From 8/16/07 The Falls Church News Press article on the ongoing legal wranglings over church property in the Diocese of Virginia:
"It occurs to me that trying to take Episcopal Church property after you’ve left the Episcopal Church is like trying to take your office after you quit your job.”
=============
From a recent sermon by the Most Reverend Alan Harper, the Archbishop of Armagh, Church of Ireland:
"Bibliolatry is a boulder threatening to obscure the dynamic and contemporary truth of the resurrection. It is also the mother of dogmatic fundamentalism. Love for the scriptures is tainted when scripture and not God becomes the object of worship."
.
=============
.
From the Archbishop of York's response to reporter Stephen Crittenden's question, "If you're going to have an alternative Lambeth Conference, you can't pretend at the same time that you're not pushing the whole communion towards schism, can you?"
.
"You can't. You just can't."
.
AND THE WINNER IS ... ?????
.
12 comments:
...nobody...
"It occurs to me that trying to take Episcopal Church property after you’ve left the Episcopal Church is like trying to take your office after you quit your job.”
It seems to me that claiming that property purchased and developed with the money, labor and sacrifice of a parish actually belongs to the National church and then pursuing it with lawsuits is a violation of the 8th Commandment and St. Paul's commentary on resorting to the secular courts to solve disagreements among believers.
Bibliolatry is a boulder threatening to obscure the dynamic and contemporary truth of the resurrection.
What's "Bibliolatry"?
How does the author of this statement (and those who agree with it) explain Richard Hooker's formulation that has been taught in Anglican seminaries for centuries as a foundation of the relationship between Scripture, the application of reason to Scripture, and Church tradition (often mis-referred to as the "three-legged stool")?
What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.
ronf ... "...claiming that property purchased and developed with the money, labor and sacrifice of a parish actually belongs to the National Church ..."
BEEP, BEEP, BEEP.
Nobody's claiming that, Ron. Check again. It belongs to the DIOCESE ... as anybody who's ever sat on a vestry involved in a property purchase or sale or a Standing Committee OKing the sale or acquisition of real property can tell you.
There ARE churches where congregational property belongs to the congregation ... they're called "CONGREGATIONAL" churches.
We're called "EPISCOPAL" churches.
Look it up. Do tha math. Get over it!
Fred
My question would be: Whose name is on the deed? Is there a "Deed of Trust" on the property?
Or am I showing my ignorance/stupidity...
I read a survey recently in which members of American mega churches were polled about what they liked about going to church. Among the “likes” were food courts, gift shops, big video screens and rock music. Among the dislikes were stained glass windows, steeples, the liturgy, crosses and organ music. Clearly some traditions are more easily discarded than others.
Those of us who support full inclusion of LGBTs within TEC do not do so based on polling data or the fact that “Will & Grace” was a popular network show. We do so because scripture tells us Jesus mentions property, possessions and giving more than 2000 times in the New Testament, far more than believing, prayer and love combined, but does not mention sexuality. We do so because a church tradition of scapegoating and demonization is not a tradition worth maintaining. We do so because a lifetime of reasoned thought about those we know in the LGBT community tells us that there is no moral component to sexual orientation.
I have to wonder what real-life experiences (not films or television, not James Dobson’s web site, not the ranting of Fred Phelps) that some scripture and tradition minded folks have had with LGBT people that can explain the reasoning behind their condemnation of an entire community.
When I leave my job, I'll be happy to leave the office behind!
This one gets my vote
Reasserters are so willing to give over the intimate sex-lives of gays to God, yet can't grasp the fact that a church, no matter who paid for it, belongs to God, too.
Double standards continue -- your life is God's, but my building is mineminemine!
Fine, then; regardless of whether the claim is from the National Church or the Diocese, it's still theft. And again, the concept that we are an episcopally led church is a spiritual issue, not a temporal one.
Ron -- can you explain how it is theft if the property is owned by the Diocese or the National Church? I'm not following your line of reasoning.
I understand the pain on both sides of the property disputes, but it seems to me if the deed is held either by the Diocese, or by the local church in trust for the Diocese, that a congregation claiming to own the property will get the short end of the stick.
I do wish both sides could come to an amicable resolution without resorting to court action, but that seems impossible in this situation. Our secular courts exist to resolve such disputes. What method would you suggest of resolving this conflict without use of our court system?
I have stated before (on another blog) that Jesus said to give up all your belongings and follow Him. I wish that people on both sides of the dispute might see the wisdom in this, but fear it is rather idealistic thinking on my part. Property means little to me, though I admit to an emotional attachment to certain things that is sometimes difficult to shake, and thus I empathize with both sides. I had a property professor that stated that you could trace back the cause of most any war in history to a property dispute, and I tend to think he was correct in that assertion.
Ron -- can you explain how it is theft if the property is owned by the Diocese or the National Church? I'm not following your line of reasoning.
I understand the pain on both sides of the property disputes, but it seems to me if the deed is held either by the Diocese, or by the local church in trust for the Diocese, that a congregation claiming to own the property will get the short end of the stick.
If indeed the property was paid for by the Diocese or National Church and their name is on the deed, that's a different story, and I grant that point. I am not concerned about such cases. What I am talking about are cases where a parish raised funds and bought land and put up a building only to see the National Church assert through what I've seen called the "Dennis Canon" that they (or the Diocese, in trust) own the buildings and property. In some cases such ownership is being asserted over land and buildings that predate the establishment of TEC.
Ron, I know this post has progressed beyond the first page, so I don't know if you'll see this. I'm not sure how many churches actually fit your profile, and am not familiar with the Dennis Canon beyond seeing it used a few times in comments such as those here. Could you point me toward the text of that, and a bit of history of its use and acceptance? I'm going to Google it myself, but you might have some info. that would give me more perspective.
I'm still not quite following the logic of your argument, as I find property disputes within the church to be somewhat unique. Generations of people give money to a church, which funds are used not just for the building and maintenance of property, but for salaries and music and all sorts of other programs (feeding programs, educational resources, etc., etc.).
Setting aside for a moment the question of deeds and Canons, this situation seems analagous to me to the National Park system, which we all pay for through taxes and through fees when we enter the park. However, when we leave the park, we cannot take it with us, it is to remain there for the rest of the American public, as it is essentially held in trust for all Americans. If these churches were established under the auspices of The Episcopal Church, and monies were paid over the years for the buildings and property as an Episcopal Church, that would make all those generations of donations in furtherance of the support of TEC, wouldn't it?
If I can restate your argument as I understand it -- you disagree with the legitimacy of the Dennis Canon and, therefore, feel that the names on the deeds are not the rightful owners? Who, then, is the rightful owner? For churches that predate TEC, would the CofE then still own the properties? If the property was paid for say, 50 years ago, by a newer congregation, should we go back 50 years and track donations to see who should be the rightful owners?
All these questions are raised in my mind as I try to figure out your position, and perhaps you are more knowledgeable about the laws within TEC than I am. But do you see the difficulty in trying to prove ownership in this instance?
Post a Comment