Church Hierarchies and church Property: How some laity see the matter.
A discussion Starter from Peter Toon on behalf of some laymen
Not a few laity in and around The Episcopal Church [TEC] have the sense, even the understanding, that congregations which secede from this Church to be part of another Anglican Province (via AMiA, CANA etc), lose their properties (even where they have paid for them in whole) on secession; and the real reason for the loss is because of the principle of hierarchy””that TEC is governed hierarchically, Bishops downwards, and so the property follows this tendency, upwards to diocese and/or national Church.
Let us begin our reflection by recognizing that the clearest examples of what we call hierarchical churches are the Roman Catholic Church and the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. In these Churches, decisions come from the top down, or from higher up to lower down. In total contrast, in a variety of “Bible” and “Baptist” local churches, in which there is complete local autonomy in all matters and property is owned locally, decisions are made at the local level and might be carried forward and upward at a convention of like-minded churches; but such a convention is not empowered to rule and does not tell the local church what to do.
In the world of business and commerce, closely held corporations are hierarchical, but public companies are not. Even though in public companies the Board and CEO run the company on a daily basis, they are ultimately responsible to the stockholders, who can replace them if enough votes can be gathered to do so.
In the Roman Church, major decisions of all kinds always come from above. While the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, the Cardinals themselves are not elected. They are appointed by the incumbent Pope, who has his job for life. Bishops in the Roman Church are not elected, they are appointed by the Vatican. Priests are not called by a parish, they are sent by a bishop. Mutatis mutandis, the various Eastern Churches operate in much the same way in terms of the hierarchical principle. In the Roman Church a General Council is called by the Pope and reports to the Pope and from Pope and General Councils ( e.g. Vatican II) come doctrine. Laity and ordinary clergy are not in this loop except as the recipients of what is decided and required. And in terms of property, while there may be local trustees, the general rule is that the property belongs to the diocese and that where there is any dispute the diocese takes control.
Let us now return to TEC. Major decisions within TEC have never been made in the hierarchical way of Rome. Bishops are elected by their dioceses. Priests are called by local congregations, admittedly with the approval–usually in the past, a pro forma approval–by the bishop of the diocese. The basic structure of TEC is not set up as an absolute monarchy as is the Roman Church, but along democratic lines, with certain limited authority given to Diocesan Bishops, Rectors, and Executive Councils.
Note: CEO = Cash Eating Organism
Because of the amorphous structure of TEC I think someone should fund appeals all the way to the Supreme Court (assuming they are interested in taking it). I have not read the cases on hierarhical churches but at least as applied to TEC it does not pass the smell test – especially for churches existing in 1979. I would think that the courts enforcement of the church cannons would actual present establishment clause issues. Who knows the current five catholics on the court might not view TEC as hierachrical compared to their own – Thomas may be attending an Episcopal Church though.
[blockquote] The basic structure of TEC is not set up as an absolute monarchy as is the Roman Church, but along democratic lines, with certain limited authority given to Diocesan Bishops, Rectors, and Executive Councils. But Delegates to diocesan conventions are selected by local congregations. Diocesan conventions make the rules for the dioceses. Delegates to the General Convention of TEC are selected at the diocesan level. [/blockquote]
But the TEC system often operates more along the line of Soviet style democracy with no real choices in elections.
Forget the property.
It is an idol.
bob lee
If one rides the hierarchy horse too hard, one may fall off. In this case, the CANA churches cling to the idea of the top level of Anglicanism, while TEC is sliding out of the hierarchy saddle, perhaps completely. So, if the buildings must stay “in the hierarchy”, it would be best to leave them in CANA’s hands until the place of TEC is determined.
Of course the courts should consider none of this and merely ascertain whose name is on the deed to the property and what, if any, is the value of TEC’s trust claims.
Any description of Catholic life which depicts the laity as passive recipients of Rome’s beneficence is woefully naive. There is certainly an authority which finalizes decisions, but Catholics are not a passive lot, as a rule. Read Mark Shea’s or Amy Welborn’s blogs to see what I mean. It’s a family discussion – often a family fight – and vox populi is not a theoretical construct.
It seems obvious that the Roman Catholic Church is not organized along the same lines as TEC, but a top-down monarchy is not the only way to govern a hierarchical denomination. Most such denominations have their equivalent of what Anglicans call “the principle of subsidiarity.” These churches allow considerable autonomy at each level—parish, diocese, province, communion—while requiring mutual responsibility and interdependence between each unit and every other unit, whether above, beside, or below it in the hierarchy. Each unit below the top level is subject to decisions made at a higher level on issues within that level’s authority. No unit is as independent as the Pope is or as a Baptist congregation is.
Rather than the RCC, I think that much more applicable examples of hierarchical churches are the Reformed bodies with a presbyterian polity. It is clear to everyone who joins such a church that some major decisions are going to be made by presbyteries and synods, and not on the local level. Members of dissenting local churches must either submit or leave. While congregations are often permitted to depart, this requires an agreement between the local session and the superior judicatory in compliance with denominational rules. There is no question that these churches are hierarchical in the legal sense, even though they are not monarchical. To the degree that they are governed by congregations rather than presbyteries, they are not presbyterian. The same is true of Anglican churches—to the extent that they are simply congregational, they are not Anglican.
Why is it so hard to understand the distinction between ownership and stewardship?
7, except TEC which is accountable to no one, and has no rules or regulations except which it wants to enforce.
I wish Peter Toon was right, but I don’t think the courts will see it this way in the longrun. Every Sunday I worship with a congregation that lost their building in 1980 — even though they held title to the property and paid for everything themselves. The NJ Supreme court ruled in favor of Bishop Albert W. Van Duzer and the Diocese of N.J. that the Episcopal Church was a “hierarchical church”. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case on appeal. You can read the whole decision on Louis Crew’s website if you’re interested (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/courtproperty1.html).
It’s clear that the courts do not want to muck around too much in church affairs because of the separation of church and state. If they determine a body is hierarchical, they tend to leave it at that and let the church body handle it themselves. In cases where a whole diocese is in the Network, that may be a different case, but I wouldn’t hold your breath about isolated parishes trying to keep their buildings in hostile dioceses.
Fortunately, the good news is that Bob Lee, #4 above, is right: “You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Mt. 6:24, Lk. 16:13) “Another said, ‘I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.’ Jesus said to him, ‘No one who puts a hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 961-62) Time to put our hands to the plough folks!
10, and maybe that is the truth. The diocese and TEC us using porperty to protect the institution. Jesue is larger. The Church is the people. TEC can have the buildings (which they have never paid for nor can pay for the upkeep). Let the Christians start all over again and build something to the Glory of God.
10. Chris, Today’s situation is markedly different from 1980. Then TEC was tall in the saddle. No court could go wrong ruling in its favor. Now it appears to be falling out of the hierarchy. But, as Br. Michael points out the ultimate decision of the courts should little slow the witness of the Christians who remain true to the faith. We have a job to do that is far larger than buildings.
Can’t tell you how tired I get of people saying, “Forget the property.” Allowing consecrated, holy places to be used by heretics hiding behind the building, name, and trappings of our once Christian churches is unconscionable.
I think the key on the property fight is for every diocese and parish that wants to leave make the decision and leave en masse. There is only so much money and bad press that TEC can afford. If there is a college of Bishops for TEC to negotiate with a settlement should be possible. For most litigants there comes a time when they have had all the fun they can stand.
#14: ‘and leave en masse.’ The Board of Trustees for the Common Cause Partners could (should?) declare all members out of TEC in a single motion. ‘Bad press’ for TEC includes massive interview opportunities to update pewsitters who do not yet know why or how to join in.
Stewardship is a serious matter – of property, money, time, opportunities, publicity. The duty has no easy clear-cut rules. Prayer is central.