George, you've made your case very, very well -- that is, I agree in large measure. And, in time, I may come to agree with you entirely. I am of the mind, now, to say yes why not have an alternative province with which we compete for souls or on ideas. But the property is not so easily divided.

Perhaps in a comment, or in a future essay, you would say something more about polity. We are not and have not been a congregational church. I don't generally like the slippery slope metaphor, but it seems appropriate here. Division cannot be easy, and still retain our polity. Agreed there's nothing in the Bible that endorses one polity over another, but what that means is that denominations are free to adopt the polity that best suits their reason.

As you say, unity cannot be enforced. But when a marriage dissolves there is the issue of dividing the property does not disappear. Also, division is in part difficult to force the marital partners to solve problems rather than walk away from them -- and later regret their actions.

George,

I think I have an interesting take on this. Not only from a young adult's perspective, but also one from a ethnic minority's perspective.

I will summarize my saying in a couple points.

1. You are absolutely right in terms of churches are now "competing for people" nowadays. I think part of the motivation is related to the church's survival. After all, some churches are struggling to make ends' meet. Another part of the reason is that more and more churches want to attract young families, in the days of we have less young people going to churches than ever before. Lastly, there might be other churches in other denomination in the neighborhood might forced their hands there. All these factors probably made churches think about "survival of the fittest" here.

2. I, however, would like you to explain more about your concept of non-geographical churches. My question to you is a two-fold question... what would happen to ethnic ministries? Are we forcing ALL Anglicans/Episcopalians gather together in these non-geographical churches?

As a first generation Chinese American, I would be one that who wouldn't mind either way. But, there are some immigrants who are struggling with English and/or would prefer having services in their native languages. I think having this idea in the states actually would make the Episcopal Church lose these people, as they head off to other denominations instead. After all, for them, I don't think denomination is not as strong a factor as language. I consider myself an odd ball here because I feel that my English is good enough to settle in a non-Chinese Episcopal Church, which I is what I am doing and doing very well.

- Bill Wong

I honestly cannot think of any non-Anglicans who might care.

You've evidently never even THOUGHT of any LGBTs outside the Church (the kind who watched conservative religious groups---like the schismatics who want to take OUR properties, and put them to THEIR purposes---pour millions of $$$ into passing Prop 8 in California).

Nope, you've never thought of them: funny that.

While we're always to be cautious importing civil values into the Church, in the case of historic (U.S. of) American values and TEC, I think it quite natural that there's some (holy) overlap.

One such value come from the time of the Barbary Pirates (See re ecclesial "pirates" in our own day): "Millions for defense, but NOT ONE RED CENT in tribute!"

As much as I regret any funds TEC might lay out for its defense, its preferable to giving up to the Principalities&Powers who passed Prop H8.

Just ask a non-churched queer (Who knows? Might be a way to bring them IN to our church).

JC Fisher

In deciding how to respond to the turmoil roiling the Episcopal Church, we Episcopalians need to ask ourselves: What type of person do I want to be, one who insists on my rights or one who seeks to walk in love, offering myself as an offering and sacrifice to God for others? In other words, What would Jesus do? While I cannot definitively answer that question, Jesus would certainly prioritize people and relationships ahead of property.

The analogy of a thief breaking into the house seems inapt to me. The dissidents, with whom I have very strong disagreements, are not unknown thieves but my brothers and sisters in Christ. Views about the morality of same-sex relationships, the correctness of ordaining women, or any of the other issues dividing the Anglican Communion are not constitutive of Christian identity. A more apt analogy is that of a divorce, in which the family (the Episcopal Church) divides while all remain part of the larger community (the Anglican Communion and the body of Christ).

My article intentionally avoided offering proposals for resolving property issues. A necessary preliminary step is to treat one another with love, or, at a minimum, civilly. Treating family members with whom we disagree in any other way demeans us and dishonors Christ. Love and grace, not property and possessions, must take priority in our dealings with our sisters and brothers, even those from whom we are estranged. After that preliminary step, interested stakeholders can employ reason and prayer to discern the best division of assets. What I am suggesting is analogous to when two people divorce: They divide their assets based on who brought what into the relationship, who contributed what over the course of the relationship, the needs/responsibilities of each, and perhaps future earning power. Experience in helping hundreds through the painful process of divorce has firmly convinced me that mediation invariably achieves better results for all parties than does litigation. Litigation generally results in higher legal fees that diminish the assets available for each partner. More importantly, court battles increase animosity rather helping partners to reconcile themselves to the reality of the split and the benefits peaceful coexistence.

Suggesting that a "non-churched queer" (to use JC Fisher's term) might care what the Episcopal Church merits careful analysis. If that individual is interested in the Episcopal Church because the Church, like the U.S., spends on defense rather than paying tribute, then that person has a wrong (or sadly impoverished) understanding of the Church. Relationships and relationships alone - with God and with one another - define the Church. Piracy is as an inapt a metaphor for this situation as is thief; piracy only works if someone values what the pirates hold hostage more than the ransom demanded. Thus only way to hold the Church hostage over property is if the Church values property more than relationships and obedience. Although property benefits the Church, property is not essential (one must choose which master to serve, God or mammon).

Like the Jewish prophets, the Church needs the courage to declare the truth and accept the consequences of its actions. The uncomfortable and unpleasant truth is that being a bigot does not in and of itself decisively break a person's relationship with God and should therefore not break that person's relationship with the body of Christ. Comparing bigots within the Church to pirates is no more of an apt metaphor than is the thief metaphor. Instead, the non-churched queer, like anyone else seeking to join companions from the Christian tradition on their spiritual journey, will find that companionship among those who boldly proclaim God's love for all and seek to incarnate that love in imitation of Jesus. I refuse to be held hostage by those who value property more than the unconditional acceptance of God's love; I refuse to be held hostage by those who value defeating the wrong-headed in court more than feeding the hungry.

George's essay was linked by Thinking Anglicans (in post grouped with some other things) and is also receiving comment there.

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003529.html

Comparing bigots within the Church to pirates is no more of an apt metaphor than is the thief metaphor.

Except thief" is not intended to be a metaphor, at least not when I use it.

A poor province snatches some wealthy North American congregations which cannot legally belong to them...I think "theft" is an apt description of such actions.

You can deny the truth of the matter as long as you want, but peace at any cost is not real peace. Reconciliation without holding those who have acted unethically accountable is a dishonorable way to proceed.

Regarding pirates, at least they are honest about their intentions. Bigotry in the name of God is wrong, period. It implies that God is a bigot. To ignore such a false witness is to be a willing participant in it.

If that individual is interested in the Episcopal Church because the Church, like the U.S., spends on defense rather than paying tribute, then that person has a wrong (or sadly impoverished) understanding of the Church.

You're entirely missing the point, George.

It's not about "spending", it's about FIRST PRINCIPLES.

In TEC, we say (in our Baptismal Covenant) that we will "respect the dignity of every human being."

The unchurched queers that I know, are watching very carefully. Do we REALLY MEAN that we will respect their human dignity, or is their dignity only a convenience, to be chucked under the bus when the going gets rough?

You simply can't underestimate their DISTRUST of anything remotely "Christian". Rather than an "impoverishment", their understanding of what the Church---as following the Jesus Christ whom THEY know---OUGHT to be doing, is very often more "Christ-like", than are their supposed spiritual betters.

Any "go along to get along" 'tude towards those who would take away their CIVIL rights (as in California) won't be ignored as "inside baseball" church biz. It will, instead, CONFIRM their fears that Episcopalians---for all their token *1* gay bishop---are really no different than any other institution with the (understandably) hated "Christian" moniker.

What will it be, George?

(As I believe I've heard elsewhere) "Choose, this day, whom you will serve".

JC Fisher

I don't know if your comment below my post is directed at me or not, JC. But, this one I actually have some proof.

There were some Chinese Anglicans, when they immigrated to the states, honestly don't know about the Chinese churches in the US. So, what they ended up was going to other denominations instead which have services in their native languages. As for source, I heard it from one of the co-convener in Chinese Ministry in our Episcopal Church.

So, now the question I have is... are we grouping all the ethnic Christians according to their geographical areas and race/ethnicity?

- Bill Wong

George's essay has now been linked at Titus 1:9 where there are some comments,

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/18284/#comments