It is with a profound sense of sadness that the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande acknowledges the vote of the Vestry of St. Francis-on-the-Hill in El Paso, Texas, to leave the Episcopal Church. This vote took place on Tuesday evening, October 21, 2008, and a majority of the Vestry present voted to make this move.
This decision comes after meetings between the congregation, the President of the Standing Committee and the Assisting Bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, the Rt. Rev. William Frey. At those meetings, Bishop Frey and Canon Kelly made it clear to the congregation that, if they made the decision to leave the Episcopal Church, they could not take their property with them. That counsel follows the consideration of the Standing Committee and Deans of the Diocese that, after the departure of St. Clement’s Church from the Diocese in 2007, other departing congregations would not be able to avail themselves of the same parameters surrounding the severing of a relationship with the Diocese of the Rio Grande.
The Standing Committee understands that St. Francis has filed a suit for declaratory judgment with the District Court in El Paso County, Texas. We have begun to respond to the Court, reminding them that, according to our common agreements, parishes hold their property in trust for the larger Church community.
The Diocese of the Rio Grande is in the midst of an exciting and hopeful period in its life, having entered into a process to call and elect its next Bishop. With the able assistance of a New Life Team, the Diocese has entered into a purposeful time of listening and reflection, with the prayerful hope that this process will lead to healing and reconciliation in the Diocese as we look forward to our next Bishop. It is particularly disappointing that the people of St. Francis-on-the-Hill have chosen this moment to depart from the fellowship of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, as it is a time full of anticipation and hope for the future.
The people of the Diocese gather at their annual Convocation beginning on Friday, October 24, and the presence of the delegation from St. Francis will be sorely missed. Any time a part of the Body of Christ severs itself from the Body, the injury that results requires time, prayer and God’s healing power to restore. We move forward, confident that divine healing will continue to be with us, and that God will lead the Diocese of the Rio Grande into continued leadership in mission and ministry. Our prayers continue to be with the clergy and people of St. Francis.
St. Francis-on-the-Hill, El Paso Votes for Realignment
Posted in Uncategorized
I tried in vain to find the parish’s announcement of this news on the parish website. If any reader has that information I would be grateful if you could post it.
The latest parish numbers are here:
http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_1026200845509PM.pdf
That’s a stunning decline…is that a response to TEC or to the local church leadership?
You can’t tell by these stats alone. It is possible a new Rector decided to purge the rolls. Now, add that purging to the loss of members due to the crisis in the EC and you can easily make sense. Add to this the fact that their bishop left for Rome and who the new bishop will be? It is not this parish that is in free fall but most likely the entire diocese.
With GC09, I think we will see more of this than not. The authoritarian leadership of the EC, especially the Presiding Bishop, will lead to even greater losses.
From the Diocese of the Rio Grande: We did indeed have our convocation this weekend, and the first thing that was announced was this news concerning St. Francis on the Hill. Some of us had already heard about it and were very disappointed about the decision, and yet we understand. This has been a long time coming. I don’t know the whole history of St. Francis and its building, being fairly new to the diocese, but we among the reaffirmers will be firm (there’s a new dimension for ‘reafFIRMers’) in asking Canon Kelly, the Standing Committee, and Bishop Frey to refrain from lawsuits. There is no valid reason, as I see it (or else it needs to be explained more clearly), why there cannot be a graciousness extended to this parish by working toward some kind of conscientious and Christian settlement. We would have liked St. Francis to stay and take part in the selection of the new bishop, but we understand why they felt it necessary to go.
I’m afraid that I need to dissent from the tone of the paragraph beginning, ‘The DRG is in the midst of an exciting and hopeful period…’. In fact, I wish now that I had stood up during convocation, as this was communicated, to express my complete disagreement with this statement. The New Life process is to me one that just seems to deaden (ironically enough!) the very difficult and differentiating issues among persons and groups and parishes in this diocese. It is all about means, and in my opinion not about ends; we keep talking and talking and talking. (The means ARE the ends??) It is reported to be a success, a great success, but I am not the only one to be astounded at its futility, since it is not a process grounded in the Gospel. How attenuated our faith has become! As with the whole of ‘tec’ right now, it seems as though if we proclaim something ‘good’ and ‘right’ enough times, then it is true. It is NOT.
I was disturbed by the tone taken at convocation, mourning the loss of St. Francis on the Hill and calling them our brothers and sisters, yet chillingly saying in the same breath that there will be no grace for them about property settlements and that they will not ‘hold us back’ from moving ahead. This is not ‘New Life’ and reconciliation; this is darkness and death.
The DRG is one more diocese in which good Biblical education has been neglected, and the people, lay and clergy, are being used in the midst of that vacuum. We are missing out on the glorious riches and depth of the historic Christian faith!
Well explained sister Libbie+. The People of God at St. Francis on the Hill and those still in the DRG remain in our prayers.
Bob+ & Bev Maxwell
All Saints Cathedral Diocese
Anglican Church of Kenya
As Creighton says, it is difficult to tell what has caused the decline at St. Francis. Likely both internal and external issues.
The parish has lost over 100 in Sunday attendance in the past ten years. Giving has grown back to pree-decline levels, and indicates a good bit of support in for the opposition of the church to the larger denominational issues. Membership loss could partly be the result of purging the rolls.
The net effect is that there are 100 fewer worshipers through this process. The parish is thus weakened. And the diocese is also weakened overall.
What it does indicate is that everyone is a loser in these types of conflicts.
Amen Neal….but for some who have held on and remained in the EC a breaking point with Gafcon and Lambeth have been reached. For others, I think this will happen at GC09 as the authoritarian nature of the leadership of the EC is given full reign as the traditional/conservative/reasserter voices have move on….clearly the numerical majority supports the other theological side.
But yes, both sides lose but decisions must be made….
Lord have mercy
Concur with Libbie+:
The DRG at convocation showed little sign of moving forwards or backwards, but rather sidled sideways around issues. “New Life” was an obfustication of many issues, and the front table leadership as well as most of the New Life respondants seemed loathe to address the many “hot button issues”. Many of the rural delegates remarked that their diocesan interactions over the past years have been waning, so missing a diocesan bishop for a protracted time while search and standing committees avoid the principal issues confronting the church will not seem strange to them. Everyone thought +Frey is doing a fine job as interim assisting bishop, but interims aren’t going to stand up in the canoe over any particular issue.
About the numbers at St Francis (on the Hill, as opposed to Rio Rancho)…
If you are going to separate and try to keep the real estate, accuracy in “who is a continuing member” would be essential for asserting “who is going to properly vote for the continuing vestry”. In many cases like this, a small franchise is better.
It was disturbing to me to hear the leadership say that St. Francis on the Hill had “left the Body of Christ.” I believe that they have departed from the Episcopal Church but since when is the Episcopal Church “THE” body of Christ? I also am interested to know where in the world the Diocese of the Rio Grande will get the money to litigate the property dispute? Perhaps from the National Church?The diocese wants to know. We are getting the same old line from the diocese that we hear from 815……lets have a listening process……lets all talk without being judgmental…..won’t that be wonderful? This process is getting quite old as I have been hearing the same old words in not only this diocese but in my prior diocese as well. What it really means is, “Let’s talk until you see the “dark” oops I mean the light and agree that we are right.
I don’t believe that the Diocese of the Rio Grande is in an exciting period either. We are deeply divided and I don’t see this being resolved because the revisionists are committed to their new theology and no amount of listening will change this.
My prayers are with not only the Diocese ofthe Rio Grande but also with all those who have chosen to depart in order to remain faithful to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
#11- I wouldn’t take anything said at convocation on St Francis on the Hill at face value. But on the discrete subject of litigation, nobody mentioned that word. Kelley+ just intoned that “they cannot take the property with them”. I heard that the parish had filed for summary judgement concerning ownership. Either of those assertions can embrace any numbers of possible fact patterns. So “who is going to pay” is too hasty a question right now (and “pay” for what?). I’m not even sure who holds the physical titles, though I suspect the diocese does (which might explain the request for summary judgement).