Saturday, November 17, 2007

And another thing ...

Lots of comments on +Katharine "standing firm" in response to those trying to abandon the faith and discipline of the Episcopal Church for points more theologically congruent with their own perspective while insisting they get to take the assets belonging to the Episcopal parish or diocese they're abandoning with them. Here's a great analogy, shared with permission, from HoB/D colleague Tom Woodward:

Isn't it the same as someone in a United Way office who leaves to work in the Salvation Army?

The United Way member/employee, in leaving, cannot take furniture or bank accounts or office building on his or her way to the Salvation Army -- no matter what the reason for leaving. Nor can that employee kick and scream that the United Way officials are mean spirited because they won't negotiate over the building, bank accounts and furniture!

If people want to leave the Episcopal Church for any reason whatsoever, let them leave -- but it is unseemly and irresponsible for them to demand a "negotiation" over assets they are abandoning in their leaving.

It is also irresponsible to toss around charges of "threatening" and "intimidation" when our Presiding Bishop explains the consequences of the actions being threatened by bishops like Duncan, Iker, Schofield and others.

In the real world, when an executive informs others about the likely consequences of the actions they are contemplating against the organization, that is called "common courtesy."


Precisely. Couldn't have said it better myself! So please consider this my response to those commenting on the "Say What?" post from yesterday.

And while the plot of "The Anglican World Turns" continues to thicken this weekend, we're taking a break from things-Anglican and heading off to a Presidential Forum on Global Warming being held here in L.A. this afternoon.

I understand it's "full up" but if you're interested you can watch it online here beginning at 2pm Pacific.

All for now. Later, alligators!

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am afreid the last two posts by Susan only show how polarized things have become. For surely, at the very least, there is something amiss when the PB says she would have NO poblem selling the assets to another denomination. And, again, something hardly contestable, there is some issue of justice to be addressed, justice being a key theme on this blog, given that the entities who are realigning are the ones who bought and paid for 99.9 if not 100% of the assets in question.

Granted, you want those whom you oppose, Susan, to act differently. But how one can say that a negotiated settlement is not the best thing here or, as you say or imply, not even just or reasonable is way beyond me. In truth, so much of what I read from the polarized left AND right makes me think that the anger is deep seated and has clouded, hopefully not ireversibly so, judgement.

I think this FFIW of the PB whose icy demeanor in all of this is astonishing. If reports of the deposition are inaccurate, I will be open to hearing exactly what she said. But if these reports are true, I would suggest that thoughtful people on both sides of the presenting issue, who are concerned with justice and the well-being of everyone, would petition here to seek a settlement outside of the courts.

And never mind the fact that she signed the Communique which, I think, said something about this very issue . . .

Frair John said...

Rev Susan:
They seem to be so happy with their slurs, lies and implications of failure that I could almost accuse you of being a spoiled sport.
I would wager that most, if not all, of the rescued properties will survive as parishes since true majorities will return. All of the people that the separatists have run off will return, as well as those who find life in the Donatist schism isn't up to what they want.

Muthah+ said...

I can't understand why Matt Kennedy et.al who have now left the Episcopal Church feel that it is right and just to continue to bad mouth TEC. And just as surely I can't understand why we who have stayed continue to READ what they write. Enough already!

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

anonymous ... did you miss the episode of "As the Anglican World Turns" where +Katharine said she didn't "sign" the Communique ... that nobody "signed" anything ... that the ABoC went around the circle and asked for responses and she said "I'll take it back to the Episcopal Church" ... ???????????

If you did, pity. It was an important episode. Let me know if you want the URLs for the reruns

Anonymous said...

You didn't answer the main part of my post, Susan.

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

Anonymous ... whining at this point about consequences for schismatic actions is like the man who killed his parents and then begged for sympathy because he was an orphan.

Of course we wish things were not so "polarized" but if you'd followed the IRD "Agenda for America's Churches," if you've read the Chapman Memo, if you've been tracking this whole sorry mess since Lambeth '98 you'd recognize that the "negotiated settlement" train left the station a very long time ago ... and it was being driven, full speed ahead, by the very folks whining "she's not trying to negotiate with us" now.

As for these issues keeping us from addressing the wider issues of the Gospel, I couldn't agree more. But the responsibility for that lies not at the feet of the ones defending against the attacks against the Episcopal Church. It lies at the feet of those doing tha attacking.

JimB said...

Anonymous,

I don't think it is about polarization as much as it is common sense. We offer different visions than the Methodists, Romans or Presbyterians but we also know that they do not preach that we are satanic apostates seeking to destroy the Gospel. And that is one of the nicer things the Nutwork et al says. So, not selling to Anglicans Missing in Action et al, is simply avoiding helping people who on the record, actually do want to hurt us. Thieves certainly, but worse.

FWIW
jimB

Father Lee Nelson, SSC said...

Susan,

That is an assertion that is utterly ridiculous. The "national church" has never paid for parish property, they have never been involved in negotiations for parish property, and have never financed it. Dioceses don't call for approval from 815 either. Never have parish and diocesan properties showed up on a balance sheet for the national church.

Here's an analogy I think apt: it's like the Homeowner's Association saying that homeowners hold their property in trust for the Homeowner's Association. It just doesn't hold up.

Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it is.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

In case you haven't noticed, the agenda is a napalm strike on the Church. 70+ Million Anglicans are wrong. The Roman and Orthodox branches are wrong. The majority of Protestant Churches are wrong. The orthodox in the Episcopal Church are wrong. The obvious types that you used to endure at recess have taken over the Church and have made things unbearable until thousands are leaving. In the end they shall reach the lofty heights of the U.C.C. Any questions?

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

father nelson ... read the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and get back to me.

Allen ... "napalm strike on the Church?" Could you FIND more violent-riden, polemic language to describe the "agenda" of those seeking the full inclusion of all the baptized into the Body of Christ?

Note to all: Last time I let through a comment with that kind of rhetoric attached. Scream "censorship" if you want but [s] it's my blog and [b] if we're going to prepare for the coming of the Prince of Peace I say it's long past time to give up tha language of war.

Giving something up for Advent ... there's an idea!

JimB said...

tedRev. Susan,

We have seen of late a rising tide of appallingly war like, violent language. Some "orthodox" have been using it as it becomes increasingly clear they are loosing and face the same irrelevant fate as the 'continuing' fragments.

Violent language is the sure sign of someone who knows the game is up. When bullying does not work, bullies always raise the volume.

Unfortunately, so to violence.

Folks (especially clergy) be a bit careful out there ok? One of the less stable of the self proclaimed holy people may eventually read the warfare crud and slip an oar.

We need you all alive and uninjured.

FWIW
jimB

Father Lee Nelson, SSC said...

Yes, and the "declaration of ownership" I refer to in the homeowner's association is the Constitution and Canons.

Anonymous said...

Good grief! I can't believe we still have to keep re-iterating over and over and over again the reality of the Constitution and Canons of the Church. Are these people who keep bringing up, with inappropriate analogies, their right to "steal" (yes, that's the word: s...t...e...a...l!) property they do not own... are these people just totally oblivious to the reality that a pledge to a parish is not, is NOT, the same as purchasing a "share" in a corporate entity. Financial gifts to the church are just that... gifts. By making a donation to a church, one does not "buy" the church for any one group's use.

Listen! Darn it, you have ears! So listen!

No matter how much you might wish it were otherwise, it isn't. It just isn't. And saying so again and again is not going to make it so.

You do not come to "own" your parish building even if you built it with your very own little hands and hard-earned bucks. You don't. Period.

Can't we please stop beating this horse?

Anonymous said...

Father Nelson,

Forget the Dennis Canon and its sweeping "late to the light" grab for properties. Just research your church's deed. What does it say? Who gets the annual property tax bill? Your Church or 815? Our deed is secure in that it says that the Trustees hold the property for the benefit of our congregation.

RonF said...

Isn't it the same as someone in a United Way office who leaves to work in the Salvation Army?

No. Someone who works in a United Way office is an employee of the United Way. Parishioners are not employees of their parish or their Diocese. If anything, given the way the money flows, they are employers of their pastor and their Bishop.

Further: a United Way employee is using assets (buildings, furniture, phones, computers, etc.) bought and paid for by the United Way. The Parish and the Diocese is using assets bought and paid for by the parishioners.

It's more like a franchise, actually. Let's say that someone bought a McDonald's franchise. The franchisee buys a building and all the equipment in it. Later on, he sees that McDonald's burgers aren't selling and he decides he'd rather sell Burger King. Well, he's going to have to end his agreement with McDonalds, take down the sign, and stop representing his burgers as McDonald's hamburgers. But he gets to keep what he's paid for; he keeps the fryolators, the building, etc.

RonF said...

David, the reality of the Dennis Canon is that in it the National Church asserted that it had not only spiritual authority over it's members but temporal authority as well. Further, it has unScripturally invoked the courts to enforce it. Heck, the fact that it has had to do so should be a red flag right there that it was the wrong thing to do.

This was "a new thing" in TEC, although not one of the ones foretold in Scripture, I'll wager. Look at the structure of your parish. Do the pledge checks come in made out to the Diocese or the National Church? Does your Diocese and the National Church reach in to your bank account and take what they want, or do you vote on whether you'll give anything at all, and if so how much? Does the spiritual authority in your parish also have temporal authority? No. The pastor/vicar has spiritual authority, but he or she cannot sign checks or spend a dime of parish funds without the approval of the Vestry and Wardens.

Yet somehow the National Church thinks they have the moral and legal right to whip up a Canon and take real property from every parish. What arrogance!

Financial gifts to the church are just that... gifts.

True. But financial gifts to the parish are just that as well - gifts to the parish. For the National Church to pretend that they are in fact gifts to it is appallingly deceptive.

Anonymous said...

David,

The courts will decide who owns what. So far Virginia's Judge Bellows is not amused at TEC and the Diocese of Virginia's claims.
Forget the gnat-quick snippets. Witnesses to his comments suggest that he smells something amiss in the claims that those who DIDN'T fund, build, renovate, and maintain properties now miraculously own them.

Just as we are expected to indulge the presistence of the revisionists, maybe you can be patient with who is the real authority: and it's not 815.