And now the end of the story in the Diocese of San Diego.  The Diocese and TEC have prevailed against groups of former Episcopalians claiming ownership of property and assets.  Here is the Diocesan Press release:

Superior Court Rules in Favor of Episcopal Diocese
The San Diego Superior Court ruled in favor of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego on Tuesday, November 10 in a property dispute involving the congregations of two churches that claimed to leave the Episcopal Church, taking church property with them.
The dissenting congregations in the San Diego Diocese were members of St. Anne’s in Oceanside and Holy Trinity in Ocean Beach. In January 2006 and September 2006 respectively, leaders of these congregations renounced their membership in the Episcopal Church and aligned themselves instead with a foreign diocese.
Since then, the breakaway congregations have been engaged in a dispute with the Diocese of San Diego about who is the rightful owner of church property.
Tuesday’s ruling follows recent appellate opinions and confirms the Right Reverend James R. Mathes’ conviction that parish property cannot be taken away from the larger church by departing members.
“While I know this comes as a hard decision for the members of these dissenting congregations, this is also an opportunity for reconciliation and renewal” said Bishop Mathes. “We are eager to welcome these individuals back into the Episcopal Church. There is no need for anyone to change their place of worship. We will celebrate the same service from the same prayer book at the same altar.”
“This decision follows all other major decisions regarding property in a hierarchical church,” added Bishop Mathes. “The Diocese of San Diego is grateful to conclude this necessary but painful season.”
“This decision reaffirms the principle that the property of an Episcopal congregation must be used to further the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church,” said Baker & McKenzie partner, Charles H. Dick, Chancellor of the Diocese and its attorney in the property litigations. “People should be free to leave the Episcopal Church if they wish, but they cannot take the property of the Episcopal Church with them when they depart.”
Bishop Mathes is available for comment. Please contact Hannah to arrange an interview.

“People should be free to leave the Episcopal Church if they wish, but they cannot take the property of the Episcopal Church with them when they depart.”

And the people are leaving.  So the question is - which will survive in the long-term - the church of the buildings or the church of the people?  In the end, I am not sure that this represents a “defeat” for the Anglicans nor a “victory” for TEC.  I see it more as a quick and forced transformation to doing church in the 21st century for the Anglicans (they are being literally forced to change the status quo and their parishioners are being forced to become engaged and motivated), whilst leaving TEC with yet more empty buildings, bad press, departing pledges, budget problems, and complacent parishioners. 

I drew the example earlier of two kids in line for the H1N1 flu shot - neither kid wants the shot because it will hurt.  It is then announced that there is only one dose left - one kid will get it and the other won’t.  The kids fight over who will be forced to get the shot, and finally one kid tricks the other into being the one to get the short.  Both kids at the time believe that the kid who escaped the shot “won” while the kid who got the shot “lost”.  But then a month later both kids got exposed to the flu - the one who went through the initial pain of inoculation survives, but the kid who “won” and didn’t get inoculated dies.

So, yes, it will be tough for the departing Anglicans, but I am not yet sure that it isn’t for the best in the long run.  As for me, I am still in TEC, in a church which is legally titled in the name of the diocese.  If and when I leave TEC I would not be taking the building, nor would I have any desire to take it (nor could I as my congregation would not wish to leave).  However due to what is going on in places like San Diego, I have refused to give financially at all to my local TEC parish, as the National Church apparently has the ultimate ownership of anything I give, and I can not, in good conscience, give under such conditions.

James Wirrel - 13 November 2009 02:33 PM

“People should be free to leave the Episcopal Church if they wish, but they cannot take the property of the Episcopal Church with them when they depart.”

And the people are leaving.
  snip

However due to what is going on in places like San Diego, I have refused to give financially at all to my local TEC parish, as the National Church apparently has the ultimate ownership of anything I give, and I can not, in good conscience, give under such conditions.

  There is no sign that the pure orthodox congregations have grown once separated from TEC, and there is fresh health among those who stayed, that very motivation you speak of. 

  It is sad to hear James that you do not support the local sacramental and service ministries of your parish.  They are entirely local.  If you wish to refrain from capital giving based on how the courts are deciding or to designate your money only for local use, that is tolerable.  But to give nothing only punishes your local brothers and sisters in Christ.  I hope you will reconsider your decision not to share int he cost of ministries from which you directly benefit. Even the widow gave her last 2 cents to a temple filled with scribes she knew were out to rob her, you can do the same.

  Two principles which I incarnate in the life of my parish are:  If you don’t pledge you can’t complain; and If you don’t participate you can’t control.

There is no sign that the pure orthodox congregations have grown once separated from TEC, and there is fresh health among those who stayed, that very motivation you speak of.

Except, of course, that your very own statistics Michael demonstrate the falsity of your claim.  The Diocese of San Diego has continued to bleed members and ASA according to the latest set of TEC stats.  And based on conversations with the people in the departing parishes, they are doing just fine.  In fact, I hear that there is serious church planting going on in Southern California, and that when these efforts are compared to church planting in TEC some years back (there was a lot of that in the Diocese of Virginia ten years ago), the results are pretty good.  I have seen the “fresh health” in the many empty potemkin parishes which TEC has later closed, and in the way that these potemkin parishes have drained the surrounding parishes and dioceses.  We seem to read a lot about the “fresh health” of these potemkin parishes in TEC’s PR organs, only to read about these same “freshly healthy” parishes closing their doors a year or two later, all in all, while reading about the continued decline in TEC’s membership and ASA.

It is sad to hear James that you do not support the local sacramental and service ministries of your parish.

Don’t jump to conclusions Michael.  I said that I don’t give financially.  That doesn’t mean I don’t support my parish’s ministries.  I make it possible for my congregation to have an active priest.  I teach Sunday School.  I do lay preaching.  I am fully capable of supporting local service ministries without that money going through the parish books.  I think it is incumbent upon us conservative folks still in TEC to intelligently analyze our stewardship such that we will not be fooled again.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Two principles which I incarnate in the life of my parish are:  If you don’t pledge you can’t complain; and If you don’t participate you can’t control.

Ordinarily, I would agree with your first point.  My one quandry is that while it would be financially advantageous for me to encourage others to pledge, I cannot in good conscience exhort others to give financially to a TEC institution.  As to your second point, I have no interest at all in “control”.  IMHO, both my diocese and TEC as a whole have made a definite choice towards self-euthanization.  That decision has been made.  Accordingly, I have no interest in diocesan conventions (I’m a delegate, but have decided not to waste the church’s money nor my time in attending it) or the political processes in TEC.  TEC as an institution has made its choice and that choice has been to join the spirit of the age. 

The question, as I see it, is to deal with the consequences of that in light of establishing the best possible hope for a continuing, future, robust Anglicanism in North America.  I am already more then convinced that this will be a messy situation, and one in which there will be much pain.  I certainly don’t like TEC, and I am no big fan of the ACNA either (though I think that North American Anglicanism’s future will need to reconcile parts of both groups).  I am also convinced that TEC was rotten to the core (analogy is to a dead tree, not meant to be a moral analogy) even if the sexuality issue had not arisen (I mean a church organized and governed and with many parishioners in the mindset of the 1950’s instead of a church prepared to live in the 21st century).  North American Anglicanism needed someone to take it by the collar and shake hard.  TEC is imploding on itself, and the ACNA are merely part of the debris that is falling from the sky.  I see TEC as being part of the past, and so I have no great interest in what it does.  For me, the focus needs to be on caring for TEC parishioners in the present, and on creating an Anglicanism for the future.  Neither goal requires me to have much interest or say in TEC’s continuing self-destructive behaviors, nor to fund such self-destructive behaviors, nor to pay the upkeep on the property controlled by those encouraging and directing such self-destructive behaviors.

We just live in two different world views then James. I am not a pollyanna about TEC or its problems, but I have had broad experience in this church in several regions and it is not a church rotten to the core because its parishes are filled with by en large decent people and committed Christians.

Culturally the broad church is not the least bit evangelical in the sense of pushing to grow parishes or plant them.  This is a very sad thing in my estimation because I think Anglicanism is the most thoughtful and intelligent way to be Christian in a rapidly changing world.  It is built,intellectually and theologically, from the ground up to embrace changes for the good and hold on to that which is valued from the past.

I am sorry that you and others where misinformed about the hierarchical nature of this church.  But the onus of that misinformation is on the head of those who knew better and then pretended it just was not so.  Eventually, as these San Diego groups have learned, they will all understand that they were misled, wasted tons of money and will now have the pleasure of living the Gamaliel principle.  The Bishop here has invited those who wish to stay and some might. 

TEC’s two largest tensions are these:

Many of our good and faithful members see their relation to the local parish as one of chaplaincy (hence the merging “death to George Herbertism” movement.  They want nurture and pastoral care when they need it, and by golly that is the covenant that was made with them and needs to be honored.

The second is that we have no real energy for Kindom of God building (my own revision of the more traditional monarchical phrase).  Many see it as simply poor manners to push your religious beliefs into other people’s faces.  As one woman once told the former PB Griswold, “Why everyone who wants to be an Episcopalian already is one.” The fear of “Evangelism” ranks right up there with public speaking and cold calling.

As for control… well everyone wants things done as they like them done or wants “somebody” to take care of “it”.  My point was that unless they are themselves doing in the life of the church they cannot essentially orders others about.

Michael: 

I am sorry that you and others where misinformed about the hierarchical nature of this church.

I personally have long understood the legal issues involved.  My personal beliefs are that there should be a hierarchical relationship between parish and diocese in terms of ecclesiastical relationship, but that property ownership ought to be based in the same rules as exist for every other organization in America, rather then having a special rule created by the courts for “hierarchical” churches.  Hierarchical churches are quite capable of organizing themselves legally, as well as spiritually, in a hierarchical fashion, and I believe that it is a fundamental offense to the Constitution for the courts to exempt a certain kind of church from the ordinary laws of trust and property.  So, for example, our current building is legally owned by the diocese, and that is as it should be.  Our parish is LEGALLY and SPIRITUALLY in a hierarchical relationship to the diocese.  Where I object is to the exercise of the Dennis Canon, which violates ordinary trust and property law, but which the courts have exempted from that ordinary law simply because it was implemented by a “hierarchical” church.  That exemption strikes me as a fundamental offense to our Establishment Clause.

I also believe that being a “hierarchical” church is a two way street.  It not only involves the parish responsibilities to the diocese, but also the diocesan responsibility to the parish.  The responsibility of the diocese (through the bishop) is to uphold the apostolic faith and discipline for the diocese.  TEC’s bishops have failed this primary responsibility.

I do think that there has been, and continues to be, deception about the actual ownership of parish properties in TEC, and that to correct this misunderstanding on the part of TEC’s leadership would lead to a lot of angry parishioners.  However, I would suggest to you that the legal fights aren’t over till they are over.  I am not predicting victory, but I am also suggesting to you that the courts are unpredictable.

Personally, I am of mixed mind on the property issues.  Like you, I have a pretty wide experience in Anglican and Episcopal churches in Canada and the US, and one of the leading obstacles to growth that I have observed has been attachment to a building.  This goes for old buildings that no longer work for a 21st century congregation and for very nice buildings which are the source of too much pride for the congregation or which have become the primary object of the parish’s ministries.  It is probably a huge favor to 80% of parishes to force them out of their current properties.  On the other hand, I realize the pain and injustice of evicting people from a building which they legally owned and which they paid for.  In the end, I think these property decisions work in the long term future of the ACNA rather then TEC.

it is not a church rotten to the core because its parishes are filled with by en large decent people and committed Christians

Michael - I thought I made it clear that my analogy of “rotten” was to a dead tree, rather then to the church membership being bad people.  I have seen conservative congregations which I would define as “rotten” in this sense in that there is no future in them - they are terminal places which will die off as the current membership dies off.  I would not stay in TEC if I did not think that there were a lot of good and decent people in it.  I even think that TEC’s liberal leadership is typically decent, if badly misguided and too insular (with some significant exceptions in the highest leadership positions and among the more fanatical activists).

I agree very much with the issues you have identified as being TEC’s two largest tensions, though I don’t know that I would describe them as “the” two largest tensions, but rather as serious issues which TEC is not facing.  I believe that there are several other issues also.

Culturally the broad church is not the least bit evangelical in the sense of pushing to grow parishes or plant them.  This is a very sad thing in my estimation because I think Anglicanism is the most thoughtful and intelligent way to be Christian in a rapidly changing world.  It is built,intellectually and theologically, from the ground up to embrace changes for the good and hold on to that which is valued from the past.

Got my attention:

Why is Anglicanism in the broad church (developed West?) not interested in growing or planting parishes?

I know why Evangelicals want to grow parishes and plant them: we believe that it matters BOTH in the present, and for the “future.” We believe there is “eternal” (I don’t like that language much, but oh well) consequeses whether or not someone hears and responds to the Gospel.

If the broad church is fundamentally pluralistic, then there is ultimately no reason for any one to become Christian (or remain one, for that matter).

The only thing left is then to “be good” (what ever that means) and “be nice”.

One of my favorite authors, Free Methodist pastor Howard Snyder, began one of his books, “The Church gets in trouble when it thinks that it is in the Church business and not the Kingdom business.”

Snyder’s warning is one that Episcopalians, as well as members of ACNA, need to heed. We like church business and we often do it well, but God wants us to be about Kingdom business, i.e., sharing in the missio Dei, God’s mission of reconciling the world in Christ. Episcopalins have often been better at the social justice and service aspects of the mission than the evangelistic aspect and we need to make the latter a prioroty without neglecting the others. As a friend puts it, we can’t have the Millennium Development Goals without Jesus, and we can’t have Jesus without the MDGs.

I agree with you Dan BUT Sadly I have to question how TEC, steeped as it is in heterodoxy, led by a person who both denigrates personal conversion and the uniqueness of Christ can possibly say “come to Jesus.”  Also how can we say repent and be forgiven when there is no real notion of sin; nor an understanding of the substitutionary Atonement which then makes sense of the work of Christ upon the Cross.  You write:

Daniel Weir - 14 November 2009 03:01 PM

We like church business and we often do it well, but God wants us to be about Kingdom business, i.e., sharing in the missio Dei, God’s mission of reconciling the world in Christ. Episcopalins have often been better at the social justice and service aspects of the mission than the evangelistic aspect and we need to make the latter a prioroty without neglecting the others. As a friend puts it, we can’t have the Millennium Development Goals without Jesus, and we can’t have Jesus without the MDGs.

For there to be evangelism there must be a Christian message with substance that is congruent with the teaching of Christ, the Apostles and the historic proclamation of the Gospel.  Since I see none of these in the teaching and preaching of TEC I have concluded that TEC is solely about church business.  Add to that the systematic persecution of the orthodox and you have a church that is sadly no longer recognizable as part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church - IMHO.

The MDGs are worthy goals and we can support them as Christians - HOWEVER they are never the Gospel.  We supported long ago goals like the MDGs, especially those of us at work in Africa and South America.  I am hesitant to mention the MDGs now as they bring the baggage of TEC, which organization I no longer trust.

Blessings - Ian

Ian,

You and I disagree about a number of matters, but the one of immediate concern is your contention that the preaching and teaching of TEC is not congruent with the teaching of Christ. That is a blanket statement which may be true in some places, but is surely not true in others.

Daniel

Charlie Clauss - 13 November 2009 11:16 PM

Got my attention:

Why is Anglicanism in the broad church (developed West?) not interested in growing or planting parishes?

I know why Evangelicals want to grow parishes and plant them: we believe that it matters BOTH in the present, and for the “future.” We believe there is “eternal” (I don’t like that language much, but oh well) consequeses whether or not someone hears and responds to the Gospel.

If the broad church is fundamentally pluralistic, then there is ultimately no reason for any one to become Christian (or remain one, for that matter).

The only thing left is then to “be good” (what ever that means) and “be nice”.

Well were I the flippant sort, Id just say we already planted all the churches we need.  Which means that we take a map, divide it up geographically, put churches down in sensible places and viola we are done.  This is the old parochial system.  Grow up in England or the East Coast of the US and there already IS an Episcopal Church planted everywhere.

IN an established church there is no impulse to plant churches, but it is also fair to say that the broad church did not see church planting or evangelism as part of its call.  I count that a great shame Charlie partly because of the great commission and partly because we abandoned souls to the biblical Anglican evangelicals.  They had the gumption to get around the various corporate colonial powers and around governmental powers to present the Gospel to the indigenous people throughout the empire.  I admire what they did, though not how they did it, so much.  There were class issues involved as well in the dislike of the Evangelicals.  All of this is tragic and has come back to bite the old latitudinarians and the neo-latitudinarians.

Nearly all the important work was done by entrepreneurial evangelicals.  We celebrated Charles Simeon this past week and he was one of the rocks upon which the CMS was built.

Because Anglicanism has a minimalist definition of what is necessary for salvation we see no need for sheep snatching from other Christian denominations, don’t need to ever suggest their people are going to hell as long as they affirm Jesus as Savior.  As for the unchurched we just have dropped the ball there.  At the same time we do not see it as our responsibility to challenge every stranger and demand to know if they love Jesus.  It is their responsibility to see to their own soul and “cold calling Christianity” offends our sense of manner and propriety.

We are equally lax with respect to stewardship of our money.

James post suggesting that saving buildings may not be the best goal has a real kernel of truth in it.  While buildings are a visible place set aside for the worship and service of God, they also become places where people get so attached to their own way of doing things that it can be come impossible to change to meet the needs of a new time.  New people are welcome so long as they do it as it has always been done.  But they are also there because they need comfort and support attendant to their own traumas, and only then can people look outwards.  So George Herbertism lives in and through the buildings.

It is actually far easier just to abandon existing congregations, which is what the church planters essentially suggest, and plant new ones where the culture can be shaped afresh (until year three when “we’ve always done it this way” begins to surface).  I see my work as abetting conversion by deed,  more than conversion by word and proclamation.

This inherited lassitude is not rottenness, and I appreciate your nuancing your metaphor James, it is simply where we begin and conditions how we work with people who have been good and faithful all their lives.

Daniel Weir - 14 November 2009 04:15 PM

Ian,

You and I disagree about a number of matters, but the one of immediate concern is your contention that the preaching and teaching of TEC is not congruent with the teaching of Christ. That is a blanket statement which may be true in some places, but is surely not true in others.

Daniel

Certainly as a blanket statement it has some real holes. There are, indeed, some faithful in TEC who preach and teach in congruence with that of Christ.  However I still hold that the leadership, especially the person of the PB, is preaching and teaching something that is not congruent with the teaching of Christ.  The PB is clearly supported in this new religious teaching by a majority of her bishops who either mouth the same falsehoods or who stay silently by and give assent by their silence.  These folk are clear “the Holy Spirit has given us a new revelation” they say - and when a few of us challenge and many more in the wider AC, challenge their assertions, especially when these assertions are contrary to “God’s Word Written,” then they are likely simply to set aside the Holy Scriptures in favor of their new revelation.  Often they then misuse the BCP 1979 to justify their new revelation, calling it Baptismal Covenant Theology!  This latter is of itself innovative and has little acceptance in the wider AC.  This “BCT” is now used to justify all sorts of innovations that TEC has already foisted on the US Church and wants to foist on the AC s a whole.
I should add for the sake of clarity that I love the Baptismal Covenant.  I have used it constantly when calling persons to make a personal decision to turn to and follow Christ.  I use the “Interrogatory” first (Do you turn to Christ, repent of evil, etc?) - following the creed part the most critical question is concerning following in the Apostles’ Teaching.  The Importance of the Baptismal Covenant is not found in the last question, which is the usual point of emphasis now. 
So there you are!  I have walked away and now serve overseas in another part of the AC.  I have given up on TEC, though spend some time when back home on vacation seeking to build up the faithful and oppose the heretical as I vowed to do at my ordination (pre 1979 BCP).
Blessings - Ian

Not surprising really. Except rarely like the Falls Church, which is older than TEC, these cases are a slam-dunk for the dioceses. Jude 1:3, orthodoxy, is not a licence to steal.

I am not convinced that it is stealing!

Mr John Beeler - 19 November 2009 12:59 AM

Not surprising really. Except rarely like the Falls Church, which is older than TEC, these cases are a slam-dunk for the dioceses. Jude 1:3, orthodoxy, is not a licence to steal.

I hear from many who have given so that buildings can be erected and land also given land in one case.  Their fundamental thesis is that they gave for the work of God and gave to God.  The reason they have left TEC is they they no longer recognize TEC as doing the work of God and thus want to prevent their $$$ gifts being misused in the cause of another religion.  I should also say that I have suggested in most cases, when asked, which is rare, that people walk away from property as the legal fight is neither edifying nor helpful spiritually.  I do believe that TEC should have been generous and graceful in actually returning the property to the congregation as they depart.
I am thrilled by the decision recently on appeal in SC where the the congregation was awarded the property.  I believe that the Dennis Canon is a travesty and calculated to make worse the divisions that have emerged.
I also reiterate what I have said above and elsewhere - Dan certainly challenged me - I do not believe that the leadership of TEC is recognizably Christian, and the direction they have taken is the establishment of another religion dressed up in Christian sacraments.  That is not to say that there are not some faithful Christians in TEC - I know many and seek to strengthen them in the face of this heretical take over.
So far as I am concerned they can have the empty buildings - they will never fill them with the rubbish that they promote.  Sadly they will sell most so that they can pursue their innovative and to my mind mostly Godless, goals.
Meanwhile we contend for the faith and “And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.” (Mt 10:36).

Yes, I appreciate why such don’t see it as stealing. As a non-Episcopalian and a libertarian my only concerns here are freedom of religion and property rights: 1) I don’t have to agree with the Episcopalians but I defend their right to govern themselves, and they’ve decided on WO and blessing homosexual sex. 2) I defend their property rights. As grotesque as it is when liberals play high church (in the original sense of authority) it’s true that Episcopalianism is only semi-congregational: the diocese wins, end of story.

I should also say that I have suggested in most cases, when asked, which is rare, that people walk away from property as the legal fight is neither edifying nor helpful spiritually.

We’re singing from the same hymnal then.

Yes, a congregation put their blood, sweat and tears into a building but with all due respect maybe they invested them in the wrong church if they didn’t want a fallible thus fungible one changing and pulling out its principles from under them.

I no longer make the mistake of the Anglican right of saying the Episcopalians are no longer Christian. Many of them at least online are unitarians with Christian trappings but then again amongst the RCs Talleyrand was an atheist and discreet unbelief among Anglicans has been normal since the ‘Enlightenment’ KO’d the belief of most English Calvinists. (A friend recently and rightly described the pukka Broad Church Anglicanism of the 1700s through the 1960s as a deep freezer of latitudinarian moralism.) As long as lip service to the content of the creeds is still required, the Episcopal Church is still a Christian denomination. The gay thing means they’re wrong Christians, still a kind of Protestant Christian, but still Christians.

John, You are more generous than I.  I make the statement as an “I” one - in that I do not recognize them as Christian.  Indeed Unitarian with Christian trappings is NOT Christian in my opinion.
The difficulty for the folk who gave in earlier times was that they gave to a Christian, albeit fallible, organization.  However no one ever conceived of this current turn of events.  I had a gentleman in my former congregation who wanted to have his wife’s ashes removed from the columbarium as he could not bear the thought of her being in an Episcopal church!  He himself died very soon and is interred next to her in the same Episcopal church now.  So there we are.  In my mind the property fights are unedifying.  I do wish that the precedents set by Frank Griswold might have been followed by his successor in that he was trying to be graceful and negotiate departures.  Now it is an unmitigated polarized disaster that has no hope of reconciliation within several lifetimes even if TEC were to repent and return to orthodoxy.  Meanwhile ACNA vests property where it ought to be - the local congregation.