Two years ago, over two-thirds of the congregation of St. Marks-on-the-Mesa of the Diocese of the Rio Grande voted to leave the Episcopal Church to join the Anglican Church in North America. As Rev. Canon Phil Ashey, chief operating and development officer of the American Anglican Council, explains:
When those parishioners left the parish, the Diocese of the Rio Grande, and the Episcopal Church, they left everything. They left the property, building, endowments, bank accounts – even paperclips and pencils. They did so in good conscience, with generosity, and with love for those who in good conscience could not leave The Episcopal Church. Based on their reading of scripture, these parishioners did not want to fight over buildings and property in civil courts. Instead, they walked away and began a new life together as Anglican followers of Jesus Christ at Christ the King Anglican Church. Not only did the new parish draw former Episcopalians, but also Christians from other denominations who wanted to worship and serve at Christ the King Anglican.
Although St. Mark’s on-the-Mesa got to keep everything, the church still decided that they needed more: They want another $20,000 from the Anglicans to cover expenses of a church they no longer attend. As one non-profit lawyers says,
In the 25 years that I have been involved in litigation involving religious bodies, I have never seen or heard of a request that those who leave a religious organization have any continuing financial obligations to support the organization they left. I know of no passage in the Bible or legal theory that supports the request made by The Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande.
Asking people who live the church to cough up money for its maintenance may not be a Biblical move, but you have to give them style points for audacity.
(Via: Strange Herring)
September 26th, 2011 | 1:23 pm
The promissory estoppel principle of contract (or quasi-contract) law, particularly as applied in a charitable subscriptions context, might apply. There are cases in which charities sued donors who pledged money but never followed through and the charities prevailed on this promissory estoppel principle.
Though an enforceable contract usually requires an exchange of consideration (usually money for goods), under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, if a gift is promised, and the intended recipient relies on the promise, the intended recipient may collect the gift if the planned giver changes his mind. Under the charitable subscriptions doctrine, a charity is assumed to have relied on the pledges or subscriptions of planned donors and does not need to show separate reliance on the promises of donations.
If these former members of St. Mark’s pledged to St. Mark’s and/or the Diocese, but left the parish and Diocese before fulfilling their pledges, the Diocese’s trying to collect those pledges would be unusual, but have basis in American contract law.
September 26th, 2011 | 1:24 pm
It’s like alimony.
September 26th, 2011 | 1:39 pm
Suppose five friends got an apartment together that costs $5000 a month, which they shared equally, and after a few years, four of them left abruptly to get a new apartment, leaving one person behind (the one whose name is on the lease) whose rent has now quintupled.
September 26th, 2011 | 1:48 pm
David — So? Unless they all signed a lease together and four of them moved out during the lease period, then the remaining guy gets to move out and find another place to live. He knew from the day he agreed to move in with these guys that they could move out when they wished. Maybe if they all signed a legal contract between the parties saying no one would move there would be an issue, but that’s not what church membership is.
Oh, and you also have to include the part where the four other people moved out because the fifth guy was constantly inviting people over to stay without consulting the others, making a mess in the kitchen, and leaving his dirty laundry all over the place, and the other four had spend YEARS trying to get him to stop. There was nothing “abrupt” about this at all except that maybe the fifth guy didn’t see it coming because he just didn’t understand what the problem was in the first place.
September 26th, 2011 | 2:05 pm
The doctrine of promissary estoppel sounds like it would require action against each individual departing member. It was individual members who left and then as individuals, joined a different group. The non-profit orgranization remains St. Marks-on-the-Mesa. If I were to leave First Church after pledging money and then join Second Church, the action would be against me, not Second Church. In this case it was St. Mark’s obligation to the diocese. St. Mark’s would have to pursue the departing individuals if any pledges were made to it. TEC members do not typically pledge directly to their diocese.
September 26th, 2011 | 2:21 pm
The letter is actually pretty hilarious. I like these parts in particular:
“Dear Father Weber,
I pray that this finds you well in the Lord! Summer is always such a gift in the ministry, a time for reflection, refreshment and anticipation for the end of the liturgical year…
a good number of the clergy and congregation at St. Mark’s-on-the-Mesa left to form a new congregation, leaving the remaining members with quite a financial and emotional burden to carry…
it was the decision of Council to hold St. Mark’s-on-the-Mesa responsible for the entire Fair Share payment for the third quarter in 2009, requesting that the burden be split between the members that left and the members that stayed, dividing the responsibility roughly along the lines of how the congregation self-selected.
I would ask that you would prayerfully consider accepting the responsibility of paying the portion of the Fair Share that was required by the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande.”
I don’t see any hints of any legal standing to require payment, since any normal human being would see that such claims were preposterous. It seems clear to me that the response should be an equally laughably worded letter pointing out that perhaps the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande should consider slashing both their budget and dues by 80% to recognize new realities.
September 26th, 2011 | 2:26 pm
There was nothing “abrupt” about this at all except that maybe the fifth guy didn’t see it coming because he just didn’t understand what the problem was in the first place.
pentamom,
First, it is my hypothetical scenario, and if I say the four left abruptly, they left abruptly. You can’t make up a “backstory” to change the scenario I present.
Second, I didn’t draw any conclusion, say who was right or wrong, or claim the four departing roommates had an obligation (or no obligation) to the leaseholder.
September 26th, 2011 | 2:50 pm
First, it is my hypothetical scenario, and if I say the four left abruptly, they left abruptly. You can’t make up a “backstory” to change the scenario I present.
Yeah, but hers has the virtue of being both spot-on and hysterically funny to boot.
September 26th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
Does someone know if the TEC, at least in that diocese, charges use fees for the parishes? I know the Roman Catholic Church here in America does not. I believe in both cases, the property is owned by the diocese not by the members of the individual churches.
I see no indication of individual pledges allowing for promissory estoppel to apply either in the write-up or in Bishop Vono’s letter. Indeed, the letter is addressed to the founding pastor of the new AAC parish, not to any individual pledgers.
Here in the Archdiocese of Boston, we have gone through the consolidation and closing of a number of parishes due to declining membership and support. It was and, for some, continues to be a painful process. I suspect Bishop Vono had better start planning.
September 26th, 2011 | 3:13 pm
Mr. M, as a legal matter, that letter suggests the Diocese is trying to collect from the individuals (“members”), not the new church. Other legal principles about agency and “piercing the corporate veil” could come in with regard to the new congregation, if the Diocese wanted to hire some hard-nosed lawyers.
The Diocese might rely on the third-party-beneficiary principle to collect on pledges made to St. Mark’s. Moreover, other Episcopal Dioceses have argued that all parish property belongs to the Diocese under principles of contract (parish to Diocese) and equity, and those Dioceses have prevailed.
My only point is that there are legal principles supporting the Diocese’s request.
September 26th, 2011 | 3:24 pm
Mr. Melendez, the civil courts have ruled that whether a parish and its moveable property belongs to its Diocese or itself depends on the canon law in effect at the time the parish was founded or joined the Diocese. The canon law functions as a contract between the parish and the Diocese, some versions calling for parishes to retain complete ownership of their temporalities, some stating that the parishes hold all their property in trust for the Diocese.
As a former Episcopalian (not at all involved in these Texas events), it is my understanding that Dioceses do not charge “rent” or “use fees” to parishes, but do assess this “Fair Share” contribution. A parish’s “Fair Share” amount is roughly proportional to some figure or figures such as number of members or annual income, so that smaller parishes pay a smaller “Fair Share” and larger parishes pay a larger “Fair Share” to their Dioceses. At my last Episcopal parish, the Fair Share was a substantial portion of the parish’s annual budget (something like 10-20%, if I remember from years ago).
September 26th, 2011 | 3:30 pm
RS: Maybe I don’t understand Episco-code, but I don’t see anything about pledges in this letter. It sounds to me like the Diocese of the Rio Grande decided that St. Mark’s owes it $25K, and since 80% of the parishioners left, St. Mark’s asked for relief, and the Diocese said we’re still owed $25K, but you loyal few only need to pay $5K and we’ll ask the folks who left for $20K. Maybe they’ll follow up with more explicit legal threats, but that’s how I read it. Am I missing something behind the scenes here? Was the 25K number based on anything actually committed by people?
September 26th, 2011 | 5:49 pm
“First, it is my hypothetical scenario, and if I say the four left abruptly, they left abruptly. You can’t make up a “backstory” to change the scenario I present.”
What I was doing, was tweaking your scenario to more closely match the real situation your hypothetical was trying to mirror.
September 26th, 2011 | 6:25 pm
Brain, I was responding to the quote from the lawyer, “I know of no…legal theory that supports the request made by The Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande.” I think there is an established set of common law legal theories supporting the request. I agree it is a request right now, but the lawyer quoted seems to see it as a thickly veiled threat. Clearly, as a mere request, of course it’s legal. Charities ask other charities for donations all the time, just like they ask individuals and for-profit corporations. It’s only as a threat that it’s unusual.
As I said, I don’t know how the Fair Share number is calculated. If it was based upon a percentage of St. Mark’s historic or expected income, it would be based, directly or indirectly, on pledges. Episcopal parishes typically ask for annual pledges at one point in the year so they can set the budget. This time of year varies from parish to parish. The Fair Share payment is due from every parish at the same time. I can envision a situation in which St. Mark’s parishioners pledged a total of $250,000 in January; the majority left the parish in August, having paid to St. Mark’s only portions of their annual pledges; and the Fair Share (10% of the budget) was due in September. Now St. Mark’s and the Diocese are short and want to collect the money from the departed parishioners. The legal theories of promissory estoppel and charitable contribution, with the Diocese a third-party-beneficiary (or owner) of the former parishioners’ quasi-contracts with St. Mark’s provide a basis for this plan.
There is a wrinkle, though, as long as we have our hard-nosed-lawyer hats on: The First Amend. will make it difficult for a judge to order the former parishioners to give money to a religious organization they no longer support. Our religious freedoms include the right to convert. The charitable subscription cases I know of do not deal with religious organizations. On the other hand, one cannot claim religious freedom as an escape from one’s contract obligations. I cannot, for example, refuse to pay for goods I have purchased from the various Mormon businesses just because I do not, on religious principle, support the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.
September 26th, 2011 | 8:06 pm
Not a lawyer, but it looks like an old-fashioned shakedown to me. The Episcopalians have turned into mafia-style wiseguys. What’s next–an offer they can’t refuse?
September 26th, 2011 | 9:30 pm
First, it is my hypothetical scenario, and if I say the four left abruptly, they left abruptly. You can’t make up a “backstory” to change the scenario I present.
You offered your hypothetical as an analogy. Making up a backstory to point out the obvious flaws in the analogy as presented is an entirely legitimate means of pointing out the flaws in it.
September 26th, 2011 | 11:03 pm
RS: Well, I see nothing in the letter that even hints at pledges, which I assume would have been both mentioned and dealt with on a personal level, so I’ll go on assuming that this is just a particularly feeble and desperate shakedown attempt that is probably best ignored.
September 27th, 2011 | 6:18 am
Parishes are typically “assessed” on received pledge and plate/revenue from one to two years prior. It is not unusual, especially these days, for a church to request that its “fair share” be reduced in light of current economic circumstances. Since there must always be a lag in the reported income being assessed, no current pledges are taken into account when a diocese calculates the original amount.
Nor is this amount restricted to “pledges,” but is based on a formula (sometimes unique to a diocese) that results in a percentage of revenue, of which pledges are typically a substantial but not sole component. Were the people who left, for example, pledgers or “givers of record,” those who gave, even on a regular basis in an a regular amount, but had not signed a “pledge card.” The diocesan formula will not distinguish between the two.
The next logical step, if this is to lead to court action on behalf of the church short on ytd operating funds, is to go after those who move out of state after having pledged, and then, of course, the estates of those who have died. After all, they were counting on that income too and a promise is a promise.
September 27th, 2011 | 7:38 am
Maybe I have to reread the original letter more carefully but I’m not seeing the cause of the outrage here. It reads to me like the group left in 2009. In the letter it says the obligation for Q3 2009 was $25,000. They adjusted it to $20,000 and asked the group that left to pay that.
So presumably they are not asking for Q4 payments, since at that time the splinter group would have been fully operating out of their new home. They adjusted Q3 downwards slightly because I’m guessing that’s about when the group left. It doesn’t say when exactly in 2009 they left so we can’t be sure whether or not being asked to pay 80% of Q3 is fair or not. But then the letter is not a lawsuit, it says nothing about legal demands, its just a request. So why all the hyperventilating about “they have no shame blah blah blah….”. Just shut up and write a letter back stating what you think is a fair portion of Q3 to pay and be done with it. Until someone actually hires a lawyer and sues there’s no legal question here.
September 27th, 2011 | 10:20 am
[...] Coercion, and HealthcarePreventing Another Attack: International Religious FreedomOn a related note:Paying for a Church You Don’t Believe Inand this act of hyperactive imagination and under-active journalist fact-checking:Why the Antichrist [...]
September 27th, 2011 | 10:26 am
I can’t explain why anyone would hyperventilate on this topic, or why someone would read the above comments and describe them as hyperventilating, but I can say that as an Episcopal priest, I am well acquainted with how dioceses have been pursuing legal action against those who leave, and this letter certainly appears similar to groundwork in other cases toward a legal remedy.
This is quite a turn of events that your “write a letter back stating what you think is a fair portion” fails to take into account. As one commenter reminded us, it is not unheard of for a charity or non-profit to seek legal recourse against those who do not fulfill a pledge. It’s extremely rare (for reasons of propriety and the need for sustained goodwill, I’d imagine) but such cases have apparently been made. I have never, however, encountered or even heard of such action from a church toward former members.
Every Episcopal church budgets off of pledged amounts, combined with reasonable expectations for loose plate offerings, givers of record, etc. But no church is immune from people leaving, moving away, getting sick, losing a job, or dying, and budgets are routinely adjusted to reflect such changes–some of which may be significant or even catastrophic. That’s life in the church. No taxes. No mandates. No guarantees.
That a church (through the behest of an “all your base are belong to us” diocese) would seek “a fair share” from those who left speaks volumes about their priorities and quite possibly why such a depature happened in the first place.
September 27th, 2011 | 10:47 am
DBP,
On one hand you say its all part of ‘life as a church’ that people don’t follow thru on their pledges….but then on the other hand you claim that you’re seeing more and more churches and other charities use legal action against people who fail to make good on their pledges.
Maybe this letter is a prelude to legal action, but nothing in it says anything about legal action. It asks the breakaway church to honor $20K of their Q3 pledge. Fair? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know when in Q3 they broke away nor do I know the conditions. But the sensible thing to do is not start screaming about those evil bastards being out for blood, its to simply say why they don’t think they should honor their Q3 pledge or if they think the pledge should be honored but at a different amount, to state that case.
When and if legal action follows, then we can talk about the case. At that point though one presumably will have to look carefully at the language that was used when this pledge was originally decided on. Did it, for example, require so much notice before it can be terminated? Did the church take on debt to fund some project with the understanding that the pledges would come through? Presumably if legal action does follow it will begin with the church approaching a lawyer and the lawyer will consider the details of the pledge we aren’t able to view before advising them on trying an actual lawsuit.
September 27th, 2011 | 11:06 am
Actually, I never said or implied anything like “but then on the other hand you claim that you’re seeing more and more churches and other charities use legal action against people who fail to make good on their pledges.” I noted that a previous commenter stipulated the technically legal possibility of non-profits pursuing unpaid pledges (PBS going after those who just wanted a free mug?). I grant this point, though I have no knowledge or experience of such actions from non-church charities. It is truly unheard of, however, by me or even that above commenter, that a church would pursue those who have left the parish in order to fulfill their pledge.
But since you seem prone to exaggerate the comments of others (“evil bastards being out for blood”/people “hyperventilating”), perhaps your conflation of the comments makes more sense.
It remains, however, a simple fact of life–at least in the Episcopal Church. People leave (lots of them these days, check the national church statistics), and they take their time, talent, and treasure with them—regardless of the plans made corporately. Pursue them if you desire reconciliation, reunion, or healing. Don’t pursue them because you can’t pay your bills or because so and so promised to stop by and fix the office toilet but he never did because he up and became a Baptist. Who cares where he worships, he can’t reneg now–we have a toilet to fix!
It’s crass, ugly, foolish, ineffective, and ultimately self defeating. It’s rare that the charge of simony surfaces any more, but this seems to come awfully close.
September 27th, 2011 | 12:16 pm
@RS,
You seem to be getting lost. I make no claim that the new parish owned the property of the old parish. I belong to a church where the property is owned by the diocese. I’ve heard the TEC, for whatever reason, is the same. So, of course, the new parishes have legal troubles trying to hang onto the old parish property.
Of course Bishop Vono is trying to collect from the former parish individuals. The idea that the pastor would personally provide the full sum is absurd. The point is, the Bishop does not refer to pledges of any kind. And yes, he can ask for contributions.
Both of those are smoke and confusion, whether internal or intentional, I don’t know.
The question is the legal status of the “Fair Share” program. My parishes, all RC, have conducted capital campaigns from time to time requesting pledges, but I can’t imagine these are in any way legally binding. I have never heard of anyone making a pledge, not fulfilling, and being legally pursued when they continue to come to Mass and receive Communism. That makes an apostate (forget that in this case, the “apostates” haven’t changed their beliefs) being pursued beyond believable.
My immediate impression is that Bishop Vono is bureaucrat with no conception of the limits of his authority.
September 27th, 2011 | 1:23 pm
I noted that a previous commenter stipulated the technically legal possibility of non-profits pursuing unpaid pledges (PBS going after those who just wanted a free mug?). I grant this point, though I have no knowledge or experience of such actions from non-church charities. It is truly unheard of, however, by me or even that above commenter, that a church would pursue those who have left the parish in order to fulfill their pledge.
As mentioned before, this usually is contingent upon the person or entity that received the promise of the gift taking some action relying on it. While it wouldn’t be worth the effort, PBS going after someone for $50 because they sent them a mug but they welched on their pledge would probably work legally. A more serious example might be a school naming a building after some rich family only to discover after paying for the name to be etched in a huge marble slate over the entranceway that the donar has decided he doesn’t want to pay.
But since you seem prone to exaggerate the comments of others (“evil bastards being out for blood”/people “hyperventilating”), perhaps your conflation of the comments makes more sense.
I am going off the comments complaining about what to me seems simply like a request from the original church to a new church. The griping about leaving behind the property, building, endowments and bank accounts. The link to the AAC blow is titled “We have all your stuff now, but we think you owe us more!”. The three bolded items in response first claims “they have no shame”, the second says they are trying to have authority over those who departed, the third claims this is about filing lawsuits against fellow Anglicans…even though the letter says nothing about lawsuits or a threat of a lawsuit. Likewise it references “faced veiled and unveiled intimidation”.
Maybe there’s a lot of other things going on here, and clearly the breakup has left both sides rather bitter, despite the claims of the new church that they are perfectly happy….even though they can’t help but note the old church still has even the paperclips! But the only evidence I see is their letter, which is quite frankly just a request for money. The only thing crass here is what honestly appears to be a hyperventilating response by the new church or their defenders. If there’s more going on here I’m missing, that should be brought out in the open.
September 27th, 2011 | 1:39 pm
“My immediate impression is that Bishop Vono is bureaucrat with no conception of the limits of his authority.”
Likely. Or, it could be worse — whenever you have one of these major big-time denominational splits, it seems like some of the officials in the remaining group get a really, really nasty case of vindictive. (As a PCA Presbyterian, I know pastors who still turn pale at the mention of 1973.) I don’t know that it’s the case, here, though.
Or maybe he knows the limits of his authority, but figures a little bullying might save St. Mark’s bacon.
September 27th, 2011 | 2:03 pm
Boonton: Please show me anything in the letter or article that mentions “pledge” or “promise” or anything at all along those lines. You seem to have made quite an unsubstantiated leap in your assumptions.
September 27th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
If a “pledge” to give money to a church is legally enforceable, does that mean that even if a parishoner moves to another parish, converts to another religion, or even decides to become an athiest, that this person still could be legall compelled to pay up?
This does sound like a shake down and the correct response would be to tell the diocese to go ahead and sue. I would like to hear what the Supremes have to say about such a fatuous claim.
September 27th, 2011 | 2:22 pm
Well in the letter it says:
At that time, a group from St. Mark’s-on-the-Mesa, Albuquerque came before the Council to request forgiveness for their Fair Share obligation from the third quarter of 2009.
Whatever this Fair Share thing is, it seems like some type of promise or pledge made to support the burdens of the church. From the language, it seems like all involved would agree that there was a moral pledge that would be inforce if the group had not broken away from the church. So the only question is what impact, if any, does leaving the church have on the obligation?
September 27th, 2011 | 2:34 pm
Boonton: “it seems like some type of promise or pledge made to support the burdens of the church.”
Not to me it doesn’t. To me it sounds like a tax the Diocese extracts from a parish (or whatever they’re called) based on how much money the parish has. If the parishioners leave in mass numbers, the Diocese should adjust their formula accordingly if they had a lick of common sense. I’ve asked several times in this thread for any reason to believe pledges are not being honored and no one has supplied the tiniest reason to believe that’s the case.
September 27th, 2011 | 2:50 pm
Boonton: Also note that the group asking for “forgiveness for their Fair Share obligation” was the 20% remnant that stayed Episcopal. The 80% that left (to whom this letter was written) clearly do NOT “agree that there was a moral pledge” of any sort and want nothing to do with the Episcopal church.
September 27th, 2011 | 3:13 pm
Once again, “Fair Share” is the euphemistic title for the program of diocesan assessment. In order to fund diocesan salaries (bishop, canon to the ordinary, office staff, etc–not the local clergy), diocesan owned facilities (diocesan offices, campgrounds, meeting spaces, not local parishes), and diocesan programs, the churches within that diocese are “taxed” a certain percentage of realized revenue (however accrued–pledge, plate, gifts, rent, endowment, etc) from an earlier time period (typically 1-2 years prior).
Churches are typically billed by the diocese a prorated amount throughout the calendar year (looks to be quarterly in this case). The amount of revenue (or where it comes from) any church has at a given time has no bearing on this bill–again, it’s calculated from data a year or more prior and is accounted as a fixed expense within most parish budgets.
When an Episcopal church experiences a financial shortfall, they go to the diocese and ask that this “Fair Share” or assessment, or diocese tax be adjusted accordingly. That’s precisely what happened here and happens every year in nearly every diocese. What’s so novel is the suggestion that since many of the people who left (Most? All? Why does that matter?) attend a different church, that this other church ought to fund a diocese to which they do not belong and do so on behalf of a church to which they do not belong. It remains worth noting that it is the diocese that first suggests this course of action.
People leave churches all of the time, for right or wrong. Churches do not, however, typically pursue those who leave in order to continue funding their budget, regardless of the title on the line item. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of such a thing. And I suggest that it ought to strike a discordant note within you, your reflexive contrariness on this site notwithstanding.
This has been stated here calmly, if not without distaste or even disdain. The only hyperventilation within the comments posted in this thread come from the overheated hyperbole you’ve used to describe your personal impressions of the comments rather than what the commenters actually wrote.
September 27th, 2011 | 5:05 pm
Jaime: “If a ‘pledge’ to give money to a church is legally enforceable, does that mean that even if a parishoner moves to another parish, converts to another religion, or even decides to become an atheist, that this person still could be legally compelled to pay up?” My answer, based on cursory legal study, is Maybe. If it’s a pledge to a non-religious charity, the answer is closer to Yes. But, as I suggested, because of the First Amendment’s religious freedom protections, a civil court will struggle to require a citizen to pay money to a religious organization he no longer believes in.
Mr. Melendez, I don’t think the legal status of the Fair Share arrangements really are the question. Experience tells us that members of Episcopal parishes make annual pledges to their parishes, and these are a very significant portion of the parochial and Diocesan budgets. (This is a difference between Roman Catholic and Episcopal parishes. Roman Catholic Dioceses and parishes are more likely to have schools, hospitals, retirement homes, endowments, and other sources of income beyond donations from individuals. Donations from individuals make up a much larger percentage of Episcopal parochial and Diocesan budgets.)
Case law tells us that may create a property/contract interest for the parish. Case law further tells us that whatever belongs to the parish belongs to the Diocese. Therefore, the Diocese can collect on the pledges. The Fair Share payments are the occasion that may inspire the Diocese to go after the former parishioners. Moreover, the former parishioners will have a stronger attachment to the former parish than its Diocese, so phrasing the request/demand as money the (beloved) parish owes the (overbearing) Diocese makes it more likely the former parishioners will be persuaded to donate.
Again, I’m just addressing the suggestion way that there’s no legal theory supporting the Diocese’s request. Granted, mine is a complicated set of legal theories, but the only part that isn’t basic American contract law is the part about Episcopal Dioceses owning parishes, and that is well-known among those watching contemporary Episcopalian goings-on. I will point out one more thing: It appears that the new ACNA members were the first to mention all these possible civil law wranglings, not the Episcopal Diocese.
September 28th, 2011 | 7:36 am
When an Episcopal church experiences a financial shortfall, they go to the diocese and ask that this “Fair Share” or assessment, or diocese tax be adjusted accordingly. That’s precisely what happened here and happens every year in nearly every diocese. What’s so novel is the suggestion that since many of the people who left (Most? All? Why does that matter?) attend a different church, that this other church ought to fund a diocese to which they do not belong and do so on behalf of a church to which they do not belong. It remains worth noting that it is the diocese that first suggests this course of action.
Let’s make a distinction here between church and Church. Church with a capital ‘C’ is the larger religion while lowercase c is an individual church. There are plenty of Roman churches, but the Vatican is the head of the Church if we are talking about Roman Catholics. It sounds like these people left their church but remained inside their overall Church. So what you’re describing is basically a bill for the services of the larger top level Church.
So let’s imagine a congregation playing a little game. Just before every quarter ends, everyone suddenly decides that the local church is no good and they go off to found a new church. When the bill comes due from the Church, the old church says to the top “we just lost nearly all our people”. The new church says “we just arrived on the scene a day ago”. Playing this game of shuffling churches, the assessment could be dodged forever. So with that in mind its not surprising that a supermajority of people founding a new church leaving the old one unable to pay should be meet with a desire to see the new church assume most of the original burden.
People leave churches all of the time, for right or wrong. Churches do not, however, typically pursue those who leave in order to continue funding their budget, regardless of the title on the line item. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of such a thing. And I suggest that it ought to strike a discordant note within you, your reflexive contrariness on this site notwithstanding.
Well this doesn’t seem like just a few people who decide forwhatever reason to leave, the site says 80% left to found a new church that’s still under the same Church. So that makes it a bit unusual relative to the monthly ‘noise’ of some people entering and some people leaving a church. Second going just by the letter the pursuit here seems pretty mild. Its basically just a request that the new church assume a large portion of the old church’s bill. That may or may not be reasonable but it seems odd to characterize that as if the old church was knocking down people’s doors and trying to infringe their paychecks.
The only hyperventilation within the comments posted in this thread come from the overheated hyperbole you’ve used to describe your personal impressions of the comments rather than what the commenters actually wrote.
I’ve cited actual examples of hyperventilating comments from the original article, not the commentors here. Examples, “we have all your stuff now”, “they have no shame”, “veiled and unveiled intimidation”. Unless there’s something else at play here, none of that can be justified based on the letter presented.
September 28th, 2011 | 10:07 am
“It sounds like these people left their church but remained inside their overall Church…the site says 80% left to found a new church that’s still under the same Church.”
No, it says no such thing, because that’s not true. Are you intentionally misinterpreting everything about this case? Seriously, you need to actually read the letter involved, the story posted, and the comments, because all of your own comments appear to be based on complete and fundamental misunderstandings about what’s going on.
September 28th, 2011 | 10:54 am
“It sounds like these people left their church but remained inside their overall Church. So what you’re describing is basically a bill for the services of the larger top level Church.”
Unfortunately, you have this precisely backward.
You are correct that the bill in question is for the operations of a “higher level” within the denominational structure. The problem with your explanation is the supposition that they have somehow remained “inside their overall Church.”
I, as an Episcopalian, try to be careful to use “lower case c” church to denote a local congregation of whatever stripe, and/or a particular denomination or fellowship, unless specifically citing the proper noun of a title (The Episcopal Church).
“Upper case c” Church I try to reserve for the Universal Body of Christ throughout time and space, regardless of congregation or denomination. I believe I have done so in my responses on this forum.
So rather than follow your example, which further muddies the point, allow me to explain, yet again, the nature of this debate from the terms of those actually involved.
A sizable majority of this particular Episcopal church (lower case, as in a singular parish) left en masse and helped found a different, non-Episcopal church, wholly independent of their former diocese and even their former denomination. They are no longer members of that former parish, no longer members of that former diocese, and no longer members of The Episcopal Church (TEC) as a nation-wide denomination.
This new church has as much connection to the diocese and The Episcopal Church as does the local Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian congregations (which, historically came largely from splits of the Church of England—a common ancestor of the current day Episcopal Church). They may all be a part of the Invisible Church Catholic (to say, Universal), but operate under no common structure of hierarchy, authority, logistics, or responsibility.
Though this new congregation identifies themselves as Anglican (from that common world-wide fellowship of national churches sprung from and remaining in communion with the English See of Canterbury), the current administration within The Episcopal Church explicitly denies this connection and refers to these stateside churches under the authority of overseas Anglican Provinces as schismatics and officially Un-Anglican.
The complicated and messy interplay here has resulted in scores of lawsuits (virtually all from TEC against those departing, some with property, some without) across the country, which is why the letter you apparently read in a vacuum as innocuous is received by those still in the fray with great skepticism if not outright alarm. They really have been coming after the paperclips in other disaffiliated churches who tried to keep property. And now a letter eerily similar to the tactics used to begin proceedings against the churches that tried to leave with property are being spotted against a congregation that purposefully left all of the property behind–giving an ominous tone of “that’s still not good enough” in this already litigious and increasingly poisonous environment.
The article gives every impression that these folks left in good faith and without malice towards those who stayed. Would you maintain that there is nothing strange about this had they all joined the local Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod at the same time and THAT congregation received such a letter?
On it’s face it’s either ominous or ridiculous.
I am pleased that you have toned down your rhetoric, but a) I have explained multiple times that there is “something else at play here” and b) it is you who chose to interpret comments such as “we have all your stuff now”, “they have no shame”, “veiled and unveiled intimidation” with phrases like “hyperventilating” and “evil bastards being out for blood.”
September 28th, 2011 | 12:18 pm
DBP
OK that makes more sense given that there’s a much larger context here. I think it is rather strange to see 80% of an entire church found a new church that is literally a different denomination rather than simply a church that’s under different local management but the same global management. I guess this must be one really bitter breakup.
I can see how the letter may be following a pattern of being a prelude to lawsuits based on other examples, but then what has become of those lawsuits? If this ‘tax’ system exists as a more formal legal arrangement than simply an internal denominational accounting system then the relationship of the new to old church would appear to be more complicated than simply a few chaps opting to leave one church to start/join another one.
September 28th, 2011 | 2:48 pm
“OK that makes more sense given that there’s a much larger context here. I think it is rather strange to see 80% of an entire church found a new church that is literally a different denomination rather than simply a church that’s under different local management but the same global management. I guess this must be one really bitter breakup. ”
That’s what’s happening in Episcopalianism all over the place, Boonton. It’s not about half (or four-fifths) of St. David’s getting mad at the priest or at at the other fifth, it’s about orthodox Episcopalians fleeing an increasingly heterodox American Episcopal church and joining up with the Anglicans for oversight. This isn’t a local church split, it’s one of the local situations involved in a larger denominational implosion.
There are a few dioceses in the country where the split went the other way — a bishop took his entire diocese out of the Episcopal branch and into Anglicanism, and a few churches voted to stay, resulting in them in effect breaking away from their bishop and rejoining with another. In those cases many of the churches also experienced similar splits. In the St. David’s/Christ the King situation it went the other way — the diocese stayed Episcopal, but many individual churches either left as a unit or split over it.
September 28th, 2011 | 4:09 pm
Thank you, Boonton.
This is a very messy, complicated situation, and the short, unfair answer is that these lawsuits generally involve matters of trust law and that has been adjudicated differently in different states. Most states have come down on the side of the TEC–the pre-existing denomination–that when their internal rules changed back in the 70s, parish property (regardless of who has the title, who has paid for and maintained it) was held in trust for the diocese in which it belonged. So most lawsuits have been to recover property when sometimes 90%+ of a congregation has voted to disaffiliate.
Again, trust law varies state to state (especially in this “implied trust” done on someone else’s behalf), but most states where the lawsuits have progressed have sided with the dioceses and the national church. This has not been a monolithic decision across the country, however, and where things proceed from here (and to what ultimate conclusion), none but the Lord know. I am convinced that these lawsuits are scandalous, as Paul warned the church in Corinth.
I remain in TEC and work and pray for its renewal, but understand that I and my diocese are currently in a significant minority position here in the States.
September 28th, 2011 | 4:21 pm
Boonton,
My sense is that you are a Roman Catholic who is simply not very informed about the controversies over homosexuality that have been roiling the Protestant mainline for nearly a generation now. That’s fine. I wouldn’t expect you to know much about the controversies of mainline Protestantism beyond the occasional headline. A lot of it is, frankly, “inside baseball” and can look pretty esoteric to an outsider.
But as a pastor of a church in one of those denominations, please believe me when I tell you that this has been a wrenching and for many (myself included), inordinately painful struggle. I have watched the denomination I pledged to serve with “energy, intelligence, imagination and love” tear itself to pieces by abandoning the clear mandate of Scripture in the name of “justice” and “inclusion”. The authority of Scripture and of the historic Confessions of the church have been sacrificed upon the altar of the zeitgeist.
Not surprisingly, given this turn of events, there have been pastors and congregations who have concluded that in abandoning the tenets of Scripture the denomination has abandoned them, vacating in a sense any claim to legitimate authority. Some of these pastors and congregations have thus responded by leaving en masse. And in some cases they have wanted to leave (understandably) with the property they have sacrificed time, money, and energy in building and maintaining. How has my denomination responded? Sadly, not as one might expect. One could have hoped that the response in the spirit of charity and the mutual Lordship of Christ would have been “come now let us reason together…” Rather what has generally been said is “you’ll hear from our lawyers”. Sad, but fair enough, I suppose, as I am in one of those denominations wherein most local property is constitutionally mandated to be held in “trust” — something like what we see in the TEC.
But that’s not even what is going on here. What is going on here is that 80% of a congregation left, abandoning any claims to any property. Property that I am sure they did far more to build up, support, and maintain than did the diocese. And how does the denomination respond? With a collection letter. It may not look like a big deal to you, but from where I sit it borders on the outrageous. Even in the (sometimes) superheated atmosphere of my own denominational breakdown, no in the denominational hierarchy has had the temerity to propose that former members be asked to pay for a building they have left in a denomination of which they are no longer a part.
In other words I am mystified by your mystification, and hope that this allowa you to see the matter with more clarity.
September 29th, 2011 | 10:36 am
This whole thing really bothers me, altho’ I admit I don’t have a dog in the fight.
I recall when I was young and still an Episcopalian, having fund drives to help pay the mortgage on the church (St Barnabas). The parishioners paid off the mortgage. Now the Episcopal Church is telling congregations that no longer want to be associated with that church — even if the whole congregation leaves — that they don’t own it. That’s just wrong.
Try doing that and having another fund drive to pay the mortgage. Just like abandoning the word of God and abdicating all ethical standards, you will get a short term gain but will ultimately lose, and lose in a big way.
I see dire things ahead for this church — it’s dying and doesn’t understand why or how it’s happening.
September 29th, 2011 | 4:40 pm
david c
In other words I am mystified by your mystification, and hope that this allowa you to see the matter with more clarity.
Indeed there clearly is a lot of ‘inside baseball’ stuff here but sometimes an outsider has a better perspective because he doesn’t bother to learn most of the stuff that is exciting so much emotions. This seems somewhat analagous to a married couple getting a divorced trying to nickle and dime and guilt trip each other about everything down to whose coffee mug is whose.
Yes the group left behind a Church they built, but to the perspective of those left behind it must seem like a husband who brought a bit house with a big mortgage who then runs out and then grips that his ex-wife wants a big chunck of alimony in order to keep the house….or at least make a few months of mortgage payments till it can be sold. Maybe the husband thinks the wife is an evil bitch and no man could ever be expected to live with such an unreasonable woman. Maybe he’s right about that passion but that’s not the issue in regards to making the next mortgage payment.
Jsmith
I recall when I was young and still an Episcopalian, having fund drives to help pay the mortgage on the church (St Barnabas). The parishioners paid off the mortgage. Now the Episcopal Church is telling congregations that no longer want to be associated with that church — even if the whole congregation leaves — that they don’t own it. That’s just wrong.,
But they don’t own it. Sorry that’s just how it is. Try doing this in the Roman Catholic Church and see how far you can get pushing around those who run the show. If you think you own it is it because you think there’s some type of voting rights that come with being a dedicated member? If that’s the case you should build that into your theology but is your claim of ownership now based on selectivity? Because you think the people who paid into the fund drive are in the right regarding homosexuality while those in the Church heirarchy are in the wrong?
September 29th, 2011 | 4:48 pm
I nominate “DBP” for the coveted (and rarely awarded) “Most Patient Commenter Of The Week” Award.
I don’t mind admitting that, while I’m not currently hyperventilating, the phrases “we have all your stuff now”, “they have no shame”, and “veiled and unveiled intimidation” all passed through my brain as I read this article, as did the phrases “worst fund-raising strategy short of drug-dealing and gun-running”, “modern liberal martyrdom means not caring about the PR” and “ECUSA’s ongoing mission to provide financial assistance to lawyers remains on-track.”
September 30th, 2011 | 9:19 am
Again the husband walks out on the wife. From his POV he says he left her with the big house while he’s living in a little one bedroom apt., who is she to now demand his paycheck on top of this!. From her POV he walked out leaving her with the giant house that has all sorts of bills associated with it, who is he not to give his paycheck. They would have never gotten the giant house together if they knew they were going to be breaking up in a few years so in a sense the house is a shared liability.
The desire here for the new church members to drop the old one like a bad habit does seem based on viewing the ‘old church’ as if it was a hotel they rented for a couple of weeks. “Hey, we left on Monday, why are they putting Wednesday’s cleaning on our bill!” But they built the thing together and they should share some of the liability together IMO.
Now its certainly not reasonable to expect them to pay for the old church forever since they are no longer using it nor its ‘global services’. But at the same time it’s not unreasonable for the old church to view the relationship as something more of a committment than a hotel room you are off the hook for the moment you toss the key to the guy at the front desk.
I think a lot of the hyperventilating rhetoric is not due to the old church being brazen in asking for money but due to the sore feelings still left from the theological split.
Just the opinion of a total outsider here.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact