The Episcopal Property War

“I don't want to use the term 'joy' about this. At the risk of sounding Christianesque, we have believed very strongly and soberly that we were [seceding] in obedience to God, and we believe that He is being faithful.”

In the slow-motion civil war of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., one very worldly question has arisen: who owns the real estate? If a congregation chooses to leave the U.S. Episcopal organization, do they have ... via Time

[CCS]

Tough question. I would have to say yes, the congregation keeps the church. I may not agree with these people theologically, but the church must belong to the congregations, not the church body.

[MiddleWay]

As a Vestry member who understands the workings of indiviual churches and TEC, the churches belong to TEC, priests are ordained Episcopalians.

If not, the Church building STILL belings to TEC.

If they'd like another church outside of TEC, go for it....

[ciperl]

Except for the fact that some of the church deeds were in the names of parishioners, NOT the denomination. Plus, the Falls Church existed BEFORE the episcopal denomination in America was founded. As one judge said... "Precedent always takes precedent."

The Episcopal Denomination is just upset because they have churches leaving on a weekly basis.

[bookguybaltmd]

CCS wrote:

Tough question. I would have to say yes, the congregation keeps the church. I may not agree with these people theologically, but the church must belong to the congregations, not the church body.

Actually, this is not correct. Even the recent judgement by Bellows does not maintain that the parishes belong to the congregations. His judgement says there is a division in the church and the parishs belong to that part of the division to which they are affiliated: in this case the Nigerian Anglican Church. The concern, of course, is that a state judge is making the theological judgement as to when a division in religion is a division and when it is not; he is trying to make a judgement on the theological definition of division based on purely secular criteria. That alone seems likely to be grounds for appeal on the constitutionality of his opinion.

[bookguybaltmd]

ciperl wrote:

Except for the fact that some of the church deeds were in the names of parishioners, NOT the denomination. Plus, the Falls Church existed BEFORE the episcopal denomination in America was founded.

This does not make any real difference as far as this judgement is concerned. The judge's opinion was based on a peculiar VA law governing the trust relationships in this case. In other cases in other states, the precedence is clear and the trust relationship to the larger denomination controls over the title of the property.

ciperl wrote:

The Episcopal Denomination is just upset because they have churches leaving on a weekly basis.

Also untrue. The votes in the church have been consistently more than 90% on the side of TECs current position and those who have objected remain a very very small minority.

Mind you, the fact that the arguement is taking place at all is damaging the church - but then, that was the deliberate aim of the minority in the first place.

[CCS]

bookguybaltmd wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, this is not correct. Even the recent judgement by Bellows does not maintain that the parishes belong to the congregations. His judgement says there is a division in the church and the parishs belong to that part of the division to which they are affiliated: in this case the Nigerian Anglican Church. The concern, of course, is that a state judge is making the theological judgement as to when a division in religion is a division and when it is not; he is trying to make a judgement on the theological definition of division based on purely secular criteria. That alone seems likely to be grounds for appeal on the constitutionality of his opinion.

Honestly, I find it dangerous that the courts are involved at all. If the church is to serve the needs of the flock and not the other way around, then it only seems right that the congregation have a say in the direction of the church, for good or ill.

The last thing a church should concern itself with is property rights.

[ciperl]

While property law varies from state to state, Virginia property law does not recognize denominational trusts and uses "neutral principles" for determining a congregation's property rights when a division occurs within a diocese or denomination. The 11 congregations' individual trustees hold the deeds to the properties.

So this was a pretty easy case for the judge to decide. Now the next step is taking a look at the constitutionality of the VA law.

[KGC]

Dear CCS,

CCS wrote:

<quoted text>
Honestly, I find it dangerous that the courts are involved at all. If the church is to serve the needs of the flock and not the other way around, then it only seems right that the congregation have a say in the direction of the church, for good or ill.
The last thing a church should concern itself with is property rights.

Tell that one to the Roman Catholic Church.

KGC

[Dan]

KGC wrote:

Dear CCS,
<quoted text>
Tell that one to the Roman Catholic Church.
KGC

KGC-

That was a bit beneath you.

This situation would not be happening in the Catholic Church. Agree or disagree with the doctrine, but they know what they believe and they can tell you.

If Bishop Schiori had that authority, this issue would have been resolved a long time ago and you would not have had to muddy your hands in property disputes.

Would that the theological end of the ECUSA had been as clearly delineated as the property statutes.

[KGC]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
KGC-
That was a bit beneath you.
This situation would not be happening in the Catholic Church. Agree or disagree with the doctrine, but they know what they believe and they can tell you.
If Bishop Schiori had that authority, this issue would have been resolved a long time ago and you would not have had to muddy your hands in property disputes.
Would that the theological end of the ECUSA had been as clearly delineated as the property statutes.

Now, Dan,

You misinterpret my tongue-in-cheek barb to the good Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church wields substantial sway in the Christian world. But, contrary to their self-desired and proclaimed position of leadership, they are no more in a position of ultimate authority than are any of the other apostolic churches - Syrian, Coptic, Russian, Greek and Eastern Orthodox. The Anglican Church, including the Scots and by the Scots, the Episcopalians are legitimately apostolic. The Lutheran Church is also rightfully apostolic. Both legitimately trace their priestly succession through the Romans.

The many other denominations are also legitimately Christian, taking their authority from scripture as well as the presence of the Holy Spirit. Because they believe and are faithful, they are, by Grace, part of the Body of Christ.

Altogether, the whole shebang owns an awful lot of private property.

But, the facts are that the Roman Catholic Church is one of - if not the single largest - private property owner on the face of Planet Earth.

Furthermore, every time the Roman Catholic Church has had a serious internal disagreement, a sizeable split has occurred. Whether or not the Roman Church held the correct position in the matter that caused the split was academic. It always endeavored to keep its property. Those that split off were generally deemed heretics responsible for the division. Nevermind that there were legitimate issues.

Most recent case in point: The Polish Church in St. Louis that claims ownership of its property because it originally had title.

I have no desire or need to disparage the Roman Church and do not do so. But, there is no reason why a spade should not be called a spade either. As good and faithful as the Church is, in all of its many forms, not one has any greater claim to perfection than any other.

As the Lord said, "My Father's House has many mansions ..."

KGC

[bookguybaltmd]

ciperl wrote:

While property law varies from state to state, Virginia property law does not recognize denominational trusts and uses "neutral principles" for determining a congregation's property rights when a division occurs within a diocese or denomination. The 11 congregations' individual trustees hold the deeds to the properties.
So this was a pretty easy case for the judge to decide. Now the next step is taking a look at the constitutionality of the VA law.

Actually, this is not the case in this decision. The court does recognize the trustee relationship between the national church, the diocese, and local parishes. In this decision the court has said that, back in the civil war era, the state of Virginia has passed a unique law that deliberately over-ruled that relationship.

The question now before the courts in Virginia(next month) is actually at a higher level than the immediate property issue; is it constitutional for the court to over-rule the faith-based unitary administration of a denomination?

In a sense, the court has said that the state has over-ruled apostolic succession as a governing principal in a church and that all churches shall be governed the way the Baptist church (for example) is governed. But the government of churches has previously been held to be the exclusive province of the denomination; in the past and in other states, the state's role has been to enforce the property rights inherent in that government, but not to dictate what form that government should take.

This is why other denominations (Presebetarians, Methodists, Lutherans, Romans) have come in on the side of the Episcopal Church. Though they might agree with the break-away groups on biblical grounds, they disagree with the constitutionality of the state's interference in church government.

[Dan]

KGC wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, Dan,
You misinterpret my tongue-in-cheek barb to the good Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church wields substantial sway in the Christian world. But, contrary to their self-desired and proclaimed position of leadership, they are no more in a position of ultimate authority than are any of the other apostolic churches - Syrian, Coptic, Russian, Greek and Eastern Orthodox. The Anglican Church, including the Scots and by the Scots, the Episcopalians are legitimately apostolic. The Lutheran Church is also rightfully apostolic. Both legitimately trace their priestly succession through the Romans.
The many other denominations are also legitimately Christian, taking their authority from scripture as well as the presence of the Holy Spirit. Because they believe and are faithful, they are, by Grace, part of the Body of Christ.
Altogether, the whole shebang owns an awful lot of private property.
But, the facts are that the Roman Catholic Church is one of - if not the single largest - private property owner on the face of Planet Earth.
Furthermore, every time the Roman Catholic Church has had a serious internal disagreement, a sizeable split has occurred. Whether or not the Roman Church held the correct position in the matter that caused the split was academic. It always endeavored to keep its property. Those that split off were generally deemed heretics responsible for the division. Nevermind that there were legitimate issues.
Most recent case in point: The Polish Church in St. Louis that claims ownership of its property because it originally had title.
I have no desire or need to disparage the Roman Church and do not do so. But, there is no reason why a spade should not be called a spade either. As good and faithful as the Church is, in all of its many forms, not one has any greater claim to perfection than any other.
As the Lord said, "My Father's House has many mansions ..."
KGC

Understand completely; the RCC differs none with ECUSA in that in would attempt to retain it's property.

You are correct also that historically, splits or schisms within the RCC have usually resulted in the party causing the split to be deemed heretics or in heresy.

The current ECUSA structure (as I have learned from past discourse with you and other good ECUSA members who have taken their time to explain to me) is not positioned or inclined to rule that other members are in heresy, and that issues that would divide the membership are to be discussed or otherwise vetted in lieu of an authoritative statement of position or belief being made by the PB or General Council.

[KGC]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Understand completely; the RCC differs none with ECUSA in that in would attempt to retain it's property.
You are correct also that historically, splits or schisms within the RCC have usually resulted in the party causing the split to be deemed heretics or in heresy.
The current ECUSA structure (as I have learned from past discourse with you and other good ECUSA members who have taken their time to explain to me) is not positioned or inclined to rule that other members are in heresy, and that issues that would divide the membership are to be discussed or otherwise vetted in lieu of an authoritative statement of position or belief being made by the PB or General Council.

I mostly agree. But, I personally believe that TEC is choosing to accommodate same-sex couples and is moving toward blessing these unusual unions because the clergy and the lay membership see this as an entirely Christian way to tackle an ages-old taboo. This is a courageous undertaking.

Many on this Forum assert that scripture does not define homosexuality in the modern sense. In a purely literal interpretation, I think they are correct.

But, as many others have pointed out, scripture does not look favorably upon same-sex sexual behavior, either. There are a number of reasonably legitimate and frequently listed quotes that are used to support their view that same-sex sexual behavior is plainly sinful.

The facts are that all Christians are placed squarely upon the horns of a dilemma when attempting to sort out this issue. But, The Episcopal Church is also uniquely structured and positioned to take on the task of making modern sense out of this ancient question.

The Roman Church is not well-positioned to grapple with this issue. Because of their hierarchichal structure and their persistent adherence to the celibate life within its orders and clergy, homosexuality has been allowed to thrive within its ranks. Pederasty, which is not at all the same as homosexuality, has also been allowed and the Roman Church is paying dearly for its centuries-old refusal to look within.

Still, modern Christianity must find its way through these difficult concepts. As humanity comes into an accelerating and enlightening age of deep investigation into its own origins, psychology and genetic development, we are learning things that are quickly dispensing with previously held concepts and myths that served our ancestors, for a time.

Like it or not, these are new revelations about ourselves. They are veery much Divine in the scope of determination of Truth. We cannot escape from making moral and social judgments. But, when individuals and minorities are culled out and made to take a back seat in the bus on the basis of these previously held concepts, we are forced to look at our own motivations.

If, then, we find our newly understood conclusions to be arranging in semi-direct oppositions to traditional interpretations of scripture, we have significant problems to solve.

And, it is not good enough to just trash Children of God with the fiat of a perception of sin.

KGC

[Dan]

KGC wrote:

<quoted text>
I mostly agree. But, I personally believe that TEC is choosing to accommodate same-sex couples and is moving toward blessing these unusual unions because the clergy and the lay membership see this as an entirely Christian way to tackle an ages-old taboo. This is a courageous undertaking.
Many on this Forum assert that scripture does not define homosexuality in the modern sense. In a purely literal interpretation, I think they are correct.
But, as many others have pointed out, scripture does not look favorably upon same-sex sexual behavior, either. There are a number of reasonably legitimate and frequently listed quotes that are used to support their view that same-sex sexual behavior is plainly sinful.
The facts are that all Christians are placed squarely upon the horns of a dilemma when attempting to sort out this issue. But, The Episcopal Church is also uniquely structured and positioned to take on the task of making modern sense out of this ancient question.
The Roman Church is not well-positioned to grapple with this issue. Because of their hierarchichal structure and their persistent adherence to the celibate life within its orders and clergy, homosexuality has been allowed to thrive within its ranks. Pederasty, which is not at all the same as homosexuality, has also been allowed and the Roman Church is paying dearly for its centuries-old refusal to look within.
Still, modern Christianity must find its way through these difficult concepts. As humanity comes into an accelerating and enlightening age of deep investigation into its own origins, psychology and genetic development, we are learning things that are quickly dispensing with previously held concepts and myths that served our ancestors, for a time.
Like it or not, these are new revelations about ourselves. They are veery much Divine in the scope of determination of Truth. We cannot escape from making moral and social judgments. But, when individuals and minorities are culled out and made to take a back seat in the bus on the basis of these previously held concepts, we are forced to look at our own motivations.
If, then, we find our newly understood conclusions to be arranging in semi-direct oppositions to traditional interpretations of scripture, we have significant problems to solve.
And, it is not good enough to just trash Children of God with the fiat of a perception of sin.
KGC

True-the RCC is dealing with great difficulties; the culprit is the sinful nature of man vs the calling to rise above those base desires, but it has created great travail.

Very basic question, and it doesn't necessarily deal with homosexuality, rather the dilemma with TEC.

You ae correct that Scripture does not look favorably upon same-sex behavior; that may even be an understatement.

How does one extrapolate from Biblical statements disapproving an act as sinful (with no Scriptural counterweight-no contradictory statements) that, at this point in time, the act is not now sinful in nature in any way? This assumes a chanage in the nature of man or the nature of God, does it not?

If that can be done, how can the congregant or the minsiter make any meaningful reliance on scripture, if it can be "overturned", as it were?

[KGC]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
True-the RCC is dealing with great difficulties; the culprit is the sinful nature of man vs the calling to rise above those base desires, but it has created great travail.
Very basic question, and it doesn't necessarily deal with homosexuality, rather the dilemma with TEC.
You ae correct that Scripture does not look favorably upon same-sex behavior; that may even be an understatement.
How does one extrapolate from Biblical statements disapproving an act as sinful (with no Scriptural counterweight-no contradictory statements) that, at this point in time, the act is not now sinful in nature in any way? This assumes a chanage in the nature of man or the nature of God, does it not?
If that can be done, how can the congregant or the minsiter make any meaningful reliance on scripture, if it can be "overturned", as it were?

Dan,

Stereotyping all homosexual relationships as sinful is a simple attempt to make the issue fit into a clear black and white definition.

But, there is always a gray area.

Before the issue became complicated by the truth revealed within the last 20 years, scripture prevailed. But, when serious and thorough investigation occurred under strictly clinical and scientific rigor showing that a significant part of homosexuality develops as a result of embryonic conditions, whether genetic or chemical or as a result of a combination of these factors, no one could any longer assign sin to such behavior in good conscience.

The very Truth has been found to be in conflict with the previously accepted scriptural interpretations - even in conflict with what has been regarded as fundamental dogma based upon long-held beliefs.

This is not a comfortable situation for the serious Christian.

However, the value of all scripture is not suddenly overturned because we have found that the nature of same-sex relationships is no longer a black and white clear cut issue.

Really, Dan. Why do you suppose that the Roman Church has allowed homosexual relationships to persist within the ranks of its celibate clergy? We certainly can't say that no one knew, can we?
No. The relationships were allowed to persist because it is understood that mankind is a highly sexual being. I would suggest that we even innately understand that homosexuality has always been a normal expression of sexuality among a very minor percentage of humans. Just because it exists in this small percentage does not mean that all of us are going to run out and start up same sex relationships.

KGC

[Dan]

KGC wrote:

<quoted text>
Dan,
Stereotyping all homosexual relationships as sinful is a simple attempt to make the issue fit into a clear black and white definition.
But, there is always a gray area.
Before the issue became complicated by the truth revealed within the last 20 years, scripture prevailed. But, when serious and thorough investigation occurred under strictly clinical and scientific rigor showing that a significant part of homosexuality develops as a result of embryonic conditions, whether genetic or chemical or as a result of a combination of these factors, no one could any longer assign sin to such behavior in good conscience.
The very Truth has been found to be in conflict with the previously accepted scriptural interpretations - even in conflict with what has been regarded as fundamental dogma based upon long-held beliefs.
This is not a comfortable situation for the serious Christian.
However, the value of all scripture is not suddenly overturned because we have found that the nature of same-sex relationships is no longer a black and white clear cut issue.
Really, Dan. Why do you suppose that the Roman Church has allowed homosexual relationships to persist within the ranks of its celibate clergy? We certainly can't say that no one knew, can we?
No. The relationships were allowed to persist because it is understood that mankind is a highly sexual being. I would suggest that we even innately understand that homosexuality has always been a normal expression of sexuality among a very minor percentage of humans. Just because it exists in this small percentage does not mean that all of us are going to run out and start up same sex relationships.
KGC

Don't misunderstand my post-I mentioned homosexual behavior as it is at the crux of the discussion. I think that sex scandals, to use the term, are a result of man's innate sinful nature in that it represents a lack of control over base desires and urges, same as lying in self-preservation, striking or killing someone who had wronged or hurt you, etc.

In that sense, homosexual behavior is equivalant to sex outside of marriage, which is a sin for the Catholic (no matter who its with). The fact that someone is genetically incapable of being with the opposite sex matters not; its the control over base desires and sex out of wedlock that is the issue.

Yes, I'll concede that this places the homosexual in a Catch-22 as marriage is not possible in many cases, but laying the onus for remediation at the feet of the church is not really accurate either.

One can be genetically disposed to all manner of behavior; all those behaviors do not automatically deserve church sanction, do they?

[KGC]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't misunderstand my post-I mentioned homosexual behavior as it is at the crux of the discussion. I think that sex scandals, to use the term, are a result of man's innate sinful nature in that it represents a lack of control over base desires and urges, same as lying in self-preservation, striking or killing someone who had wronged or hurt you, etc.
In that sense, homosexual behavior is equivalant to sex outside of marriage, which is a sin for the Catholic (no matter who its with). The fact that someone is genetically incapable of being with the opposite sex matters not; its the control over base desires and sex out of wedlock that is the issue.
Yes, I'll concede that this places the homosexual in a Catch-22 as marriage is not possible in many cases, but laying the onus for remediation at the feet of the church is not really accurate either.
One can be genetically disposed to all manner of behavior; all those behaviors do not automatically deserve church sanction, do they?

Well, I don't see that you have to regard the understanding that couples involved in same-sex relationships are in a "catch-22" as a conceded point. Its just a plain fact. The Church has not acknowledged the legitimacy of these relationships.

But, if such long-term committed relationships are a legitimate and moral, natural pair-bond then the Church should recognize them and sanction their bond with a sacramental blessing.

That's the question, isn't it? Whether or not these relationships are actually a normal and moral expression of human sexuality. Up until 20 years ago we had no real evidence that such relationships were a normally and persistently occurring subset of the human pair-bond. Today, we know differently. Now its up to us to reconcile what we now know with what we previously thought to be true - scripture included.

The Church should permit and do this instead of preventing the committed relationship or ostracising the individuals or forcing them to conduct their relationship in a clandestine manner. It is called enlightened problem solving.

This doesn't threaten marriage. It broadens and extends the sanction to include an additional set of relationships. Is this a new and different idea that breaks with tradition? Indubitably!

But, it is the RIGHT and BEST thing to do.

We have understandably and wrongly lumped same-sex relationships in with every other behavior that doesn't seem to be right. Then we use this lumping as an excuse to stereotype, discriminate, segregate and to throw highly creative people into the trashbin of sin-saturated depravity and isolation.

Jesus would not - does not - do this.

This is not pederasty. This is not sex with animals. This is not rape. This is not hedonistic orgiastic group sex.

This is a sanction of two people who are committed to each other's spiritual growth and mutual general welfare in a long-term bond. Except for the ideal of the physical relationship, it is in every other respect a marriage - by common law, if nothing else. It stands to reason that if the two individuals are from before birth set on a path through life that compliments each other, then this same-sex relationship compliments their best and most liberating expression.

Its pretty simple, really. Its what's best for them.

KGC