“We’re all Christians in this,” said the Rev. Roger Ames, the rector of St. Luke’s, who is a suffragan bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. “Surely there’s a better way to serve the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings than to do this type of damage to one another.”
Several dioceses have filed lawsuits seeking to get back land and buildings from parishes that have left the U.S. Episcopal Church to join other Anglican groups.
Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns of the Herndon, Va.-based Convocation of Anglicans said that by choosing costly litigation over negotiations, the Cleveland lawsuit is part of “a national effort on the part of the Episcopal Church to basically crush any dissenting voice.”
TEC is indeed engaging in
[blockquote] “a national effort on the part of the Episcopal Church to basically crush any dissenting voice.” [/blockquote]
This is the very last time I’ll ask these questions: “Will any TEC (particularly “Windsor”) bishop(s)[b] now[/b] speak truth to power in a way similar to Bishop Minns? If not, why not?
“We’re all Christians in this,” said the Rev. Roger Ames, the rector of St. Luke’s, who is a suffragan bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. “Surely there’s a better way to serve the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings than to do this type of damage to one another.”
— But it all started with the folks who decided to leave, rather than work within the body — and to make the unilateral decision to take the property with them. Negotiations were broken by those who left, not by those who stayed. Sadly, both sides in this sad story have been all to quick to try to spin the truth in their own favor. Ames’ comments are just another example of that.
Sometimes I think that we might follow the lead of the Christians at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and let the Muslims be the keepers of our keys since we can’t seem to agree with each other.
Athanasius,
I regret to inform you that no TEC bishop will speak truth to power because there are no bishops left in TEC with the courage of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
This really has been very disappointing. I know one of these Camp Allen bishops, a former rector of mine in the upper Midwest, and I have always thought highly of him. How can he think that he can evade notice and that he can protect his people in the current environment? I thought he would do something, but in my opinion it’s either entirely too late or very soon will be.
It has become glaringly apparent…….to me, at least, and maybe to others……..that drastic action is needed to publicly expose TEC’s actions though the news media. The public needs to be told that TEC’s leaders intend to crush all opposition! We certainly have more than enough evidence of that!
Bill, I appreciate the verve in your response to Athanasios! But I would humbly submit that there are still several who have not bowed the knee to Baal. The realist in me believes that they will be crushed under the machinery, but they have not acquiesced.
I’m resident in the Diocese of Ohio, though serving elsewhere. St. Luke’s was one of the first Episcopal Church’s I attended. I remember when they moved into their new building and after a time I asked one of the assisting priests when they were going to build the formal worship space (they worshiped in the gymnasium). He said they were waiting to see if they continued to want to be a part of TEC or not – if not, they didn’t want to spend the money to build a new worship space when they would have to give it up if they decided to leave TEC. This conversation occurred probably 8 or 9 years ago, years before 2003’s events. They understood what the canons required and the implication of a congregational decision to leave TEC. They knew that this is not a “congregational” Church, but an “episcopal” one.
So, what’s changed? Why over the last few years did their understanding of the canonical requirements change? Why now do they insist they have a right to keep property that canonically belongs to the diocese? Why is it a scandal for the diocese, which has no enforcement ability in this kind of situation, to resort to the courts for relief when groups will not abide by the canons? (Of course, the inability of we former/Episcopalians to act civilly these days and to abide by any sense of the Rule of Law is a scandal in itself!)
It is disingenuous of those breaking away saying such things as, “Surely there’s a better way to serve the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings than to do this type of damage to one another.” Of course there is, but there has to be a willingness to compromise, and none are willing. Ames isn’t. The Rule-of-Law has broken down, so what other recourse is there but the civil courts?
Regardless of whether anyone likes the direction the national church or even their diocesan offices are going, there is a Rule of Law within any organization that should be followed, particularly by a church and among the clergy who make a vow to do so. The departing parishioners that are attempting to take the property – well, this would never pass muster in the Church of Rome or the Orthodox Churches. The canons do not allow property to be taken away from the owner, the Church. Those who attempt to do so, do so in violation of the canons. We can get into all the theological debates and shout heresy across the dividing line all we want to, and I do not wish to minimize the importance of the debates, but if groups within this Church will not abide by the canons there is no enforcement mechanism to compel the following of the Rule of Law, other than good-will and resorting to the secular courts to enforce property rights. There is no good-will any longer. That’s the reality. No side is without fault!!!! Both sides are putting physical property above new beginnings and their own sense of devotion to God and mission.
Furthermore, Minns’ accusation is absurd. It is about property rights, not stamping out dissenting voices. As if people within TEC have the ability to stamp out dissenting voices! A person’s voice is “stamped out” only if s/he allows it to be.
Bob G+, you haven’t included all possibilities. One possibility is that they did not thoroughly read the Canons eight or nine years ago when you got your initial assessment. They may have relied upon guidance from the bishop. Upon further reading and possibly discussions with a lawyer they may have determined that the Denis Canon was likely unenforceable. Of course, they may also be reading into the situation what suits them. There is a lot going on on all sides. In the case of Ohio, as elsewhere, it could be solely a question of whose name is on the deed.
Well of course the question could have been settled if the diocese in question had retitled the property in its own name. The same with TEC. If they want to claim the property let their name be on the deed. And let them take on the expenses for the upkeep too.
I think a few million spent on an effective PR by the Network campaign would likely give TEC pause – ad buys and direct mail to Episcopalians are likely less expensive than lawsuits. TEC has been doing some really un-Christian stuff – and they are not paying much of a price. The Presiding Bishop is particulary unlikeable for a church leader especially in the hinterland.
The Episcopal Church has never been a hierarchical church. From its very earliest beginnings in Virginia it was, until recent day “re-regulation”, a “congregationalist” church. Why were there no bishops in colonial America? Why do several dioceses on the east coast not have bishop’s churches aka cathedrals? The late venerable Dean of St Mark’s Cathedral in Minneapolis in the 1960’s, Henry Hancock, told me that the Episcopal church had “bishops’ but that its polity was congregational. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, deeds in TEC are not held by the diocese…but I suppose that’s next. But TEC should move to have all deeds in their dio’s names then people wouldn’t be duped and played the fool by being asked to pay money into church buildings and property that they don’t own. By the way I think it is high time that the CofE gave up all of it pre-Reformation buildings after all they really don’t own them …Rome does.
[blockquote]Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns of the Herndon, Va.-based Convocation of Anglicans said that by choosing costly litigation over negotiations, the Cleveland lawsuit is part of “a national effort on the part of the Episcopal Church to basically crush any dissenting voice.” [/blockquote]
Unfortunately +Minns has it right and it is a terrible and wrenching spectacle to behold for those of us who love Christ’s one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I am thankful for faithful souls like +Ames, +Minns, and +Bena for standing firm and pray for the Holy Spirit to continue to guide, strengthen, and lead them in all wisdom, truth, and humility.
rwkachur – They were smart, from my understanding they researched all possibilities thoroughly. They initially thought of creating a new foundation (or some such entity) that would build a facility that the parish would then rent. In this way the parish would not own a building and the diocese would have no say concerning property. They decided against it, for reasons I know not.
Br. Michael – Supposedly the Denise Canon was supposed to take care of that, whether in intent or in fact.
Interesting to read this piece kept for posterity by T19 concerning the Denise Canon by former PB Griswold (May 15th, 2006):
[b]Dennis Canon Diocesan Issue, Presiding Bishop Says[/b]
[blockquote]Virtually all legal disputes over the ownership of parish property are internal diocesan matters and there is nothing in the so-called Dennis Canon that prevents a diocesan bishop from reaching an amicable settlement with a congregation that wants to leave the Episcopal Church and retain its building, according to Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, who led separate question-and-answer forums for clergy and laity in the Diocese of Western Louisiana May 11 at St. James’ Church, Alexandria.
“Basically he said it was up to the individual diocese,†said the Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana. “It [the Dennis Canon] provides room for the bishop, standing committee and the local congregations to decide what they think is best. It leaves room for conversation.â€[/blockquote]
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=12952
We wanted decisive leadership, unlike what we perceived from the former PB. Now we have it!
#8 Br. Michael says:
I don’t know about maintenance expenses, but I do agree with the rest. If TEC really believes that all diocesan and parish property belongs to the national church, then we should require that all that property be explicitly in the name of the national church. Or, if not that, at least that there be an explicit and binding acknowledgement by the title holder that the property is held in trust and under what circumstances the title should transfer.
It would clarify the property issue right up front for parishes that become part of TEC, and it would vastly reduce the possibility for the kind of property disputes we’re seeing now. And if it means that the national church is opened to increased legal or financial liability, well, so be it. You take the bitter with the sweet.
wamark (10) – There weren’t bishops during the colonial times because we were The Church of England in the English-American colonies – the bishops were in England. Virginia adapted to this fact by institution of the vestry system within parish boundaries (and they seemed to be fairly anti-episcopate, too – but this didn’t change the fact that the diocese was under a bishop in England). When we gained our independence, we acquired the episcopate through the Non-Juror bishops in Scotland – Seabury (and soon thereafter from the CoE – White). The Episcopal Church started with its first General Convention with the episcopate.
The “Denise Canon” stipulates that deeds are held by parishes in trust for the dioceses. Whatever one wants to think of the “Denise Canon,” it is a canon.
While we are an episcopal church, our polity is not exactly like Rome’s or the Orthodox. The choosing of our bishops, for example, is by election rather than appointment (with the approval of the bishops with jurisdiction). Within Congregationalism, individual congregations are independent of a hierarchy – they order their own affairs and they calling of their own pastors. In TEC, individual parishes (not missions) call their own priests, with the approval of the bishop (the hierarchy). A priest cannot function (technically) within the boarders of a diocese without the bishop’s approval. An aspirant cannot go to seminary for ordination without being sent by a bishop. New clergy vow to obey their bishop.
If a bishop would exercise his/her full authority, s/he could be quite autocratic. There are checks-and-balances within TEC that are not present with Rome or Constantinople or even some Anglican provinces. This does not give us a Congregationalist polity, however (despite the fact that some people would rather us be more so).
Our parishes do have a more autonomy than do parishes in the Roman or Orthodox churches, but not at all like the Congregationalists. Good and bad result from this. One of the good results is that it is pretty hard to “crush any dissenting voice.”
#6–Which canons are you talking about? First, there is serious doubt whether a trust can be created without the consent of the property owner. Simply because TEC says they have a trust doesn’t leaglly make it so. That aside, why do the revisionists quote the Law when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn’t? I have pretty much had it with TEC picking and choosing which canons it will follow and which it will ignore. Every day in Episcopal churches the canons and constitution are brutalized by communion of the unbaptized and changing/altering of the Prayer Book. We don’t even need to get into to illegal depositions again. The point is if Pope Katherine and the presiding chancellor (and of course the head of the Title IV Review Committe) can pick and choose which canons to enforce, then why can’t everyone else? We don’t have a heirarchical church. We don’t have a church at all–we have slowly creeping anarchy. I am sitting here thsi afternoon just trying to figure out what she has on these bishops to make them violate their principles. But, we are blessed to live in interesting times, aren’t we?
Bob G+, and in trust by the diocese for the national church as well. This claim should be sufficient to cloud the title and put in doubt the ownership of all property pledged as collateral for any loan.
It should also make us think twice is supporting a parasitical structure that lives off the gifts by individuals to local parishes.
My thanks to Bob G+ and Ross for reminding us, as they do so well, that we laity only have two means of making our voice heard, our feet and our wallet.
David Keller (#15)
Canon I.7.4:
[blockquote]All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.[/blockquote]
It passed the 66th General Convention in 1979.
Wikipedia gives a decent general overview of the canon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Canon
There are lots of people who decry the Denise Canon, but the canon has been a part of the published canons of TEC for nearly 30 years, and it is my understanding that it has had no serious challenges to its veracity, until now. Clergy taking vows of obedience and conformity at ordination since 1979 have done so under this canon.
We find ourselves in a position where people on both sides are acting in ways that necessitate the secular courts make the decision of who the property belongs to. So then, the courts will decide using whatever criteria they deem pertinent and appropriate. Some states’ laws make it easier for break-away parishes to keep the property, some other states’ laws will make it easier for the national church or diocese to keep the property.
It will all play out, because like children we can’t get along with one another. So much for loving our neighbor and enemy, eh? So much for Anglican comprehensiveness. Clergy and bishops in violation of their vows insist that they can take property with only a vote. Dioceses or the national church insist on keeping property, even if it cannot be maintained and must be sold-off. Too much pride and arrogance all the way around, methinks. Perhaps anger and revenge have replaced common sense.
David – Additionally, one canonically brutalizing act by one group does not justify another canonically brutalizing act by a different group. Much like Br. Michael wrote above, we can vote with our feet and our wallets, but all this childishness needs to stop because we (both liberals and conservatives) are destroying our witness to the cause of Christ before an already cynical and unbelieving society.
Bob–One of the things I love about the Episcopal Church is that clergy automatically assume the laity are uninformed and ignorant and with one word you can correct us “like children”. I don’t appreciate your patronization. I have at least as many degrees as you, and believe it or not, I have read the canons. If you will go back and read what I said, you will see that I decry the whole situation by both sides. Go check Wikpedia on “anarchy”.
I’m feeling the love.
Matthew 10:34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
David, I’m a bit at a loss to understand your reaction. You asked me what canon, I told you (comment #15, the first line). I quoted it. I gave a reference for general information about it. Where in any of my comments can you infer that I think the laity are uninformed?
Yes, I believe we all (notice, like my comments above, I wrote “we all” and not “you laity”) are acting like children regarding our inability to sit down with one another and discuss this like adults. That is a generalization, but I think it is generally true. And, to repeat myself, all of us are in fact destroying our witness of the cause of Christ – reappraiser and reasserter.
What I find most compelling and to a degree puzzling is the intensity of the rhetoric when lawsuits, canons and other minutia consitute the content of the discussion. It is evident to me that the adversaries do have something much in common though…they are both insitutionalists hoping to preserve some sort of attachment to a denomination that they might better consider leaving. That is the only course of action open to anyone who fears loss of their church through litagation or contrawise, its attachment to a foreign Anglican body. Canons, laws, history and practice have little to do with making such a fundamental decision (to leave) in terms of being a Christian witness. That was clear to me when my then bishop said “we are a hierarchial church; parishes cannot leave, only members can.” That’s when it dawned on me that I’d best leave and look for another church irrespective of how I felt about what was going on in TEC.
This issue can be resolved only by civil courts, and all parishes and dioceses should get on with the business of taking the issue there. States will have different rulings but at least the rulings will be binding.
As I said earlier, the churches’ going to the civil courts is inevitable and unavoidable. This will spare everyone a lot of idle pontificating and will be a legal issue, as far as the media are concerned, not a hair-tearing street fight between to hussies. Larry
Nowhere in this discussion (or comments in the media by the parties involved) have I heard the words of Christ, only a war of words about human laws. Have we lost sight of Jesus’ command to us in the great commission? Are we (both sides) so determined to hold onto material wealth and power that are witnesses to the Gospel are tarnished? Wouldn’t the dissenting congregations & TEC be more powerful witnesses for our Lord if “someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well”?? After all, the Body of Christ is not made of brick and mortar. And didn’t Jesus also tell us “As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge.” Imagine what could be done to help the poor with all the money that is being spent on attorneys!! Dear Lord, let thy will be done, not man’s.
jgriffin #25: good point. And I will add Paul’s exhortation (1 Cor 6) that it is better to be defrauded than to take disagreements between (alleged) Christians before the secular courts. LM (#24), the issue can be resolved very easily by either side relinquishing the property to the other. The one who does this is following Christ; the one who insists on their rights is not.