Control issues

Diocese of Quincy gears up for fight with TEC
Michael Miller
RELIGION BEAT
Saturday, June 23, 2007

The Episcopal Church has a question for the west-central Illinois Diocese of Quincy:

Are you ready to rummmmmbbbbblllllllllle?

It's all here ... and you know, we do hate to get into smackdowns, but...

... there's a little misunderstanding here. The issue isn't "leaving the church": anyone can do that. Certainly Episcopalians regret anyone making such a decision, especially in anger; we'll miss you, but it's a free church in a free country.

The issue in question here is not "leaving the church," but leaving the church while attempting to take the property lawfully held by them in trust only for the mission and ministry of The Episcopal Church and no other.

See the difference?

One is a decision made in conscience. The other is...well, whatever you want to call walking off with something that isn't yours without the consent of the owners. Which is, last time we checked, an action not exactly fraught with "Christian love and charity."

Ah, but they paid for that property! someone opines, with their tithes and offerings, and the deed is in their names. (This reminds us somewhat of the cynical logic exhibited by the old preacher who used to take the Sunday offering basket out back of the church, toss the contents up in the air, and declare that God was free to take whatever didn't fall to the ground.)

That's true, as far as it goes. But try that with the National Parks System, for example, and see how far you get taking your share of Yellowstone. Why? Because the National Parks are held in trust by the Federal Government for all Americans. And when you pay your fee, you get to use the Park--subject to certain restrictions designed to protect it for future users. And you don't get to take pieces of it home for your kids. Because your neighbor has a right to expect that it will be there next week when she goes on vacation with her kids.

Similarly, when you declare you are no longer affiliated with a group, you don't get to take any office you might have held with you out the door. The moment you say, "That's it! I quit!", you are no longer the Grand Poobah of the Knights Who Say Nee, and the royal regalia stays behind, even if next week you incorporate as The Knights Who Say Nah. You have to get your own regalia, even if your grandmother made the cape.

There's no problem, of course, as long as you abide by these agreed-upon rules of civil society, or if you don't like them, lawfully try to get them changed. But if you fail to get others to agree with you and then try to create "facts on the ground" by changing the locks on the clubhouse...you really shouldn't be surprised if the rest of the members take exception to your actions.

This all seems very self-evident to your editor, but apparently it needed some clarification.

Comments

[Sarah Dylan Breuer]

But what if you incorporate as "The Knights Who Say Communion Nee, Inc."? Then you get to keep the title and the cape while discarding any responsibility for your actions and/or inaction while you were part of The Knights Who Say Nee -- don't you?

[Tom Sramek, Jr.]

For several years, I have both heard and been of the opinion that most people think of the Episcopal Church in congregationalist terms-- "my church" or "our [local congregation's] church. They nod respectfully (or grudgingly, as the case may be) at the bishop when he or she comes around every couple of years, but otherwise think of themselves as a single entity. Bill Tully (St. Bart's, NY) once said that the Episcopal Church functions like a franchise system--you pay the fee to put out the shield. Now that the pot is boiling, folks are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the reality that by canon and, in most cases, by title, the Episcopal Church owns all local Episcopal Church property. We'll see how that works out...

[Jake]

This is good. Clear and concise. Mind if I use it? Credit and a link included, of course.

[obadiahslope]

The majority of congregations that have left have left behind the property haven't they?.

[Allen]

The way I see it, all these people know exactly what's going on. It's crystal clear in the canons. Some just want to rewrite history after they've changed their mind about where they want to be.
Change your mind, but you can't change the canons and constitution.
See ya, but your property and church stays behind for people who stay true to the Episcopal church.

[epiScope]

Jake and all: Feel free to repost, with attribution, of course.

obadiahslope, it's true, the vast majority have left the property behind. Unfortunately quite a number of them have only done so because the courts have told them they must. No one wins in such cases but the lawyers (and perhaps certain dealers of fine luxury vehicles)...

[Tony]

So, If a wife decides to leave her husband for whatever reason, she must leave all her property behind.

[George W. Jordan]

Would it not be better to stop driving Episcopalians from the Episcopal Church? What will the Episcopal Church do with all these empty churches and who will pay the maintenance. Maybe those driven from the Episcopal Church should put a lien on the church for the maintenance they provided for the buildings. A very few people in the leadership of the Episcopal Church have caused a lot of grief for a lot of Episcopalians who have served the Episcopal Church for a lifetime. Think about that.

[Jim Stockton]

Sarah, Episcopal Church congregations incorporate as such, i.e. as congregations of the Episcopal Church. Each is identified specifically by name, but also as part of the Episcopal Church. If you still have question about this, ask yourself what the Arbishops of Uganda, Rwanda, and Nigeria would do with congregations who wanted to depart the Church and take the building with them. The examples of the Knights Who Say Nee, and of the Grand Poobah (bishop?)thereof, are in fact analagous to chapters of organizations such as the Lions Club, the Rotarians, etc., who have a national and international name, and whose local chapters use the name and function as such only when duly constituted as part of the larger whole. Just as is the case with Roman Catholic church congregations, so also with the Episcopal Church, a congregationalist approach to property rights is decidedly inapplicable.

[Jim Stockton]

George, who is "driving Episcopalians from the Episcopal Church"? Admittedly, there is a super-abundance of examples of the self-proclaimed 'orthodox' inviting people to come away with them. On the contrary, I'm aware of a vast number of continuing invitations to all from the Church to remain. Some of us are ready to admit that those who simply cannot abide the democratically adopted policies of 'their' Church would likely do well to find a spiritual home with some expression of Christian faith other than the Episcopal Church. But that's simply good honest pastoral care. If that sounds to someone like an effort to drive them away, that's too bad; but we cannot be held responsible for what someone else infers. So, plainly put: stay with this Church if you so choose; leave this Church if you so choose; and know that you are always welcome to return. As is true with any other denomination of the Church Catholic, the Episcopal Church is defined constitutionally by its members. Those who cannot abide such a system will likely function more positively within a congregationalist polity.

[Jessica]

Has anyone taken into account the idea of the people involved being more important than the property? It almost seems assumed that we are all "ready to rumble" just for living here. I am a member of the Diocese of Quincy, but I have to qualify that when meeting other Episcopalians. I am a "geographic" member. I don't know of any clergy in the diocese that aren't in full support of the bishop, and between their actions and those of a few very dedicated lay people, the rest of the diocese is being taken on a roller coaster ride. If you disagree with those in power, who are you to turn to? What are my options? How do you fight this by yourself? No one should have to feel like a stranger or outcast in their own communion. Forget about the Knights Who Say Nee - right now the humor is almost painful. What do you say to the people who are feeling abandoned and disregarded in this disagreement?

[Peter Randrup]

Property rights are gained by those who invest in the parish property. If another party wishes to gain control of it, there has to be Quid pro quo --
a transfer of value from each party to the other.

So, in the case of property that contained not one cent from the Diocease, what was that value received by the parish that turned the property over to the bishop?

Where was that magic one dollar?