Those of you who like your anti-revisionism with a combative flavor are probably aware of the Kennedys and how their congregation in BInghamton, New York was abruptly evicted from the buildings of the parish of the Good Shepherd. Well, over the weekend the fate of those buildings has come to light: the diocese of Central New York, having shuttered the church since the departure of the congregation, has sold it to a muslim group, presumably for use as a mosque, at a price one third of what the departing congregation offered.

Although I don’t know all the detalis of the negotiations between the congregation and the diocese, I do know - from Fr. Matt himself - that when the initial offer was made funds would have been used that were later, in court, judged to belong to the diocese. I don’t see it as surprising that the congregation would offer more for the buildings than other potential buyers. There has been a lot of chatter about this on some conservative blogs, some of it with what might be seen as expressions of prejudice against Muslims.

Daniel,

I believe that TEC’s argument was that the Church Property was given “in trust” for the mission of the Church.  It is not “prejudice against Muslims” to say that their use of the building does not advance the Gospel.

Wouldn’t it be better to sell the property back to the congregation that was using it - even after the courts announced that the money raised by the congregation actually belonged to the diocese? 

Isn’t the Gospel further advanced by showing charity to those who also try to advance the Gospel rather than those who oppose the Gospel?

Unless, of course, you count Matt Kennedy+ and Muslims as people who oppose the Gospel?

Regardless of the diocese’ right to sell the property to whomever they wished, the Christian thing to do would be to sell the Church to a group that would preach Christ - even if you disagree with their theology.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Daniel, it seems to me that “prejudice” is an awfully weak dismissal of the obvious reaction that the sale of the building to an outpost of anti-Christian religion is beyond ironic and heading into self-destructive. Then there’s the irony that an Islamic center is hardly going to be more tolerant of homosexuality than Matt Kennedy is supposed to be.

With two remaining parishes in a city that has lost 15% of its population in the last 20 years, selling the property and using the proceeds for the work of the Episcopal Church in that community seems like good stewardship.

I don’t believe that the congregation is still interested in puchasing the property and I hope that the offer the diocese accepted was the best current offer.

While it is true that some Muslim groups are clearly anti-Christian, there are others that work cooperatively with churches. I have seen no evidence that this particular group is anti-Christian. Had the sale been to a Baptist group, one might have made the claim, because some Baptists clearly are, that it was being sold to an anti-Episcopal group. I think some would have made that claim if the departing congregation had purchased the property, but I would not agree.

My reading of many comments of people about this elsewhere led me to the conclusion that for many of them selling the building to any group other than the departing congregation was a betrayal of the Gospel.

Fr. Daniel,

I’m rather stunned by your equation of being “anti-Christian” with being “anti-Episcopal.” It confirms the impression I’ve received before that some Episcopalians really do think that their religion is Episcopalianism.

But the point really has nothing to do with whether the Muslims are anti-Christian or not. The point is that the diocese would rather see the church cease to be used as a church than allow the congregation who had worshiped there for years continue to do so. And I’d think you’d be outraged by that in the same way that I’m outraged by the goings on at Good Shepherd, Rosemont, (where the congregation is apparently suing one of their own members for supposedly not doing a good enough job representing them legally in their dispute with the diocese. This is a case of ideology and church politics trumping both Christianity and common decency.

Daniel:  I think that had the Diocese been willing to negotiate in good faith with the departing congregation, and if those negotiations had, despite being carried out in good faith, resulted in a mutual decision that the departing congregation no longer wanted the buildings, then I doubt that there would be the anger there is over this.  But the Diocese refused to negotiate at all and gave as its reason for not negotiating the excuse that generations of Episcopalians had paid for the buildings for them to be in the service of TEC, and then they turn around to sell it to a Muslim group for one third the amount of what the departing congregation had been willing to pay for it.

Now, it may be that in the end, the departing congregation would not have been able to purchase the buildings.  But the Diocese refused to negotiate at all.  The Diocese seems to be acting out of nothing other then hatred and spite.

In contrast, witness the response of the local Roman Catholic Church - there was a tremendous witness of Christian charity in stark contrast to the actions of the local TEC bishop and diocese.

It’s not really fair to contrast the RC diocese’s treatment of _our_ dissenters with our treatment of our own. Would they have been so charitable toward an RC community that decided to ordain a female priest? The Episcopal Church, on the other hand, would probably be very charitable toward such a community!

Once again I find myself at a loss when discussing the situation in Binghamton because the discussionhas moved from the proposed back to the earlier decisions of the diocese. I have heard at least some of the story of what happened from Fr. Matt, but can only speculate about how representatives of the diocese might tell the story. I am no position to pass judgment on the diocese and I suspect that some are passing judgment after hearing only one side of the story.

As to the possibility of my thinking that my religion is Episcopalianism, have no fear. In my earlier comment I was simply recognizing that there are Christians and churches that are hostile to the Episcopal Church - just as there are Muslims who are hostile to Christians and Christian churches. I no more assume that all Muslims are hostile than I do that all Baptists are just because someare.

Daniel,

Come, let us reason together.  The purpose of a church building is worship.  We have church buildings to facilitate the worship of the Holy Trinity.  Rather than selling the property to any group that does not worship the Holy Trinity, wouldn’t it be more true to the mission of the Church to sell the facility to some other group that worships the Holy Trinity - even if that group is a rival to TEC and even if their offer was less than the offer of any other group that wished to purchase the property?

What is more important in the life of a Christian?  Money, Power, or living the life of the Holy Trinity?  How is Jesus glorified in treating Fr. Matt and his family the way they were treated?  How does +Adams show that he participates in the life of the Holy Trinity by showing that he has two motives - first to deny Fr. Matt and the congregation the property that they have worked to maintain and the second is to get the most money for the facilities?

We are called to better things that this.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 22 March 2010 08:56 PM

Daniel,

Come, let us reason together.  The purpose of a church building is worship.  We have church buildings to facilitate the worship of the Holy Trinity.  Rather than selling the property to any group that does not worship the Holy Trinity, wouldn’t it be more true to the mission of the Church to sell the facility to some other group that worships the Holy Trinity - even if that group is a rival to TEC and even if their offer was less than the offer of any other group that wished to purchase the property?

What is more important in the life of a Christian?  Money, Power, or living the life of the Holy Trinity?  How is Jesus glorified in treating Fr. Matt and his family the way they were treated?  How does +Adams show that he participates in the life of the Holy Trinity by showing that he has two motives - first to deny Fr. Matt and the congregation the property that they have worked to maintain and the second is to get the most money for the facilities?

We are called to better things that this.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil-

I agree that the preferable sale would be to a church. However so far I have heard no one claim that the diocese had a current offer from a church. Without such an offer, the diocese had to choose between selling and holding on to the property until a church buyer appeared. The costs of holding on to the property would include utilities,insurqance, maintenance, and,in NYS, property taxes because the religious use exemption would not apply.

Whatever mistakes the diocese made earlier in this sad affair, I see no evidence that this decision was the wrong one and I have asked for such evidence on three different blogs.

Daniel

I have never spoken to Matt Kennedy about the matter, but my impression is that they were made to understand that the diocese would never sell them the building. That would be in line with the dictates of the presiding bishop as she made them known a year or so back.

Of course half the real problem is that the place is hopelessly poisoned by the struggle, so that the church is not usable to the diocese and forbidden to the congregation. And while I am not privy to the finances of the diocese, somehow I cannot but suspect that the proceeds will be as well spent as those from the sale of jar of pure nard ointment would have been (not that I mean to imply that the bishop is a thief, mind you). The diocese, after all, is down 63.7% in ASA from 1992, the fifth worst performance in the church; ASA declined every year except 1996 and 2000, both of the “Christmas bump” years. Ironically, the two surviving parishes in Binghamton seem to be bucking the diocesan trend, so perhaps there was more life there than the decline in population would lead one to believe.

It’s a little late in the game to have a “right decision” now. I would venture to assert that right decisions along the way wouldn’t have led to such a sale as this.

Charles,

It is late in the game for a “right” decsion, but it is certainly not the right time for a wrong decision. Perhaps from a PR perspective selling to a Muslim group is much less than ideal, but to refuse that offer would be seen by many as caving in to prejudice. What seems to me have been unfortunate was that the diocese changed its mind about selling to the congregation. I can see valid arguments for selling or refusing to sell to a departing congregation, but it certainly didn’t help that the diocese changed its position on that.

Daniel

Daniel:  If I accept the fact that, due to KJS’s dictates, the Diocese had refused to even consider selling the property to the departed congregation out of malice and spite (per KJS’s deposition testimony in Virginia), then I do agree that this sale makes sense.  I think it reflects the reality that the Diocese didn’t have the funds or spare parishioners to prop up a fake Potemkin congregation for 1-2 years as is the common TEC response in similar situations.  From a financial stewardship perspective, it is much wiser to simply accept that TEC is lost the parishioners and hence needs to close this parish and sell off the buildings.

BTW, Edwin, I realize that you can’t do a direct comparison between what the RC Church did and what the TEC diocese did (though I think the example you gave is not a fair one either), my overall point was more what John Q. Public would think when observing it all.  He would see the Diocese acting immorally and like a bully (even if they technically have the law behind them) to evict a congregation and pastor out of “their” church buildings and rectory, and also evicting the soup kitchen to boot.  Then it turns out that this spiteful move was done so that it could then sell the buildings to a non-Christian group.  In contrast, we see the RC Church step in to support fellow Christians in need and act generously to assist.  I am not sure how TEC thinks that this result in positive PR or how TEC will look like anything other then a small, petty, mean and hateful little denomination.

James Wirrel - 23 March 2010 12:15 PM

Daniel:  If I accept the fact that, due to KJS’s dictates, the Diocese had refused to even consider selling the property to the departed congregation out of malice and spite (per KJS’s deposition testimony in Virginia), then I do agree that this sale makes sense.

James,

I am generally unwilling to attribute motives, e.g., malice and spite, to people’s actions. I trust the PB did not say in her deposition, “We are acting in this out of malice and spite.” I find understanding motives, even my own, much too difficult and know that I will very likely get it wrong, especially when I don’t know the person.

Daniel

Daniel:  KJS said in her deposition that she would be okay with the sale or disposal of TEC properties to any group except for those linked to the ACNA.  If I were a restaurant owner and I said that I was willing to serve any customer except for African Americans, then I wouldn’t need to actually say that I was racist, would I?  It would be evident from my actions.