From Stand Firm:
The main disconnect for me in the Archbishop’s letter is this: On the one hand, in reference to TEC’s response to the Windsor Report and the Lambeth Resolutions, he acknowledges that “it is extremely unlikely that further meetings will produce any more substantial consensus than that which is now before us.” I believe he is correct. TEC is not going to turn back from its present course. It is not going to abide by the consensus of the Anglican Communion on matters of sexuality.
But on the other hand, he then goes on to call for “professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute” in the hope of somehow gaining “a better level of mutual understanding.” This hope is in vain. TEC does not negotiate with those with whom they are in dispute; they litigate. Numerous meetings have produced no acceptable solution for the minority to remain with integrity within TEC.
The best assistance that the Archbishop can offer to address the situation in TEC is to host a mediation that seeks a negotiated settlement for separation, without rancor or litigation.
+Iker is, of course, perfectly correct. TEC is cynically acting on the axiom of “forgiveness is easier to get than permission” and rightly views these [i]ad hoc[/i] talk shops with contempt. It has been asked to repent and return to the fold, and its has responded with repeated injury.
I agree with Bp. Iker’s way of putting it. I believe, however, that the Archbishop’s proposal need not preclude Bp. Iker’s hopes. That is, it is possible that Abp. Williams’ proposal does already or can be shaped so as to do what Bp. Iker rightly says must be done, in contrast to past attempts at “conversation”.
On another thread a commenter (I’ve forgotten who) helps with Bishop Iker’s “disconnect” about +Rowan calling meetings:
Meetings about the mind of the communion and the mind of TEC are completed, as no additional meetings on this subject is likely to produce furthe movement. Now that these “minds” are well-defined, +Rowan wants to convene meetings to decide what to do about it, to wit, what will be the nature of the mutual relationships between these divided minds, if there is to be any relationship at all?
In other words, even though TEC has rejected the mind of the AC, +Rowan is unwilling to terminate relationship.
The return of the People’s Front for Judea.
ABC, +Bp Iker, whoever can opine all they want about the need to negotiate etc, and they are correct and sincere in their advice. The difficulty is that TEC has shown no interest, willingness, encouragement at all to negotiate anything under any circumstances.
DES asked for the law suits to stop, and the request is not even addressed, which is another way of TEC saying not only no, but hell no.
New law suits are initiated against Christ Church, Savannah, and just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, a lawsuit is being prepared against DSJ.
Schori has said clearly that she would rather a TEC parish become a bar or be put to any use rather than be allowed to join another Anglican Parish. Read Jake’s place to get an earful of accusations of reasserters stealing the silver, the property, reasserters just want power and money etc. No one dares opine that the reasserters be left to go in peace with the property to pursue the work of the Lord as they best see fit.
Any parish or Diocese departure from TEC is seen as a repudiation of their new theology, and as such must be crushed.
For any negotiation to be successful, both sides have got to see benefit to themselves in the negotiated agreement. TEC sees any attempt to negotiate a property dispute as a tacit admission that they might be “wrong” in their new theology, and this can never, never, never be allowed.
Strap on your seat belts, and hold on to your pews, it is going to be a long protracted legal battle for the property in the US.
TEC does not negotiate with those with whom they are in dispute; they litigate.
I have a deal for you, Bishop. Renounce your membership in TEC. Don’t try to steal your former Diocese. Don’t steal property. Then TEC won’t sue.
It’s really is a simple formula: If you show integrity, no litigation. If you insist on a power grab to glorify yourself, litigation.
There you go again, Brian. It is not stealing to keep what already belongs to you, that you have bought and paid for. It is also not stealing for the people who have the most at stake, the faithful members of the congregation, or the diocese, to vote to disassociate from TEC, and join another province within the Anglican Community. It is not as if they are leaving to become wiccans or zoroastrians, they are still Anclican.
It is stealing to unilaterally declare through the Dennis Canon that parish property belongs to TEC, when the parish has never agreed to the terms of the trust, either before the establishment of the Dennis Canon or afterwards. And I know, the Dennis Canon was passed by the democratic polity of GC. By that argument if GC votes that it owns your house, you better be prepared to move out.
Unarguably, TEC has changed the theology, and states that God is doing a new thing, seeing with new eyes and the rest. It does not hurt the mission of the overall Anglican Church to allow those who hold a more traditional view to continue to worship as they always have under the pastoral care of a different Province.
It tremendously hurts the overall mission of the Anglican Church to drive faithful Episcopalians away through the imposition of a new theology, and to further drive faithful Episcopalians away through litigation that mostly serves to enrich the lawyers, no matter how it comes out.
That’s the spirit, Brian! TEC will let you set up your parishes, it’ll let you build your buildings, it’ll let you maintain them, it’ll let you improve and expand them. Heck, this broad-minded bunch will even let you send them millions of dollars while you’re doing all of this building, maintaining and expanding. Then it will let you turn the deed over to them in exchange for….ummm….well, we’ll get back to you on that. We can’t seem to find the paperwork on that one.
And finally it’ll even let you walk out, naked and penniless, without filing a lawsuit against you.
And you’ll know they are TECcies by their love…
Brian…it really is that simple. For those who think that “it is what belongs to them” there is no logic, metaphor, illustration on earth that will persuade them that the mine, mine, mine mentality is just magical thinking.
Not exactly sure what your point is. I do know that in the case of Christ Church, Savannah, that the deeds to the property are in the name of the vestry, wardens and rector of Christ Church. The congregation voted by 87% to leave TEC.
After the American Revolution, Christ Church joined with other parishes to form the Diocese of Georgia, which ultimately joined with other Diocese to form ECUSA. Christ Church predates both the Diocese and TEC, and at no point along the way did anyone from Christ Church agree to any kind of Trust, implied or explicit, to hold the property.
The congregation of Christ Church through the years has paid for all of the buildings and assets of the Parish. Money has flowed from the congregation to the Diocese, and then to ECUSA.
It was only as a result of TEC changing the theology that the congregation of Christ Church felt the necessity to withdraw from TEC and join the Province of Uganda. Many meetings, prayer, and discernment went into this decision.
There is no mine, mine, mine nor magical thinking in any of this. Only a desire to remain faithful to the Word of God.
[blockquote]Brian…it really is that simple. For those who think that “it is what belongs to them†there is no logic, metaphor, illustration on earth that will persuade them that the mine, mine, mine mentality is just magical thinking. [/blockquote]
By what mechanism, legal or moral, does TEC lay claim to property it neither paid for nor gained title to? Because it decreed so? What looking glass have we fallen through?
#6 rates right up there with “America, love it or leave it” in terms of logic. Complex legal arguments and precedents are disregarded, as well as all pretense that the issue is corporate, and not +Iker personally.
Bp. Iker isn’t stealing anything. His diocese votes at convention and I would think that their votes are as good as the GC votes, aren’t they? If GC determines everything nationally (isn’t that what we’ve been told?), then surely a diocesan convention can determine their future through their convention. The only stealing I see is any monies paid to 815 in the false hope that they be used for gospel ministry.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
By what mechanism, legal or moral, does TEC lay claim to property it neither paid for nor gained title to? Because it decreed so? What looking glass have we fallen through?
Legal:
1. The Dennis Canon – reaffirmed each year by staying in TEC
2. Accession Clause – reaffirmed each year by staying in TEC
3. Hierachical Church Structure
Moral:
1. Accession to the Constituttion and Canons every year
2. Accession to the Dennis Canon every year
3. Your belief in Scripture – 8″When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. 9Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’ 10But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11’Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ 12I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.
4. Your belief in Scripture – Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
5. Your belief in Scripture –You shall not steal.
Look, money, property and power are all that interests either side. TEC admits it. People like the bishops stealing from TEC claim they have to steal for Jesus. That’s the real difference. As Sarah says, TEC will win some cases, secessionists will win some cases. But we win with integrity while the secessionists do not.
“Look, money, property and power are all that interests either side.”
One heck of a vision, both theological or ecclesial. Which leads to:
“But we win with integrity while the secessionists do not.”
With [i]integrity[/i] like that, who needs disingenuousness?
Yes, we have fallen through the looking glass, with a unilateral decree by TEC (which, conveniently, cannot now seem to find the documentation regarding the passage of the Dennis Canon) now deemed sufficient to disposses those who have paid for their property.
Sorry, Brian, but this is just land snatching gussied up in vestments. Without the consent – actual positive consent, not tacit consent by not doing what you and your greedy revisionist pals say [i]cannot[/i] be done (i.e. repeal of the accession clause) – the Dennis Canon is precisely the theft of property you pretend to abhor. Unless it’s your parish, or unless you have a legal trust with the diocese, you didn’t pay for it and neither did TEC. Your “moral” stand holds as much water as your “moral” stand for sodomite clergy and their amoral enablers.
RE: “People like the bishops stealing from TEC claim they have to steal for Jesus.”
Brian lies.
They don’t have to steal. Nor do they believe that they are having to “steal” for Jesus.
RE: “As Sarah says, TEC will win some cases, secessionists will win some cases. But we win with integrity while the secessionists do not.”
Yep, the law will come out on the side of both sides in different instances — and the law will determine the integrity as well, in regards to the property ownership Both sides will follow the property law. As it should be.
Neither side’s ending up with the property under the law of the land will indicate the “integrity” of that side, only the legal ownership of the property. A good thing, too . . .
Naturally, both sides are going to maintain and believe that the other does not behave with integrity on other matters, however, than the property.
Suppose there was a divorce, say a wife that put her surgeon husband through medical school and residency. Now, he has found an arm ornament 20 years his junior. He hires the best lawyer in town and successfully divorces his wife giving her nothing, no house, no alimony, no visitation rights. What do you call the guy? It seems some strong language would be called for (edited for unduly personal criticism-ed.).
[i] This thread is heading south. It’s Advent, folks.
C’mon. [/i]
For all the Charlie Brown orthodox out there who think that Lucy/Rowan Williams won’t pull the football away and that something can come of the “professionally facilitated conversations”, may I remind them of the panel of reference?
There was 39 to zero consensus. With the machinations using the JSC report as a smoke screen, Rowan Williams, managed to take this consensus to a 50-50 muddle (really and 33-33 muddle with 33% reject the sham polling outright). How is not clear that the ABC does not want true discipline? He could have not sent the early invitations. He could withdraw today the invitations from those that participated in the ordination of VGR. Could we stop giving credit where none is due?
“Look, money, property and power are all that interests either side.”
Thank you, Brian for that admission of what motivates you. Motivation for most of us on the reasserter team is to faithfully follow Jesus Christ, without regard to the current secular cultural fashions of society.
The analogies that are being made fail. The only correct analogy is the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. A State (Diocese) can not secede from the US (TEC). The parish is like a city within a State. The relationships work the same. A State can not claim that it is taking all of its land and giving it to England. Same for a city.
#22 – But where are the armed troops to enforce the union? Were it not for the Union Army, the secession would have succeeded. Is another Task Force on its way?
+JLI
When a parish or diocese wishes to leave, and votes to do so by large majorities, the only sensible and Christian approach by TEC would be a negotiated settlement. The approach recommended by Brian is indeed that of Sherman’s march to Atlanta, and it appears that it has been adopted by TEC/KJS/DBB. Is this total warfare mentality the model Jesus would recommend? KJS appears to think so and would rather empty these churches of their Christian worshipers and turn them into saloons than negotiate settlements, at least per her testimony in the VA lawsuits.
A very weak analogy, #22. The relationship between 815 and its diocese is not the same as that of a state and the federal government. Not even close.
Didn’t ++Williams say that the the only administrative power that matters is the diocese (or something to that effect) when he sent a letter to +Howe in Central Florida. What purpose does the “National Church” really serve? Ms Schiori is bishop of nothing. All the national church does is take from the dioceses. Do they establish missions? I know they are interested in the millenium goals as set forth by the UN. In my opinion they are useless parasites, who have become infected with non-Christian thoughts. The entire national “church” should be dissolved and the money put to useful purpose.
Brian, I have known personally guys who have done exactly as I reported in #18. All perfectly legal. They had the blessings of a judge. Yet all saw these guys for what they were. (The comment was edited but let us say that everyone thought they were “jerks” or “not nice.” Hopefully, that is not to harsh for the elves.)
Now have a church official do what the surgeon did but with a departing congregation or diocese. Perhaps it will be “all perfectly legal.” Perhaps not. Nonetheless, it is reprehensible and a PR nightmare…and most un-Christian.
+Iker
The Army are the lawyers, of course 😉 And if it were not for them, these secessions will succeed.
A very weak analogy, #22. The relationship between 815 and its diocese is not the same as that of a state and the federal government. Not even close.
Hmmm Jeffersonian
A stunning argument. I had never looked at it from the “No it’s not!” perspective. Well played sir!
the only … Christian approach by TEC would be a negotiated settlement. Is this total warfare mentality the model Jesus would recommend?
Well, here is the rub. Reasserters don’t believe we are Christian or that we follow Scripture. Shock and Awe!
Rob Roy #s 18 & 27,
What do you call the guy?
The winner.
[i] Brian- you’re overwhelming the thread. Please, lighten up. [/i]
[blockquote]A stunning argument. I had never looked at it from the “No it’s not!†perspective. Well played sir! [/blockquote]
It matched the unsupported assertion.
Let’s put it this way, Brian: The same political body that voted in the accession clause as a condition to acceptance into TEC is the same political body that has now removed said clause and disaffiliated. The agreement was between the diocese and 815 and nothing in the agreement said it couldn’t be undone.
States are precluded from unilateral secession because the agreement that established the consitutional framework of the federal government was between the people of the states, not the states (read: legislatures). Legislatures could not unilaterally overturn this because they were not party to it. Not so the diocese/TEC agreement.
Actually Jeffersonian, I think it should be TEC delendum est since TEC is a neuter noun and not a feminine – although I am not an expert.
It is really hard not to be disgusted. So I will not grace this person further. Returning to the thread. If the ABC, himself, called for a mediated separation tomorrow with himself as the mediator, would the TEC show up to the table?
Re: #35,
“TEC” is an anagram for “Ecclesia Episcopalis.” “Ecclesia” is a feminine noun, and therefore “delenda” is correct. And, as Cato the Elder would have phrased it, “Ceterum censeo TEC esse delendam” cf.:
http://confessingreader.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/dr-tighe-responds-to-misconceptions-about-donatism/#comments
and its comment thread.
“‘TEC’ is an anagram …”
Sorry, I meant “acronym.”
I thought [i]anagram[/i] was wonderfully indicative of some Da Vinci Code analogy. [i]Acronym[/i] just leaves it on the bureaucratic level.
[blockquote]Legal:
1. The Dennis Canon – reaffirmed each year by staying in TEC
2. Accession Clause – reaffirmed each year by staying in TEC
3. Hierarchical Church Structure [/blockquote]
1. The Dennis Canon cedes property in trust to the diocese, not the national church.
2. The ascension clause is obviously not eternally binding, or else dioceses like Liberia could not have left. Thus, dioceses CAN leave the ECUSAn structure and your #2 is a straw man.
3. Per the +ABC, the historical structure is the diocese, not the province.
Since all of your moral points follow your legal points, and since none of your legal points hold water, your entire argument collapses.
MJD_NV wrote, “The Dennis Canon cedes property in trust to the diocese, not the national church.” Actually, the Dennis Canon (if it passed both houses and there is only circumstantial evidence that it did) states that property is held in trust for the diocese AND the national church.
Otherwise you are correct. And the accession clause is necessary for membership of a diocese in the Episcopal Church. Thus, according to precious polity, the valid recourse of the national church is evict the diocese of SJ (which, of course, would break their hearts). But polity is as polity does to these guys.
Perhaps, robroy, but in case law, the civil authorities have always claimed the property to be the property of the legal structures of the dioceses in any case where the canon held sway, not 815. Thus, case law is on the side of the property being owned by the diocese.
I am not disagreeing with you at all, MJD_NV. Even in those states that give all deference to the hierarchal church would see this conflict of the Dennis canon and look to see who holds the deeds and who “inhabits” the property. Thus, for example, the diocese of Central Florida could leave if they did not have the comm-con bishop.
Thus, I see the future lawsuit against diocese of San Joaquin as a big loser. The sad thing is that I don’t they care. They are not spending their own money, rather they are spending the money that my parents and grandparents gave the church. Basically, using that money to persecute Christians.
Whazza “comm-con bishop” for the hoi polloi?
Communion conservative well exemplified by Bp Howe in contrast to +Duncan, +Schofield, and +Iker.
#43 btw, your “sue until the money runs out” analysis is probably correct. Lawyers are like that, and when this situation is discussed in legal terms, that is the sole conclusion logically available.
If Katherine Schori had gotten on a plane to talk with Schofield right after the diocesan convention (though before would have been better), I would credit ecusa with a glimmer of pastoral hope. Instead she writes him a “how do we deal with your pension?” letter, suitable for a insurance company claims clerk.
I leave off the honorifics for these people here, as the situation between DoSJ and ecusa has descended that far. The only advantage to DoSJ today is that Schofield has a clue of what lies ahead. Schori only is doing the Muppet routine at Beers’ behest.