The Petaluma congregation that split from the Episcopal Church over the issue of homosexuality, taking a landmark downtown church with it, has rejected an offer to return the building, and the two sides appear headed to court, a local vestry member said Monday.
The impasse between St. John’s Anglican Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California grew from the national schism that began with the ordination of a gay bishop in New Hampshire in 2003 and church support for same-sex unions.
Following the lead of several dozen congregations nationwide, St. John’s 240 members voted in 2006 to cut ties with the national organization, renaming itself an Anglican church while holding on to the 117-year-old complex.
McAulay said,
“The Rev. Roderick McAulay, rector of St. Stephens Episcopal Church in Sebastopol and one of a group of Sonoma County Episcopal priests who have affirmed acceptance of gays, said Miller has cultivated a fundamentalist perspective that is out of character with either the Episcopal or Anglican churches.”
McAulay must live in a fantasy world.
For those in the know, much of the replacement TEC congregation are recycled diocesan hacks from local TEC churches, and especially from the arch-liberal Incarnation in Santa Rosa.
The Diocese of Northern California is tottering on the edge of financial solvency, and so it would be very interesting to see if the diocese actually starts litigation here prior to the Cal. Supremes issuing their review of the St. James, Newport Beach decision.
As an ELCA pastor, I am highly offended by McAulay’s comments. Without even debating the substance of his words, that he would say these things to a reporter and support their public distribution in the media shows an extraordinary lack of concern for the ministry of others. As an ecumenical partner who has been watching for the last several years, TEC’s willingness to sue priests and congregations and now label others as fundamentalists in the local paper is a gross misuse of the public office of ministry. These antics harm ALL of us who seek to reach our communities with the Good News of Jesus Christ.
If anyone from that mess is reading this, “STOP IT!” Stop playing out your conflict in the public square. You are bringing harm to more than your own denomination. You are bringing harm to the entire Body of Christ. At this point I am close to being ashamed to call TEC a partner in ministry.
Dr. Brian Hughes
StJohnMD.org
#1. He is living in a fantasy world. It’s called “The Episcopal Church”.
A couple of points.
1. McAulay’s comments are a bit extreme, but so are the views and rhetoric of Fr. Miller. The latter can be the kind of bilious conservative who gives the rest of us reasserters a bad name. The diocese bent over backwards to try to accommodate him and St. John’s in their concerns, always to a bad faith response of accusation and recrimination. Diocese: “Let’s work something out, as Christians”. Miller: “We don’t negotiate with heretics!”. I may lose my reasserter card for saying this, but I think the diocese has been more than reasonable, and that Miller and his folks are being unreasonable.
2. I’m not sure of the exact figure, but I’m told that St. John’s owed a few hundred thousand dollars to the diocese in assessment. There had been talk afoot of an offer to include payment of that debt as part of the settlement. But I guess on principle St. John’s would rather spend a million dollars on lawyers than to even negotiate such things.
3. jamesw is right, it does seem that the continuing Episcopal congregation is largely carpetbaggers from the local area. Many of these are folks who genuinely want to support the remnant loyalists. But it inflates the number to make the congregation sound healthier than it is. He is also right that the diocesan budget is something like $100,000 in the red.
3. Beisner has not made the decision to sue. Not necessarily because he’s awaiting the CA Supreme Court decision, but because he honestly regards it as a scandal when Christians take their disputes to court. I do suspect 815 will lean hard on him to do it anyway. He really doesn’t want to sue them, or anyone. Miller’s intransigence, and 815’s bullying may force him into it.
I usually don’t correct myself on spelling gaffes and such, but I guess we’ll call my last point 4, or perhaps 3B.
Alta Californian…I think you are allowing too much secondary information–including information distorted by the press to determine your opinion of Fr. Miller and St. John’s Anglican.
The Diocese violated a mutual understanding of confidentiality by trying this case in the press with distorted information. Perhaps if and when St. John’s decides to release the actual documents of what was offered and St. John’s response, it will clarify some of the distortion.
Reply to #5.
Should we negotiate with heretics?
AnglicanFirst: It might be that St. John’s Petaluma and David Miller are just confident in their legal case.
I would add, in Miller’s defence, that 2 years ago at the diocesan convention, diocesan golden-boy and liberal extremist Matthew Lawrence from Incarnation, Santa Rosa (whose parishioners heavily stock the “new” St. John’s, Petaluma) launched a brutal public verbal attack on Miller, for which Lawrence was forced to issue an apology. Also, when St. John’s voted to disaffiliate with TEC a year ago, Matthew Lawrence and some other local liberal TEC clergy bought a newspaper ad in which they launched several bitter, inaccurate swipes against Miller. There seems to be a culture in this diocese where conservatives can be attacked and vilified publicly by the liberals.
So I can understand why Miller might not be so eager to buy into a settlement.
That being said, I would tend to agree with you AnglicanFirst that, although the Diocese of Northern California has pretty much drunk the Kool-Aid, I don’t think it is yet hostile enough to justify leaving yet. I personally think that Barry Beisner (who is really a very nice guy) will be the last bishop of this diocese, overseeing its financial collapse and seeing it fold into the Diocese of California.
it would be very interesting to see if the diocese actually starts litigation here prior to the Cal. Supremes issuing their review of the St. James, Newport Beach decision
Why would anyone start litigation (or move it along if laches is a concern) when there will be a definitive decision in a year? Any reasonable litigation strategy would be to conserve costs and await that decision. I would think even most docket-obsessed courts would allow a go-slow approach in these circimstances.
LTN, I would be interested in seeing documentation on what the actual negotiations were. This very well may be a distorted article. And my information on the assessment deal is admittedly second-hand. But my general opinions are based on knowing Fr. Miller personally. My opinions are based on knowing Bishop Beisner, Fr. Rod, Fr. Norm, Canon Jim, members of St. John’s Anglican and St. John’s Episcopal, and members of the standing committee and diocesan council, personally. Despite the hostile environment created by the partisan warfare with Incarnation, Miller did not even wait for Beisner to take over, announcing their secession in practically the last week of Bp. Lamb’s tenure. Even most reasserters in this diocese think him a judgmental prig.
AnglicanFirst, I’ll leave that up to you. I for one think that good faith negotiations, like that which took place in El Paso (and were taking place in Virginia before 815 rode in with guns blazing), are the best for all concerned.
Alta, you have a classsic double standard. You ask documentation from LTN, but you readily apply ad hominem attacks such as “extreme”, “bilious”, and “judgmental prig” without the slightest support. I am a lifelong Episcopalian, born and raised in the this Diocese (the only one on the prior episcopal search committee). I have held a variety of offices, including President of the Diocesan board of directors, and most recently was senior warden of a neighboring parish. All of this solely for the purpose of noting that I know a little about this situation. And I don’t hide behind an alias.
1. Document anything about Fr. Miller that shows he is outside classical, BCP Anglicanism. You can’t (and you didn’t even try).
2. They left under Bp. Lamb precisely because it was his actions in refusing any reasonable DEPO/APO that led to the breakdown. Fr. Miller and SJP felt it would be unfair to tarnish Bp. Beisner by leaving later. You may recall that Bp. Lamb’s “good faith” had been also demonstrated by his signing on to the charges against bp. Schofield that were so transparently false that they were quickly dismissed even by 815’s committee.
3. As to “intransigence”, two thoughts. First, why should they not stand firm when CA law was clear that they owned the property? (That a later, contrary SoCal appellate decision has been accepted by the CA Supreme Court does not bode well for reappraisers.) Second, the focus on the rights of a departing congregation overlooks an important, related question. What about the rights of the many departing reasserters who have been forced out of congregations they have built and supported? Reasserters who leave are not doing so because they sought change and were rebuffed; they have had their churches stolen from them and changed into something unrecognizable to any real Anglican. Where are the “good faith negotiations” for them?
4. In all my years in this diocese I have never heard anyone opine or even hint as to your judgment of Fr. Miller. In fact the only attack I ever heard was at convention, from the emotional, loose cannon rector of Incarnation, who was forced to apologize publicly to Fr. Miller.
I don’t mean to come down too hard on you, but unsubstantiated, second-hand, ad hominem attacks by anonymous accusers are far more typical of reappraisers than self-proclaimed reasserters. And they are certainly not helpful to elucidating the point under discussion.
Anonymity can be a mixed blessing. On the one hand it removes some of our constraints and enables us to speak more boldly what we believe to be right, since we are not under the threat of retaliation from those in power over us. On the other hand it undermines our credibility and can lead to excess, ruthlessness, and a complete lack of propriety in conversation. I have chosen to live with this ambiguity and tension. I have reappraisers in power over me who would be threatened by the fact that I even read T19 much less comment on it. So no, I don’t use my own name, as many here do not. That may be cowardice, it may be prudence, I don’t know. It is a choice, one that means I am not so free to comment on those things which I know (really, since I cannot substantiate my claims, it becomes impossible to discuss matters of familiarity). You may be safe to speak freely but I am not. You can only trust me on that, or not. Nevertheless I will state the following in response to your points.
1. I didn’t say Miller is outside classical Anglicanism, so I don’t see why I would document it. You put words in my mouth. Consider it a possibility that I may agree with Miller in substance but not in style.
2. I find your argument that they didn’t want to “tarnish” Beisner with the scandal incredibly curious, and curiously incredible. They knew full well Beisner would become involved later. No, I think they did it as a parting shot to Jerry Lamb, and to act while the diocesan office was in transition. It was a shrewd tactical decision, not a kind consideration for our new bishop. I may be wrong, but that’s how I see it. Now maybe Lamb deserved a parting shot. It has become evident he was shifting our diocese to the left all the while claiming moderation and talking sweet cream to the reasserters.
3. As to who built and supported a congregation, you make an excellent point. But if you ask Fr. Cram and others they might say St. John’s shift to the hard right could be considered a recent phenomenon. But you’re right, if the Supreme Court comes down on their side, why not wait?
4. I did not request documentation from LTN, I merely expressed an interest in seeing it. I did not doubt LTN’s claim, even though LTN is also anonymous (though I have a theory). It would be difficult to provide “documentation” of my own claim, since I have not carried a tape recorder when I have heard many clergy and laity in Northern California, who would not be considered reappraisers by any means, excoriate Miller and St. John’s for what they consider unreasonable behavior. You may never have heard such, but I have. Hearsay, I suppose, but there it is. We must travel in different circles.
“Judgmental prig” was harsh, and I’m sorry for that. But the (unsubstantiated) fact (provided by an anonymous blaggart in Northern California, namely me) is that this is how many here see him and this situation. You have only my word on that sir, and you needn’t take it, but I still give it.
Alta Californian…I can certainly understand your perceptions from the outside, however, the internal details may give you a different perspective of David Miller and SJAC’s actions. Perhaps one day soon, we will be able to share the details. As for right now, we are trying to honor the confidentiality process with the Diocese of Northern California.
By the way, I typically use my initials but it isn’t intended to be anonymous. I have been the general counsel for St. John’s Anglican Church, in Petaluama since 2004. I oversee and manage the legal issues as well as our litigation team–Penner, Bradley & Buettner (counsel in the St. Luke’s Methodist case). Hope this helps to identify me. Peace to you.
http://www.ltnlaw.com
Thanks, Dr. Nguyen. I will reserve further judgment then. We’ve not heard a peep about this in the diocese, so in a sense DNC is honoring the confidentiality. I do wonder who first took the story to the Press Democrat. It looks to my eyes like Mr. Mills and the continuing Episcopal congregation, though Fr. McAulay and Fr. Richardson did comment. But you may have more information on that than I, and have reason to think it was the Diocese.
I would certainly like to think better of Miller and St. John’s. Perhaps when all is revealed, I shall.
(an earlier reply tp #13 disappeared – this is a short version)
#1 – “extreme” implies outside clasical Anglicanism.
#2- we appear to agree that the timing was intended to reflect on Lamb.
#3 What shift. Fr. Miller was a healing and moderating influence on a troubled congregation. Standing firm while TEC moves hard left may appear to TEC as moving hard right.
I appreciate and support your need for anonymity but urge that anonymous criticism requires a higher standard of documentation
No. 12 – Certainly most of the ad hominem and realllly vicious stuff on T19 is posted by reasserters who use aliases.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. Off topic comment removed. [/i]