Email to Friend
Differing views on handling property disputes
Those who want to stay
In the discussion of buildings and land, a key point was inadequately addressed: "What about the average layperson in the pews?"
If I'm a member of a church, and the majority of the members vote to leave the national church, they are the ones leaving. It doesn't mean they get to kick me out of my church home. It means they need to find a new church home elsewhere and those of us who remain will deal with the question of our future.
The divorce analogy doesn't work. What if my husband told me he wanted a divorce and insisted I had to leave? Sure, there would be less conflict if I simply acceded to his demands, but that's not peace. It's avoidance. And if we had children, walking away would not be a realistic or responsible option.
There is no question we should be compassionate to those who want to leave and accommodate the inevitable issues that arise as best we can, e.g., a chalice given by an ancestor of a departing member. However, I appreciate the leaders of our national church in general and our Presiding Bishop in particular for prioritizing the care and defense of those who want to stay in their parish homes.
Jenifer Lewis
Winthrop, Maine
Congregation's assets
I strongly disagree with several statements in the article "Gift of Love" written by the Rev. George Clifford.
Although the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) may have legally structured the situation such that buildings and lands are the property of TEC or ACC, those buildings and lands were paid for by the donations of the congregations that now worship at these places, and these donations clearly were made to the local parish. (Look at your offertory envelopes or your tax receipts to see who the donation is being made to.)
To describe a desire of a congregation to continue to worship in a place that it paid for and has worshiped in for a long time as "a selfish decision" is both insulting and inaccurate. How can it be "selfish" to desire to continue to worship God in the place where I was confirmed and married and where all of my children were baptized? That TEC or ACC wish to retain ownership of these temporal assets at the cost of denying Christians a place to worship is detestable, and I would even go so far as to say spiteful.
Allan Pearson
Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada
Burden of choice
I find [the Rev. George Clifford's] rationale unsatisfactory. Yes, every effort at mutuality should prevail when separation is in question. That is, both those who propose to separate and those who don't should exercise due diligence toward reconciliation ... that is the purpose of the church according to the catechism.
But the burden rests primarily on those choosing to leave, not those who choose to stay. So, if reconciliation is impossible, those who propose to depart must bear the burden of their choice. They should realize that when civil disobedience is exercised, it is likely penalties will be exacted toward the disobedient ones, and, as Christians, they should be willing to accept them.
I am among those who want to treat our separating sisters and brothers with utmost kindness and understanding.
In good conscience, they must do what their conscience demands. But it is not un-Christian to expect them to bear the burdens of their choice.
When the general resurrection comes, the rules may change. But in the meantime, disobedience to the established order is intolerable.
George McGonigle
Austin, Texas
Meanness is sinful
In reference to Timothy Safford's "Leave door open": Amen! Meanness on either side is equally sinful.
An historical reminder: Many if not most old parishes were started by lay folk "prayer-book societies" who grew and presented themselves to the church for priestly sacramental feeding.
Ethically, do the Presiding Bishop or other land-grab bishops have the moral right to steal from the purposes of those that built the places in the first place?
I suggest that the focus on property by the national leadership will be their undoing. May the Good Lord heal us all.
John W. Ward
Joliet, Illinois
Live in community
In reference to the Rev. Timothy Safford's "Leave door open": An interesting perspective. Reconciliation is something that sometimes requires hard love. If it was just two sons with equal rights to an inheritance, I might be able to see it in a like manner.
This is rather a matter of the entire family history and a great tradition of decision making and polity where the people have struggled over a decision for more than 40 years. After the decision was made, a few who did not like the outcome became unhappy and attempted to tear the fabric of the institution.
We all can be reconciled while holding our own individual positions and yet living in the same community.
Bishop J. Jon Bruno
Los Angeles
Allow for loyalists
Thank you [Timothy Safford] for a very thoughtful essay. It will caution me against cheering for the (earthly) judgments to come.
It does, however, seem that you haven't allowed for those in the departing parishes who do not wish to leave the Episcopal Church. It seems very wrong to me for those people to have to move elsewhere because of the breakaway factions. And I believe that there may be many more of those people than is usually acknowledged.
Chuck Medler
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Uphold responsibility
My fellow priests George Clifford and Timothy Safford both cite Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son for guidance in resolving the irksome question of who should retain the property of parishes/dioceses leaving the Episcopal Church. I hope we are in general agreement that Jesus' point in the parable is the graciousness of God's forgiveness and mercy, not instruction on how to divide property.
The more appropriate comparison would be to a few of the parable's farm workmen deciding to leave their employment but wanting to keep the farmer's implements and mules.
Would not the farmer say, "No, I keep these in trust for my sons"?
It seems to me that if the property issues currently confronting the Episcopal Church have to do with inheritance, Joan Gundersen is correct that "the church must uphold its responsibility to those who came before us and will come after."
The Rev. Cornelius deWitt Hastie
Roxbury, Massachusetts
Don't retaliate
In reference to George Clifford's "Gift of love": I concur. Jesus commanded us to love one another. He did not command us to retaliate.
To use the old phrase, "What would Jesus do," he would love those who are leaving and tell them to do what their conscience required. He taught, in the Sermon on the Mount, that if someone slaps us on the right cheek to turn the left to him also. He further said that we should be reconciled to those whom we may have differences with. He even said that we should give those who oppose us a cup of cold water when they are thirsty.
We have not been doing that! By taking legal action, we are costing the church many good disciples. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is an excellent example of the way we should be going. Our Father, and his love for us, are greater than all of these petty differences.
The Rev. Robert E. Walden
Kaneohe, Hawaii
Property would be lost
I understand and applaud the sentiments of [George Clifford], but I can only imagine the loss of church property that would follow. It doesn't take much imagination to imagine difficulties arising and property being sold to the highest bidder. I've got a lot of confidence in the Episcopal Church, but not so much in the other provinces as far as their commitment and stewardship of foreign (to them) assets.
How difficult would it be for the faithful to put their money into yet another church building? And while we're reviewing history, some colonial churches lost property as a result of the [American] Revolution. These unfortunate property fights are difficult, but our bishops are doing their best to keep our eyes on the true mission of our wonderful church.
Jim Lynch
King George, Washington
Obligations fulfilled
In reference to "Honoring forbears' trust" by Joan Gunderson: Well said!
As longtime members of our Washington, D.C., parish, my family has contributed thousands of dollars to the operation and capital development of our parish home, including capital fund contributions of over $100,000 in the last year. We have accepted our obligation to provide for future generations, just as we have benefited from the commitment of past generations to provide for our current use.
We pray that future generations will accept the trust of the properties prepared for them and will continue to build up the body of Christ within the Episcopal Church.
Robert C. Maddox
Potomac, Maryland
Stolen properties
In reference to the Rev. George Clifford's "Gift of love": This assumes that the elections are proper. In the Diocese of Fort Worth, the clergy were hand-picked by the bishop for several years in anticipation of this event. The delegates were chosen by these rectors; free elections were not allowed. These were rigged elections. Parishioners' requests for opportunities to vote have been forbidden by the bishop. He says that the church is not a democratic organization.
The Episcopal Church must do everything to reclaim the property that has been stolen from us. These elections would be crimes if they were in government. Why is this different?
Elizabeth Robinson
Fort Worth, Texas
2007
Search
Browse by Topic:
Multimedia »