It is our contention that reasonable and godly Christian people, through deliberation, and perhaps through a mediation process, can arrive at reasonable solutions that are equitable to all parties, such as possibly leasing, or even selling the property to the congregation that is becoming a part of a different Anglican jurisdiction. Such financial payments, whether through paying on a lease or a mortgage, could at least partly make up for the lost income incurred by the diocese in the departure of most or many in the congregations.
Certainly such a process has to be preferable to what is happening now. What is the merit in TEC and its dioceses, by litigation, driving congregations completely off the properties in which they have at least some interest, requiring them to purchase other properties, and to build anew, with TEC, as it did in 2006, according to the treasurer, spending $900,000 more than was budgeted for such litigation? This does not take into account the resources that the dioceses are expending for this litigation ”” funds that were given by faithful church members for the doing of the business of the church, the winning of more people to Christ, and the planting of new churches.
How does it further the kingdom of God to relegate the smaller remnant congregations that are left after the majority are gone and have vacated the church to those all but empty church buildings? These churches were built for much larger congregations, and the remnant will struggle to maintain them without the ongoing support of their dioceses. And how does it further the kingdom for the dioceses, even if they win all of their litigation, to gain back all but empty church buildings for them to maintain, for the new, smaller congregations? They might even be faced in the future with a financial requirement that they sell the property to someone else.
And who is to blame? One side says it is the other side that has departed from some of the historic teachings of the apostolic Church and the authority of holy scripture. The other side declares that it is those who are walking out of TEC who are to blame. To argue this way is like two young boys arguing after a fight over who started it.
[i]They might even be faced in the future with a financial requirement that they sell the property to someone else.[/i]
If 815 were honest, they would respond, “That’s not a bug; that’s a feature.”
Their words ring out loud like a klaxon:
And then there are cases like The Falls Church and Truro, which preceded the Diocese of Virginia and own title to their property. How can you “steal” something you already own?
It really reminds you of bees. The first born Queen immedialy kills off the potential rivals which are still in their cells. If any are born then it’s a fight to the death.
Was there ever any response from 815 to either of the requests from these good bishops about where the money is coming from to pursue this expensive litigation, or were they just stonewalled, along with the 5700 people who signed the AAC petition that asked for accountability? Bp. Benitez quotes an amount of $900,000 over budget, but how did they pay it? I would bet that the real amount is much more than $900,000.
I have a concern for this idea that there is no sin involved. Doesn’t Jesus say to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7) and doesn’t Paul warn against those from among us who rise and distort the teaching of the Gospel (Acts 20)? What these verses do say is to put their teaching to the test of truth and speak out against them. I think we’re beginning to “waffle” about truth.
This issue is ALL about the authority of Scripture. My concern is that it has become an issue of real estate or squatters rights.
But then I’m not opinionated.
I sure wish columns like this would be printed in the NYTimes and USA Today. that is the way to turn up the heat on TEC. Rest assured they have a full court media press 24/7. I am proud of my former Bishop of Texas.
In our own case at Grace Church & St. Stephen’s in Colorado Springs (see article posted below) the charges of conspiracy to defraud the diocese of the church property are themselves something of a ruse in that it is the diocesan bishop who has conspired with TEC leadership to steal from the church its historic faith and practice, and defraud the people by teaching them a false gospel.
Our actions are merely to protect the church from foreign invasion so that it may continue doing what it was intended to do by those whose labors established it, as well as to fulfill what our own ordination vows commit us to do–protect the church from all false teachers.
Some way needs to be found for those parishes that desire to remain faithful to Traditional Anglicanism (not 20 or 30 year old anglicanism) and can no longer live within TECUSA. We need to recognize that contributions have been made by both parties and that a settlement that honors those contributions needs to happen. Resorting to litigation lessens the witness of both sides and all that happens is that both sides get to feel righteous and the wealth of the Episcopal Church, USA is turned over to trial lawyers.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote][i] The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado moved Friday to sue individual parishioners who support the breakaway congregation at Grace Church and St. Stephen’s Parish in Colorado Springs … [/i] (and) [/blockquote]
[blockquote][i] What is the merit in TEC and its dioceses, by litigation, driving congregations completely off the properties in which they have at least some interest, requiring them to purchase other properties, and to build anew, with TEC, as it did in 2006, according to the treasurer, spending $900,000 more than was budgeted for such litigation? This does not take into account the resources that the dioceses are expending for this litigation [/i][/blockquote]
It has become quite obvious that the Episcopal Church is far, far more interested in winning lawsuits than in winning souls. There’s no better illustration of the heart of the problem: Dysfunctional Baby Boomers, desperate to impose their elitist view of the world before they lose their grasp on power.
#3, Br. Michael, comes close, I think. It’s not necessarily about retaining the property for use as a parish, it’s about denying it to a potential rival. My analogy is an army burning crops and slaughtering livestock to deny their use to the enemy.
[i] Let’s not swerve the topic toward one individual parish, please. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Dream on, friends.
Bishops Wantland and Benitez are two of the most conservative bishops still in TEC, and retired at that. Conservatives have always been ready to seek a settlement. Eleven years ago, John Howe told me he would accept a negotiated settlement “in a minute.â€
This option is not in the Angry Left’s playbook. The Virginia Protocol is the closest anyone came to a major settlement, and we may discover the Diocese had good reason to compromise. But even that attempt came a cropper.
It’s not going to happen, even if RW said, “Stop the litigation or you’re out!â€
I am reminded of the fable of the dog in the manger, and of the joke I first heard when I moved to North Carolina from Maryland 33 years ago: An Episcopalian arrived in heaven and saw off in a corner a high brick wall. When he inquired about it he was told, “Oh, that’s for the Baptists. They don’t think there is anyone else up here.”
I used to think that it was simply silly for the Episcopal Church to cling to the one bishop in a city Nicene rule, but I am coming to see that this notion is actually dangerous.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
#12 I’d concur. In one sense I do not think this is even about buildings rather attempting to extract the highest possible cost on those desiring to leave as a measure to maintain control.
I agree with Stephen Noll. Not gonna happen.
The reason is actually not for the “property” but because the Episcopal church rightly recognizes that a part of its marketing “brand” are the actual historic properties — and they cannot afford a competitor actually having their brand, particularly when they cannot afford real competition at all.
[By real competition, I mean competition that offers a superior product, is well-positioned in the marketplace, and has a delivery channel capable of delivering the product to an interested target market.]
Now that there is growing such a competitor, the very last thing the Episcopal church needs is a part of its image being attached to another competitive entity.
The leaders at the national level of the Episcopal church are literally fighting for their corporation’s life, and for this reason — regardless of the dollar value of the property — will never stop coming for those brand images.
For all my sympathy with the “conservatives” (were I still an Episcopalian I certainly would be a “reasserter”), I have to say that the reappraisers are right on this aspect of the Current Unpleasantness.
The Episcopal Church is not, and never has been, a congregationalist body. The diocese, and not the parish, is the fundamental organizational unit of the denomination. Parishes exist as extensions of the diocese into a particular area, not as corporations in their own rite. Dioceses are not “voluntary associations” of like-minded parishes. This is simply what it means to have an episcopal polity, going back to St Ignatius of Antioch in the 2d century (“Let nothing pertaining to the Church be done apart from the bishop”).
So when faithful Episcopalians have contributed to acquire and improve property for a parish, they have in reality been contributing to their diocese in order for the diocese and its bishop to carry out their mission — because the parish, as an ecclesial entity, is entirely dependent on the diocese and the bishop.
The fact that, in the 21st century, a bishop has apostatized (or continued in communion with bishops and dioceses which have apostatized, which amounts to the same thing) does not change that reality of Church organization. It only means that those faithful 18th-, 19th-, and 20th-century Christians who thought they were contributing to a diocese that would continue to believe, teach, and confess the orthodox Christian faith have bet on the wrong horse. It’s unfortunate, but you don’t get your wager back.
Sure, it would be nicer if the heterodox who are in charge of ECUSA would negotiate a settlement with the orthodox who are leaving. But why should anyone expect them to do so?
We have this treasure in earthen vessels; take the treasure, but leave the vessels.
Sarah nailed it. TEC cannot compete for traditonal Christians and non traditonal Christians only live in urban enclaves or high end resorts in sufficient numbers to support a congregation. If a true competitor arises for the Anglican brand in America it will suck up all the church going Episcopalian/Anglican families over time in middle America. Hard to keep a church going with those who by definition do not reproduce and those who according to +KJS choose not to do so. TEC would also be disadvantaged in a batte for disgruntled/divorded Catholics as it more rapidly spins away from traditional Christianity in the years to come. This is why +KJS was so unpleasant regarding the El Paso Cathedral.
Wonder how long it will take before something turns off the TEC sue money flow?
Again, to paraphrase Karl Marx,
[blockquote]The American Established Church will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its income. [/blockquote]
You know, even Pharaoh let the children of Israel take their “flocks and herds” (Ex. 12:32), and “articles of silver and gold and for clothing” (v. 35) from the Egyptians.
But the Episcopal Church has its treasure on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
Bart Hall [#9] writes: “. . . the Episcopal Church is far, far more interested in winning lawsuits than in winning souls.”
The tu quoque response might be, “yeah, and you guys are interested only in throwing verbal rocks at the people you disagree with.”
Ben Benitez (my former bishop also) is right to insist that we refocus on bringing people to God, instead of quarreling about who’s right and who’s wrong. As I’ve argued elsewhere, property ought to go where it can best be used for that purpose.
I do not think most of the orthodox are only interested in throwing rocks – I think most are interested in secession. I hope the thinking left like DC will be influenced by articles such as this and demand an honorable peace from their leadership.
No. 16 said, “Parishes exist as extensions of the diocese into a particular area, not as corporations in their own rite.”
I’m sorry, but this just isn’t true. Many, many, many Episcopal dioceses not only permit, but encourage and require, parishes to incorporate as separate corporations “in their own right,” buy their own property, bear all the cost of its maintenance, etc., etc., etc. They do so to avoid the burdens (e.g. upkeep and repair, liability if someone falls on the steps, and so forth). That is fine. But as an historic court decision once said, “[Parishes are encouraged to incorporate] for administrative convenience, it is said. But the same freedom useful for administrative convenience carries the risk that congregations which disaffiliate will take their property with them.”
Chris Jones, check out http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt pages 176-182
for a little insight into what exactly the canon means about boundaries and teaching.
In fact you should read all of the commentary on Canon II and Canon IV. Very enlightening and not simplistically as asserted by ECUSA/TEC.
CANON IV.
CONCERNING Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid.
Think of the need for inclusivity in assessing canons regarding the divine right of bishops once consecrated. Including the Councils.
Ouroboros,
I am sure you are right. As I should perhaps have made clear, I was speaking not in terms of legal and property rights, but in terms of ecclesiastical polity (that’s why I said the parish, as an ecclesial entity, is entirely dependent on the diocese). Many departing parishes may have an excellent case in law for keeping their property (I hope that they do). I do know that when I was an Episcopalian (long ago, way before the Dennis canon), all Church property was vested in the diocese. Maybe our diocese was unusual in that respect.
My point was that you cannot go on for several centuries as an “episcopal” Church and then cry foul when your bishop asserts his “episcopal” rights.
dwstroudmd,
I’m familiar with the ecumenical canons, and with the history of the Arian and Eunomian controversies. But I don’t see the relevance of the discussion you linked to with what I wrote. I was not speaking of the “boundary crossing” issue at all, but only of the ecclesiastical relationship between the diocese and the parish.
For the record, I believe that ECUSA, because it is heterodox, has no standing to raise the “boundary crossing” issue.
#13 – Tom, I do not see how a church could operate with more than one bishop to a jurisdiction. If the bishops disagreed, whom would the parishes follow? It seems to me that one bishop per jurisdiction is essential to the order and discipline of the church. Unfortunately, the Anglican Communion, in dealing with TEC’s challenge, is undermining this ancient tradition and its own order and structure. It would be sad if the Communion weakened rather than strengthened itself in response to “the late unpleasantness.”
#20, It’s not throwing verbal rocks (how ironic that my first two degrees are in geology …), but rather a simple statement based on the evidence. Show me some evidence, any evidence, that ECUSA are trying to win souls. The evidence of their aggressive litigation is everywhere around us, and their ‘evangelism’ seems at best to consist of lukewarm attempts to shift existing fish from one aquarium to the other.
The essence of the matter is this. In their deeply cogent writings, demographers Strauss & Howe (‘Generations’ in 1991 and ‘Fourth Turning’ in 1997) have pointed out that the core characteristic of Baby Boomers … their overwhelming desire … is for [i][b]”dead enemies”[/i][/b]. For the militant revisionists within the Episcopal Church — at all levels — those of us who would wish it to remain a biblically-based faith are the enemies. And they wish to crush us beyond recognition.
Within ECUSA, or as part of an alternative, we are simply too threatening to their perspective, to their polity, and totheir power.
Lawsuits, presentments, canonical manoeuvring, misleading statements, obfuscation, cries of “homophobia,” and stunningly imperialistic condescension towards our African brothers and sisters … are merely tools in their desperate drive to destruction.
Strauss & Howe understand completely their motivation.
The bishops are mixing issues into one big jumble:
1. Law vs. Equity: In law the Diocese may be entitled to the property because consideration was given for thweir membership in a hierarchical church. Equity deals with the overall ‘fairness’ of who did what. Under the law, if TEC owns the property then it is indeed a form of robbery.
2. The Pathology of ++Katharine: She will not stop – right or wrong. To write these letters is pointless because she is only interested in preserving the property rights.
ROTFL!!!
Okay, Brian, I hope you reread your point one a dozen or so time to see the internal contradiction. Tragically, the law has not decided it’s robbery (we do have statutes about that you know) also you admit something huge here, that equity would give justice.
The best was the confession in point 2, she is only interested in preserving the property rights. — okay maye Sarah and I are wrong, she care for only one thing, people be damned, but she consumed like Daffy Duck … “mine, mine, mine.”
The first sentence of point two, I fully agree.
KAR
Perhaps you should re-read my point one a dozen times 😉 Law is not Equity and neither guarantee any form of justice (at least in the ethical sense). The bishops are trying to say that robbery (a term used in Law) is not an appropriate term. However, robbery is taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear. This is exactly what the reappraisers are saying that departing parishes who keep their property are doing. The term applies.
Then the bishops turn to an argument in Equity regarding the value that parishioners put into the property. This is an entirely different argument and should be distinguished from their robbery argument.
As for point two, you are correct that she does not care about the people – on either side. She is a process person and is only concerned with the outcome. To appeal to her on an emotional level is a waste of time. This is why she makes a good scientist, but a terrible leader.
Chris Jones, my point was not the boundary issues per se but the intervention of the council in matters of a province and diocese. The same council that established the routine for boundaries also acted to correct error by deposing false bishop and all ordained by that bishop and REGULARIZING the area and ministry in question. The point being that an appeal to canon carries a much wider reality than merely boundary issues.
#30 — Is that a tear drop I see falling from behind Minerva’s blindfold?
Well, we certainly have huge differences in legal theory, that is for sure. Per law v. ethics — I guess it’s a crap shoot before each state if a judge seeks to equity or not. In terms of robbery, I seriously doubt you’ll find an civil authority to take you up on your definition, this is a property dispute not one of theft in the strictest sense of the words, robbery would mean one side would never had access, but both side did at one time but there is a parting, that is a disputed title, but not robbery.
Brian,
Robbery is not an appropriate term under any context – from Blacks Law Dictionary Robbry – “Felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” The changing of locks on a door and continued occupancy by the current and prior occupant of a building cannot be robbery because it involves real property and no force or fear was used (an example of Robbery would be if Bishop Minns went to Bishop Lee’s Cathedral in Virginia and stole his Bishop’s hat from his head whilst brandishing the alcolyte’s big cross as a weopon). At most what the CANA churches could be accused of is adverse possession and trespass – and maybe conversion of the prayer books. The property rights between the Parish who paid for and maintained the church vs. the national church which claims it by a rule change in 1979 are very complex. They involve state by state property laws and First Amendment considerations. In fact in Virginia and maybe California the law seems to favor the secessionists. The situation re TEC is going to be one of first impression in many jursidictions – all of the Churches in jurisdictions which have not recently ruled have in my humble opinion a good faith belief/reason to have their rights to the buildings ajudicated in a court of law. For TEC partisans to keep calling it stealing is hyperbole at best and libel/slander at worst.
what a very sad state of affairs for a religious leader (from a supporter of the institution) to be described as a great scientist but terrible leader. The sadder part is that emotional appeals are wasted on her. TEC is one sick puppy. Surely a well funded PR campaign could finish off an institution which is obvioulsy rotten to the core.
No. 27 – I belong to a partly reappraising parish that does its damndest to “win souls”. You may disagree with reappraisers on certain issues, but please don’t make such silly statements that ECUSA is not interested in winning souls.
When you can demonstrate — with evidence of [i]adult[/i] baptisms — that ECUSA is winning new souls for Christ, I’ll reconsider. As it is, there aren’t even enough infant baptisms to offset current die-off.
It’s biologically moribund, and it’s theologically moribund. Compare that to our local (non-Anglican denomination) Church of the Resurrection, that has grown in 15 years from about 100 ASA to over 15,000 ASA, a great many of them [i]new[/i] believers.
Not only is ECUSA not in the same league, it isn’t even playing the same game, despite occasional putative efforts to the contrary.
Brian, if KJS was a “good scientist,” why is she now not still working as a scientist? She obviously prefers to deal with material things……things which she can see, and not with things ethereal or spiritual…….which she cannot see, such as religion. She comes across……to me…….at least……as a fish out of water. She is out of her element.
no. 36 – Bart – Where is Church of the Resurrection? What about “winning” the souls of those who, like most, were baptized as infants, but are now unchurched? What is the theology of Baptism of Church of the Resurrection? Thx.