In the face of the tragedy in Haiti, I want to make a proposal. It’s not a realistic proposal, I grant; but it is a serious one. My proposal is this: that all those Anglicans involved in litigation amongst one another in North America — both in the Episcopal Church and those outside of TEC; in the Anglican Church of Canada, and those outside — herewith cease all court battles over property. And, having done this, they do two further things:

a. devote the forecast amount they were planning to spend on such litigation to the rebuilding of the Episcopal Church and its people in Haiti; and

b. sit down with one another, prayerfully and for however long it takes, and with whatever mediating and facilitating presence they accept, and agree to a mutually agreed process for dealing with contested property.

Before addressing the “unrealistic” character of this proposal, let’s be clear about the money that may be involved. As I read TEC’s national budget, for instance, over $4 million has been spent already on “Title IV” and litigation matters in the dioceses, and over $4 million more is budgeted for the next triennium. Let’s assume that some comparable amount is being spent by the opposing parties — maybe not as much, but still a lot. I don’t know … $3 million over the past three years and $3 million more over the next? Maybe less. Then there are the dioceses alone that are spending their own money. I know that Colorado has spent upwards of $3 million in these matters, and its opponents again, perhaps less again but certainly a sizable amount. I really don’t know what we’re talking about here — maybe $20 million already spent, maybe more? And certainly another $10 million in the pipeline.

Isn’t this rather crazy? Isn’t this in fact unfaithful? Isn’t this, indeed, perverse and even blasphemous?

And it is certainly so in the face of the needs we have just been witnessing in Port-au-Prince, needs which, it must be said, have been around us all the time these past years, but here have come into a blinding and heart-rending focus.

In this case, however, we are also facing something rather concrete with respect to Anglicans: a large and active and vibrant Anglican church in Haiti now overturned in so many ways: church buildings in rubble, schools destroyed, nutritional projects undercut, training programs gone, a seminary in ruins, hospitals and clinics collapsed, irreplaceable religious artwork gone forever, the means of supporting priest, teacher, doctor, nurse, evangelist, worker dissolved. American Episcopalians have been extraordinarily generous in Haiti, through individual parish outreaches and other programs. But this is now beyond anything anyone could have dreamed. TEC, through various national funds (none of them, as far as I can tell, detailed in public budgets), has also, over the years, helped to support the work in Haiti, but again, in ways that pale in comparison with the sudden void now placed in the midst of the church’s life there. And in ways that pale in comparison with money spent in interchurch litigation! From what I can see, only 25 percent of the amount budgeted for suing each other is currently budgeted for Haiti! Who cries for justice?

But let us go further into the question of opportunity here. The Episcopal Church’s life in Haiti — and Haiti is a diocese of TEC — is vibrant in many ways. But it is also a mess (I speak from experience), like much of the country has been a mess. The seminary has been valiantly run on despicable shoestrings for years through devoted efforts of a few; monetary contributions are generally channeled through one-on-one parish projects, with little coordination and not a little competition and therefore sorry inequity, and despite some efforts at common work, money is jealously guarded for local needs; long-range planning under these circumstances is difficult and often ineffective; evangelization and Christian formation is weak; because of her TEC membership, conservative Anglicans have tended, over the past few years, to ignore the Haitian church in favor of Africa; many educated leaders have left the country altogether; and so on. The opportunity, then, of a significant redirecting of resources on the basis of some common commitments across polarized and hostile lines within Anglican North America, and in the face now of undeniable and staggering human and evangelical need, raises some promising possibilities:

1. some rationalizing of ministry and its support during a time of equalized rebuilding, where people and projects are not left to the successes of entrepreneurial individuals but of common purpose;

2. a reworking of coordinated priorities that includes taking Christian formation seriously, including evangelization and ministry training;

3. the reentry of conservative North American Anglicanism into a common partnership in mission for the sake of those in need, and outside of ecclesial struggles.

And maybe, with these kinds of movements in place, there could be, through God’s mercy and spiritual movement, a rethinking of the shape that North American Anglican struggles have taken, the toll they have wrought, and the call to a different form of engaging deep disagreements, even ones that, in themselves, brook little resolution on a theological plane. Who knows what God might do to people who humble themselves enough to give themselves away?

This is all very serious, as I said. Whether or not I have this or that detail correct, the general thrust of the proposal is clear enough and, to my mind, compelling enough in terms of gospel truth and divine demand. What would Jesus do? I think we all know.

But I also realize that it is all rather unrealistic: TEC leaders will say they have a fiduciary responsibility to sue for disputed property, and that this is “mission”; departed congregations and dioceses will say the same thing in a different guise, and add that “TEC started it”; each will say the other won’t listen or has never responded to overtures for mediated discussion; the level of mistrust and hostility is seemingly too high to overcome with either reason or charity.

Meanwhile, we will text our $10 to the Red Cross, give $25 to Episcopal Relief and Development or Anglican Relief and Development, wire a little money here, dig some trenches there, salute Paul Farmer and microcredit programmers for good work, and go back to court. Haiti will struggle, but not alone; Christ will be there, even as he leaves us behind.
View the original post

Christ will be there, even as he leaves us behind.

As the saying goes, “If you can’t say ‘Amen’, say ‘Ouch’.”

I only wish, and pray, that Ephraim’s essay would be read by those engaged in litigation, read prayerfully and penitentially. I fear that the spirit of self-justification is so deeply entrenched that this will not happen. So much mischief is done under the banner of self-preservation. When Jesus is quoted, one is simply told not to be so naive. All that business of seeking to save one’s life only to lose it is deemed hopelessly idealistic.  Instead we hear a great deal about fiduciary responsibility, or saving the buildings for posterity,  all from the High Priests’ playbook.

Perhaps the Haitian Church has been dysfunctional but at least in its muddle -a not unanglican virtue- but its parishioners have been and remain alive with faith and hope. And God will raise up its faithfulness.

My alternative is for those who have alienated the property and assets to simply return them; problem solved.  Drawing in the suffering of the Haitians to promote the cause of asset poaching is self serving beyond belief.  Please don’t seek to profit the schismatics and clothe it as some high minded effort at relief.  The ACNA folks are responsible for creating the need for litigation, they can surrender TEC’s property and assets and end it today.

We are not congregationalists however much Dr. Radner wants it and it would folly to allow the actions of these defendents to change the established polity of the Church.  Since he doesn’t want to hear the arguments, I will refrain from re-stating them.  TEC will protect itself and give generously to Haiti relief.  I am sure ACNA will do the same.

Thank you, Michael, for making my point.

Oh, and I forgot this one, which is directed, I would suppose, at all of us;  yes, at ACNA too! “why not rather suffer wrong?  Why not rather be defrauded?” (1 Cor. 6:7).  But here the issue is not just lawsuits, but what might come of reconciling for the sake of someone else, of putting aside something so that others might live.  Drawing in the suffering of the Haitians is precisely what this is about.

I’ve previously likened this ongoing litigation to a divorce proceeding—Who gets the house? As a practical matter, the one who leaves the house generally does not, but there is an ongoing struggle about who left whom. It seems patently obvious to those who have remained in TEC that those who left the Episcopal Church also left the buildings and other property held in trust for the work of the Episcopal Church. It seems equally obvious to those who are now no longer calling themselves Episcopalians that the Episcopal Church has de facto left the Anglican Communion and thus those who now no longer call themselves Episcopalians are now the “true” Anglicans in the United States which means that they should really have those church buildings. That philosophical debate on who is “true” and who is “false” lies at the heart of the litigation. I’m wondering, simply from a practical point of view, how Dr. Radner and others would suggest we reconcile what appear to be irreconcilable differences, especially in light of the expressed needs that confront us daily?

In so many ways this is the saddest of discussions and as Ephraim has reminded us again - his case is made in the response that name calls and tells the so called schismatics to leave.  There remained an element of grace and charity under the previous PB.  This is really a last call to return to that time and seek a way, if not to reconcile, at least not so to poison the well that there can never be a hope of future reconciliation, let alone allow for grace.  My quick prayer would be for those who initiated the lawsuits simply to drop them.  If a majority want to go and still use the property then let it be so.

Who is schismatic anyway?  The one who walks away from the Communion or the one who leaves TEC?

For me the worst caricature of this deplorable state of the Church was when a parishioner asked me if he could remove his wife’s ashes from the columbarium as he no longer wanted to have her remains in an Episcopal Church (TEC).  Would TEC have sued to keep her ashes?  (The problem was sorted out nicely by the way.)

Dar asked for the lawsuits to stop.  Instead they have been ratcheted up, as have been the depositions and odious actions of the PB and her chancellor.  The cost is first ministry and it is proper to be reminded that in the Haiti tragedy is opportunity for that ministry to be increased.

It is still proper to say “enough” - go find a better way to be Christian.

I am pleased to make your point Dr. Radner, but you do understand that you miss no occasion to find some new reason to allow those who have alienated property and assets to succeed in their dysfunction. A goodly while ago I myself offered to find a negotiated settlement to the property issues with two caveats. First the ongoing attacks on TEC must end. Second, the property could remain in their hands as long as they were recognizably “Anglican”.  I made the proposals on HoBD and Dan Martins+ posted them here with my permission. 

The fly in the ointment, of course, is that none of you can give up attacking TEC and attempting to harm and marginalize it as a Church.  You wallow in it in these pages and thus prove to me that your bile and bitterness exceeds any residue of any sort of good will you might have.  Once again I encourage you to read Jeffrey Sachs’ article “Generous Tit for Tat” because surely what happened to bring an end to the Cuban Missile Crisis might inform us.

ACNA, CANA etc all exist in disobedience to the positions of the WWAC.  The no moral equivalence argument is balderdash, you either obey the authorities you promote or not.  But the truth remains that all the lawsuits would end tomorrow with the return of alienated assets to TEC.  Then and only then should we negotiate anything with those who have created an alien ecclesiology.  Dissidents in San Diego refused negotiations believing they would win in court. Now they know differently as do all the schismatics in California. Call on them sir, I am sure you will find them intransigent too.

It is an unrealistic proposal and the response from Michael is not surprising.  It’s all about property, money and power for liberals.  They left the gospel long ago.  The gospel is only useful insofar as it serves their agenda.

Michael, when can we expect your Hooker analysis that supports your argument that Hooker’s view of the primacy of Scripture only pertains to salvation?

But Michael, you seem to think that I am in favor of lawsuits vs. TEC.  I am not, never have been, and have always said as much.  One thing I have always admired that AMiA did—except, alas, for its founder—was that they walked away from the buildings they were in, and chose not to engage in litigation, and simply went and did their ministry.  And I am not even suggesting that here either, since part of my proposal is to work for an agreement about property, not simply to “walk away” (although, frankly, that would be easier). 

On the other hand, you are certainly right in recognizing that my proposal on this matter has nothing to do with ceasing from criticizing aspects of TEC’s decisions, decision-making, and leadership.  Or vice-versa, no doubt.  There is certainly an argument to be made for desisting from malicious talk, slander, gossip and so on towards one’s neighbor. And it is a good and necessary one, which you and I would do well to heed.  But I did not make it here, nor does my proposal depend upon it.  Indeed, making the prioritizing of stewardship depend on having everything else right first is a good way practially to justify greed.  Jesus and the New Testament (and Old Testament!) has much to say about turning the cheek to those who insult us, about going the extra mile, about “not reviling in return”, about waiting for the God “who judges justly” to resolve matters for us personally, and so on.  He does this, in part, so that we can be freed to do other things that are also necessary and perhaps even more necessary, like “giving to anyone who has need”, and acting like a body even among unruly members. 

There is, as far as I can see, absolutely NO justification for spending millions of dollars on litigation—even if one is in the right! even if one is being wrongly accused!,—when our brothers and sisters and our sister churches are dying, or are homeless or without visible hope that we are in a position to assuage.

Dr. Radner,

  I lived in Greenville, South Carolina at the end of the 1970’s.  In fact I lived about a mile from Bob Jones University.  I was involved in local politics there and one of the realities was that Bob Jones had systematically used its student body to flood local independent Christian Churches, elect BJU people to the board and then install a BJU pastor.  After a decade or so there were no independent Christian Churches only BJU clans.
  A part of what we are litigating is whether or not we are congregationalists.  Unsurprisingly the SC Supreme Court suggests we are and other state Supreme Courts acknowledge our hierarchical nature. It is important to defend our polity in the face of a concerted effort to make it congregationalist; just as it was important for Richard Hooker to stomp on Walter Travers’ proposal that he acknowledge a Presybyterian form of government at the Temple Church. 
  What these lawsuits propose to do is NOT to make TEC or Anglicanism Diocesan based (as some of the ACI’s scholars propose) but to put the reigns of power in the hands of local vestries.  Our polity has always scribed limits to local power, specifically prohibiting the alienation or encumbrance of property without Standing Committee approval.  There is no good reason for us to allow the establishment of a legal precedent that vests all power in vestries.  My heavens not even the members of many congregations will do that since vestries in many places have eroded their credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Vestries are transient and volatile and so the checks and balances of a hierarchical church are important.
  This is what we have seen in the debacle of property alienation by the ACNA clan. ACNA (formerly AAC or ACN) clergy whup up hysteria in the parishes they serve using the sorts of materials I have protested right along.  They run off dissenters to the clergy’s positions until they believe they have an overwhelming majority and then they vote to leave TEC.  This is no different pattern than what happened in Greenville.
  So, while we make every effort to stay engaged, we cannot, I believe, allow a precedent to be set here that affects the basic polity of the Church. To have those who promoted property and asset alienation now protest that it is unChristian to hold them accountable for their misadventures is silly.  It was unChristian to violate the processes they vowed to obey.
  I agree with you marginally about the AMiA.  Had TEC vigorously protested the anarchic consecration of the original AMiA clergy we would perhaps have established a better precedent.  Of course they were coddled by the then Bishop of South Carolina!  But at this point we and all the hierarchical churches must resist a precedent being set that we are congregationally organized.
  Now I add to that the value of tying up their resources and time to whatever extent possible and in the end denying them resources because I see no charitable value in coddling this sort of abuse, including their abusive attacks on TEC.  I see no value in helping people who seek to destroy something I value, and while I recognize them as fellow Christians, I do not recognize any aspect of their behavior as exemplifying the Gospel. 
  You and the ACI play a role in this, of course, in your efforts to rewrite denominational history to bolster your argument that Dioceses are the prime unit not GC. But what is really happening is that congregational polity is being established and all these new “Dioceses” will have no more authority over their congregations than we would have if this push is successful.
  Both the legal precedent and the property and assets are important at this stage.  However sad it may be, this is the result of the actions of the dissidents and we have no compelling reason to sacrifice the wisdom of long established polity for them.

Tony Seel - 19 January 2010 08:11 AM

It is an unrealistic proposal and the response from Michael is not surprising.  It’s all about property, money and power for liberals.  They left the gospel long ago.  The gospel is only useful insofar as it serves their agenda.

Michael, when can we expect your Hooker analysis that supports your argument that Hooker’s view of the primacy of Scripture only pertains to salvation?

It is all there in Books I-III for the careful reader Tony.  Book I is his elaboration of God’s Second Eternal Law which includes Celestial law, The Law of Reason, the Law of Nature, and Divine Law. What most fail to respect is that these four are ALL sources of revelation about God since they were all instituted by God and observable by people.  Couple that with a low estimation of the scope of human depravity and you end up with our inquiry into things important being goverened by our capacity to Reason. 

If you are too busy to read it all, start at I.11 and read to the end of the book. I.14 is particularly on point and do note the role of Reason and the importance of the Law of Nature.

Book II examines the boundary area for Scripture and Reason.  II.8 is the summary of his thinking and II.8.7 specifically deals with the dangers of those who stretch the role of scripture and bring discredit upon it.

The cruise into Book III which, while looking at the church’s freedom to establish rites and ceremonies not founded in Scripture, elucidates principles for when “things” found in scripture are and are not mutable. The overall thrust elevates the role of Reason and II.4.1 once again spins a cautionary warning about over extending scripture’s role. Look at III.8.10.e.  For the role of Reason in imbuing scripture with authority, it is once again discussed in III.8.12-13

Again and again he talks about scripture teaching perfectly all things necessary for salvation not all things plainly. and by the way III.8.18 discusses how it is that the Spirit informs reason!  (Hooker is such a liberal!!!!!)

But look carefully at III.9 and III.10 especially the latter as it establishes what makes something, even if it is laid down in scripture mutable by Reason.  III.11 looks at whether or not Christ meant for laws to be unchangeable.

Now remember he establishes first that scripture delivers things necessary for salvation and not all things plainly.  So when he speaks of scripture it is within this framework. However it is human Reason that discerns within scripture what is necessary for salvation and what is not.  And that Reason, because it is a gift of God can be and is informed by the Spirit.

I hope it is helpful.  If you have the Folger edition it does have the Keble numbering I refer to above from the edition I published in 1994.  So take it down and dust it off and read the Anglican genius.

But I also realize that it is all rather unrealistic: TEC leaders will say they have a fiduciary responsibility to sue for disputed property, and that this is “mission”; departed congregations and dioceses will say the same thing in a different guise, and add that “TEC started it”; each will say the other won’t listen or has never responded to overtures for mediated discussion; the level of mistrust and hostility is seemingly too high to overcome with either reason or charity.

Dr Radner’s proposal might be unrealistic, but it is very educational to see the apparent balance of it in terms of asking all parties to give up their rights, versus Michael’s insistence that TEC must continue to fight for it’s rights.

The Bob Jones University story is a shocking tale of the raw exercise of power to force uniformity. The point here is that BOTH those leaving TEC and TEC are engaged in a raw exercise of power to take or keep property. It is time both sides admitted the immorality of it all, stop practicing self-justification, and be reconciled (or at least come to some mediated settlement).

A goodly while ago I myself offered to find a negotiated settlement to the property issues with two caveats. First the ongoing attacks on TEC must end. Second, the property could remain in their hands as long as they were recognizably “Anglican”.

So instead of continuing to justify the litigation, why not return to “the table?” The second condition seems completely reasonable. We will have some wrangling on the first. I am not sure what you mean by attacks. I often feel attacked when people correct my spelling - but the reality is that I often misspell words. In as much as TEC is in error, there will be attempts at correction. No doubt there are actual attacks on TEC that are malicious. These should be called out and stopped, but there is a difference between “felt attack” and “real attack.”

Craig et all can correct me, but Covenant-Communion is a “pro-TEC” site - while there are comments here that fall into the real attack category, the blog as a whole is committed to active positive engagement with a bias toward Communion & Covenant (duh) orientation (Catholic Anglicanism). So there will be an attempt at “correction” where we feel TEC has strayed from Anglicanism, and this might elicit a “felt attack” response, but is not really an attack. A review of the Covenant-Communion “About us” page might be salutary (http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/site/about_us/).

Please stop blasting away with a shotgun with the assumptions that we are anti-TEC here. Yes some voices are, so respond to them *using specifically what they say*.

If you want a blog that IS anti-TEC, so you can go in with guns blazing, I can suggest a couple!

“The Bob Jones University story is a shocking tale of the raw exercise of power to force uniformity. The point here is that BOTH those leaving TEC and TEC are engaged in a raw exercise of power to take or keep property. It is time both sides admitted the immorality of it all, stop practicing self-justification, and be reconciled (or at least come to some mediated settlement).”

BOTH is a bit of a broad brush.  As has already been said, the AMIA in general has left their properties and many other parishes left without properties or litigation (including our parish in CNY).

On another subject raised by Charlie, I wasn’t aware that there was any if much misunderstanding about the stance of the CP and pecusa.

Michael -

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts about how the current lawsuits have implications for the self-conception of the Episcopal Church (and/or any of its African-affiliated offshoots) as congregational, rather than hierarchical.  I think it’s a smart observation in need of a bit of fleshing out.  But I wonder, too, whether or not that hierarchical nature of the Episcopal Church isn’t also somewhat flattened by both a) its origins (no archbishop, for example), and b) the current push, among some leaders, toward populism (popular sentiments about lay involvement, however ineffective, are what I have in mind here).  I don’t have references on hand, but I confess that I have sometimes been perplexed in recent years about the self-conception of ECUSA - on the one hand, in the courts we affirm that we are hierarchical, but when it comes to General Convention it seems that we want to play this down as much as possible.  Mark Harris, I recall, has been quite outspoken against hierarchy within the Anglican Communion as such, and quite against the possible intersection of the Anglican Covenant with the development of a firm hierarchical structure.  Perhaps what this results in, then, are two questions: if one is hierarchical, why not be hierarchical and conciliar within the Anglican Communion as a whole, rather than just on a provincial basis?  If one is not congregational, then why be so difficult (some might argue, “autonomous”) on a provincial level vis-a-vis the rest of the Anglican Communion?

I look forward to your response.

Best,
Benjamin