The Diocese of Central New York is attempting to order a former Episcopal Church in Binghamton to vacate its buildings and turn over legal title of the property to its regional office.
In a lawsuit filed this week, the diocese asked the State Superior Court to force Church of the Good Shepherd, on Conklin Avenue, to leave the facility as well as account for all money — including an endowment fund — because the congregation withdrew from the Episcopal Church and joined the Anglican Church of Kenya.
“It’s a David-versus-Goliath situation; the Episcopal Church has deep pockets. This is a powerful and wealthy institution that is trying to crush a local church, only to put it on the auction block and sell it for cash,” attorney Raymond J. Dague said Thursday from his Syracuse office. “It’s a sad thing that a bishop who’s supposed to protect sheep is trying to crush them.”
St. John Chrysostom wrote, “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” This bishop seems to be doing all he can to displace a cobblestone in the everlasting pit with his own head and thus join his fellow unworthies. May God have mercy on his soul.
Does not the departing congregation have the option of building or acquiring its own structure for worship? Is the test of ownership the dominant/majority view within a congregation at any given present moment? If the test is the majority will at a given moment, does this not lead to politicization and instability within God’s church? Would a bishop be faithful to his stewardship duties to simply acquiesce in the transfer, for no consideration, of valuable property that has been acquired and maintained over many years by parishioners who either had no opinion on the present tensions in the church or who might have opposed the departure of the congregation for new alignments? Aren’t these questions ones of equity, practicality, stability, and good order, independent of theological positions that define the current dispute? Could not one validly oppose some of the more silly theological gimcrackery of the national church (even to the point of being prepared to depart) and still feel strongly that property that has for many years been used for Episcopal worship should remain with those who continue to worship as Episcopalians?
It is the group pledged to stay faithful to Scripture and Anglican tradition that will continue “Episcopal Worship” in the buildings so long ago paid for by the faithful who desired that they be used for “Episcopal Worship”. TEC is no longer capable of providing those services. Why does this seem to be so difficult for people to grasp?
Is it not possible for those not wishing to depart to remain faithful to scripture and Anglican tradition? Certainly there are many of us in Virginia who are considerably less than enthusiastic about some elements of ECUSA who nonetheless oppose this discord and distraction of property disputes. Are we definitionally “unfaithful” to scripture and Anglican tradition because we think it unwise to spend resources and energy in property disputes, but wish to continue worshiping where we have worshipped for decades?