James Wirrel - 24 March 2010 02:56 AM

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.

James,

Let me suggest another way to look at the PB’s decision. I see it as a reasonable response to decide not to sell property to ACNA congregations while ACNA and TEC are involved in so many lawsuits. That may seem like spite to some, but, even if I were to judge it as a mistake, I can see that it could be a reasonable legal strategy.

Daniel

But Daniel,

That is the whole point.  Rather than focusing on the Gospel and on creating disciples, the PB et. al. are focused on legal strategies.  Rather than trying to discern the best way to spread the Gospel, the PB set into motion a process where one of “our” church buildings is now in the hands of a group that will not recognize that Jesus is Lord.  They will not spread the Gospel.  Muslims may be nice people (and I know several who are wonderful coworkers), but they are definitely not Christians.

The lawsuits are simply another symptom of a Church whose leaders have forgotten why they exist.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I have questioned from the beginning whether a legal strategy is in the church’s best interest—or rather, in The Church’s best interest. It has seemed to me that the fights over these parishes are in one sense surely counterproductive: the rump congregations are very rarely viable, and I have to wonder whether even in the short term the sale of the buildings is reasonable compensation for the legal fees incurred, if nothing else.

Besides, in poking around at the sentiments expressed by various parties in power I cannot believe that such, um, unemotional characterizations are accurate. One can go to Stand Firm and read the hotheaded (and in my opinion typically hyperbolic) manifestos of one side, but one can go to other places for the institutional liberal versions of the the same ilk. Michael Russell, of late, has used words here that, if they don’t explicitly spell out “holy war”, are hard for me to understand any other way. Louie Crew has used such language for decades. Jim Naughton’s press releases for his diocese have the same color, and one can find liberal blogs with the same intemperance as the conservatives without any significant effort. I will let Michael sign himself up for this if he wishes, but for the rest, the program of denying the troglodytes access to power by denying them access to parish properties is implicit and often enough stated. It may be a reaction to the whole Chapman memo thing, but I for one am convinced that it is the latter which is the counteraction—and in any case, cutting the conservatives loose easily and quickly might have been a better strategy in maintaining liberal power. There are a lot of people out there who want to hurt the other side, in the name of Christ of course, and I do not see truth or Christ being served in the assumption that there is some calm and rational explanation for what look, from any distance, to be insane acts.

So Daniel, I’m not all that interested in the proximate rationality of evicting a congregation from a building and then selling it to a competing religion. In the big picture, it looks insane because, in the church’s mission, it is insane. It epitomizes all that is crazy about current rancorous approach that the presiding bishop and 815 are taking.

It reminds me a bit of the Book of Armaments - (approx quote from memory)

And Saint Agatha didst raise up the Holy Hand Grenade on high and say “We thank Thee, Lord, for this Thy Holy Hand Grenade that Thou may blowest Thy enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy….”

A scorched earth policy may be viable on the battle field when faced with an invading army, but it very rarely does you own people any good.

Given the anger and hatred generated on both sides of TEC and its direction, I wonder if we can really say that the new direction comes from the Holy Spirit because Anger and Hatred are not the Holy Spirit’s gifts.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I was not advocating a legal strategy, but simply countering what I saw as the imputing of motives to the PB and the Diocese of CNY with the suggestion that their actions might be part of a reasonable legal strategy. Litigation is never without its negative consequences, and in this case perhaps the negative consequences to the Diocese outweigh the positive. Certainly the congregation has been able to present itself to the world as the victim of a spitelful Diocese. Often ignored is the fact that the earliest offer that the congregation made would have involved the use of funds that, under NYS law, belonged to the Diocese. Was that a bad faith offer? I don’t know, but I think the Diocese was right in refusing it. About whether the Diocese was right in its final decision not to sell to the congregation I have not formed an opinion, although it is clear that others have.

I live about ten miles west from the former CGS building and pastor an Anglican parish about 7 miles further west.  Matt’s congregation was negotiating with the DCNY.  The position of the DCNY was with them as it was with our parish that they would receive offers from us, but they never made any counter offers.  It was obvious to us as it became obvious at CGS that in fact, there were no negotiations going on because the DCNY never had any intention of selling buildings to Anglicans.  This has been the 815 position all along. 

I don’t find selling church buildings to Muslims any more reprehensible than suing other Christians, so I think the entire present trajectory of pecusa is straight to hell.

According to the Rev. Tony Seel, the Diocese even added a legal caveat to the sale stating that the new owners of the property could never re-sell the building to the original congregation.

Daniel - I wonder if this is finally evidence enough for you of the spite and small-mindedness of the Diocese of Central New York and the PB?  This sort of legal condition to sale is something that the PB has previously demanded, and there can be no legal or litigation related strategy for it.  It is pure spite (though I doubt that it would be legally enforceable).

James Wirrel - 05 April 2010 01:31 PM

According to the Rev. Tony Seel, the Diocese even added a legal caveat to the sale stating that the new owners of the property could never re-sell the building to the original congregation.

Daniel - I wonder if this is finally evidence enough for you of the spite and small-mindedness of the Diocese of Central New York and the PB?  This sort of legal condition to sale is something that the PB has previously demanded, and there can be no legal or litigation related strategy for it.  It is pure spite (though I doubt that it would be legally enforceable).

James,

I am not the judge and jury for the case against CNY, although it seems to me that several people are looking to be prosecutor. Fr. Seel has left TEC but appears to see it as part of his vocation to criticize thechurch inwhich he was ordained and,to be blunt, if I were willing to waste my time investigate the terms of the sale of the propoerty, I would certainly want something more than Fr. Seel’s statement about what is or isn’t in the legal documents.

Feel free to continue this thread, but don’t bother to address any more comments to me. My opinion about this matter is of so little importance that I suggest that you not waste your time trying to inlfuence it.

Daniel

Daniel:  My point here is that you have shown yourself well able to criticize the motivations, etc., of the other side with much less information than you have as regards the Diocese of CNY.  Yet you seem to equivocate and try to rationalize anything that TEC does.  What I am trying to draw out from you is simply the capacity to be critical of some aspect of TEC.  Something along the lines of “I support the theological trajectory that TEC is on, but I cannot support what they have done here.”

I hear a lot of supporters of TEC’s “ruling party” make vague wishes for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, yet remain completely unwilling to renounce any aspect of the PB’s “scorched earth” litigation strategy.  I see several conservative posters here at Covenant express their concerns, criticisms and ambivalence about the ACNA and its tactics, even though they feel that that is where they need to go for now.  Yet, I don’t recall any TEC supporters ever offer a solid critique of how TEC has handled things.

(And yes, I do realize that the opinions of James Wirrell and Daniel Weir won’t buy you a cup of coffee even at McDonald’s.)

James Wirrel - 05 April 2010 08:38 PM

Daniel:  My point here is that you have shown yourself well able to criticize the motivations, etc., of the other side with much less information than you have as regards the Diocese of CNY.  Yet you seem to equivocate and try to rationalize anything that TEC does.  What I am trying to draw out from you is simply the capacity to be critical of some aspect of TEC.  Something along the lines of “I support the theological trajectory that TEC is on, but I cannot support what they have done here.”

I hear a lot of supporters of TEC’s “ruling party” make vague wishes for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, yet remain completely unwilling to renounce any aspect of the PB’s “scorched earth” litigation strategy.  I see several conservative posters here at Covenant express their concerns, criticisms and ambivalence about the ACNA and its tactics, even though they feel that that is where they need to go for now.  Yet, I don’t recall any TEC supporters ever offer a solid critique of how TEC has handled things.

(And yes, I do realize that the opinions of James Wirrell and Daniel Weir won’t buy you a cup of coffee even at McDonald’s.)

James,

First, I would never buy a cup of coffee at McDonald’s.

Second, I don’t recall ever criticizing the motivations of people on the other side, certainly not here on this thread. I acknowledge that the decision of the members of the Church of the Good Shepherd to leave TEC was a decision of conscience and that their desire to continue to worship in a familiar place was unexceptional. What I know about the negotiations to purchase the buildings I know from Fr. Matt himself. I view litigation as an exercise of stewardship - by both parties because both parties have reasonable concern that the buildings and other resources be used effectively for God’s mission. To be honest, neither TEC nor ACNA is as faithful to that mission as we ought to be.

Third, I do not support all the actions of TEC’s leadership. However, I am very much aware that I don’t know enough about many of the decisions that have been made to be able to express here an opinion about them. Even though I serve as the vice-chair of our diocesan council, there are decisions made in the diocese, e.g., by the standing committee, the trustees, the commission on ministry, the bishop, about which I know only what the decision is and not the reasoning behind it. When I have had concerns about a decision, I have asked those involved for more information. Had the Church of the Good Shepherd been in this diocese, I would have asked for more information about the diocese’s decisions.

Finally, although I do not think a blanket policy of not selling TEC buildings to departing congregations is a good one, I think that there might be reasons for it in some cases. However, the characterization of it as a “scorched earth” policy is the kind of rhetoric that I try to avoid. I also avoid calling attempts by departing congregations to keep property “theft.”

Daniel

First, I would never buy a cup of coffee at McDonald’s.

Neither would I.  I drink only tea.  And I don’t think I’d ever have dumped my tea into the Boston Harbor.

However, the characterization of it as a “scorched earth” policy is the kind of rhetoric that I try to avoid. I also avoid calling attempts by departing congregations to keep property “theft.”

Although I often agree that sometimes labels can be harmful, I do believe that if they are accurate, they can be useful.  A “scorched earth” policy stems from a military term by which a retreating army would destroy farms, food stores, water supplies, etc. in their wake so as to deny these resources to the invading army regardless of the collateral damage to non-combatants.  The theory was that without these supplies, the invading army would starve and so be forced to retreat.

It is quite clear that under policy personally called for by the PB herself, TEC has called for dioceses to always litigate for the property of departing parishes, and that they must never sell property to the departing parishes, and should try to forbid any purchaser from selling the property back to the departing parish.  This policy is clearly enunciated in the PB’s deposition testimony in the Virginia litigation.  The collateral damage is to the people who were ministered to by the departing parish.  In the Good Shepherd situation, the departing parish had a food closet/soup kitchen which was run out of their former property.  The Diocese of CNY closed that down when it evicted the parish, and would not make any allowance for it.  I would suggest that the most reasonable interpretation of this “at all costs, prevent the departing parish from using its former property” strategy is that it is an application of the “scorched earth” policy which I have just described.  To pretend that it isn’t, seems to me to be willful blindness.

As to the charge of “theft”, this is determined by secular law (not canon law) and is defined by someone taking something which they have no color of right to.  So far, there has been extensive litigation concerning ownership issues, with different states coming to different conclusions.  Accordingly, it is absurd to suggest that it is “theft” when the ownership issue is so clouded.

So to conclude, I think that the term “scorched earth policy” is actually reasonably accurate in understanding TEC’s policy with regard to its litigation poicy vis a vis the property of departing parishes.  On the other hand, the term “theft” applied to one side or the other in church property disputes is nonsensical.

Ah prejudice, it crops up in the most unexpected places. Macdonald’s coffee is excellent and not to be despised because of doubts about an old obese regime in other areas. It is better still that we geriatric Aussies get our morning coffee free when returning from picking up grandchildren for our free enterprise day care program, now in its 20th year. As many contributors have the look of geriatrics (no offence meant), I hope the joys of morning coffee are accessible to you. If not, the course is clear. Emigrate.

If I may refer to the much discussed property issue many church properties were purchased and buildings erected long before the present contretemps. It is really making a jump to argue that the any element of any parish have a prior and settled claim.

If American churches ‘churn’ as much as reports suggest, the majority of the people who are voting to leave the TEC were not in a dissenting congregation a decade ago. In such a case they are unlikely to have made major contributions to the costs of buildings etc.

Real politik demands that this be said—at least some dissenting members may have joined in order to add to the vote to secede. In short, it is not the simple issue that is presented in some contributions.

It is right that any claim to ownership be settled in a court of law and that is one of the dimensions that any dissenting group ought to take seriously.

I think others will share my despair at some of the arguments, grounded in interpretation of Scripture, that Christians ought not to resort to the civil courts. There is simply no cultural continuity between what counted as civil law in biblical times and the way our society works today. There is no other way to resolve property disagreements. Indeed, none of us would be Anglicans today without the direct intervention of Henry VIII’s parliament and the upholding of that legislation in diverse jurisdictions for the past five centuries.

I have to say I’m missing why I shouldn’t get coffee at McDonalds (not that I drink it except as a source of caffeine in extremis).