDDING me”?!!
Statmann, thank you for your lists, although I am saddened to see my Diocese on the 60-95 list.
To mis-quote Daniel Webster’s statement to the US Supreme Court in the Dartmouth College Case: “It is a small diocese, true, Sirs…but there are those that love it.”
jamesw,
Your points c. and i. (and of course j.) are right on from our parish experience. And it is Fear, pure Fear, that drives it.
I generally agree with JamesW’s (and Sarah’s) analysis. This account seems to identify a symbolic gesture, precatory in nature that has no hope of bearing fruit. And, as has been pointed out, there is a certain etiquette to leaving a church that very few on either side of this divide seem to appreciate.
I have maintained a pledge commitment in a church that I left on the basis that the parish had counted on the money and they were people I liked, in a parish where my children were baptised. However, I was under no real obligation to do so and there is no device to enforce it. People who leave should not try to walk away with stuff. People who stay should not beggar those who leave for continued contributions. It’s simple enough. Here I think there is a considerable element of posturing going on.
This is beyond silly. But when has that ever affected the actions of TEC leadership? 🙂