Christianity is about love and grace? What about centuries of antisemitism? Come to think of it, the opposition of grace and law is implicitly antisemitic.

Seems to me the denomination needs to safeguard its assets because the people who built them up gave them to the Episcopal Church and not some simplistic abstraction called Christian love or grace.

Some ideas don't work in the real world. I would assume the author would agree given he has been a military chaplain. For centuries the church would not allow soldiers to become Christians.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I've long advocated negotiated settlements. Any such settlement must be acceptable to the bishop and Standing Committee. It must also involve some payment, perhaps discounted from market value. I advocate 10 years of the parish's assessment. Without financial consideration, which preserves the point that the congregation's assets are held in trust for the diocese, this would set a dangerous precedent. Nothing less than a contract of sale, negotiated with diocesan authorities would do. I can't see how anything similar could ever be worked out with a diocese. The elected representatives of the Episcopal Church would have to fight for it tooth and nail. In both cases, there is a canonical and fiduciary duty to defend the property for the use of the Episcopal Church. The unity of the virtues implies that love and justice cannot conflict.

Rev. Clifford, thank you. With amazing grace, gentleness, care, and (IMHO) prophetic weight, you lay out in detail exactly what I think about this subject. God bless, and to those who have ears to hear: listen up!

While I appreciate George Clifford's point that lawsuits for property are counter-productive, I think his comment about the church after the Revolution is not accurate. The church property in the colonies was titled in the name of the congregations and they continued to use the property. In Virginia the state expropriated church property where the congregation no longer held services, but in the other colonies the clergy and lay representatives of the churches met in convention and formed dioceses. The Church of England was not involved.

I have done some research on the colonial clergy. Like the rest of the people of the colonies about a third of the clergy were Loyalists, about a third were Patriots, and the remaining third were neutral and just wanted to be left alone to carry on Christ's work. Over the years many of the neutrals and Loyalists were persecuted by Patriot mobs and left for the safety of British held areas. Some made it to England and enjoyed a British pension, others went to Canada and the West Indies after the peace in 1783, and some like Bishop Seabury went home to their newly independent homes.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

Gary, the centuries of antisemitism are a real red herring here... If anything, they point us to the fact that how the institution operates can be fundamentally at odds with its core values and should be a rminder to us all that what we do and what we say have to be in line with one another.

And this is an opportunity to stop and think about whether or not we are correctly embodying the Gospel as we head into these disputes.

I go back and forth on the property issue, but at the end of the day I'd agree with the article. Negotiated settlements are certainly more in line with the spirit of Scripture and Tradition than a scorched earth approach that burns up funds on both sides and that does nothing to promote Christian charity but everything to harm it.

I find Rev Clifford's post self-serving and disingenuous. No matter how one dresses things up in the name of love, theft is still theft.

And if we are going to do things in the name of love, then why not our GLBT brothers and sisters embrace in love and just stay in TEC and eliminate the need for any logical consequences to uncanonical behavior in the first place?

Christianity is certainly about love and grace. Once can understand the 10 Commandments as defining which actions will or increase or decrease love.

One of the 10 Commandments is "You shall not steal." Another is "You shall not your neighbor's possessions."

If one must leave the Episcopal Church, one is free to do so. But don't steal what doesn't belong to you.

Sister Gloriamarie Amalfitano
Episcopal Solitary, San Diego
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EpiscopalSolitaries/

I'll have to remember this the next time my home is broken into and robbed. Perhaps I should put signs on things. "Go ahead. Take this. I am a Christian, so to let you walk off with this is the loving thing to do."

Yeah, right!

I just wanted to remind folks that we need you to sign your full names to your comments.

One of the standards of international law (via United Nations) is that no nation has the right to take over a portion (or whole) of another nation by conquest! (We have Serbia-Croatia-Kosovo conflict as an example.)

This nation-to-nation matter is a far better analogy to what is happening in the Church than person-to-person analogies, because "possession" or "ownership" of parish churches (wherever it is determined to lie) is "corporate" rather than personal and is intimately involved with corporate bodies larger than the parish (or the diocese).

According to U.S. law, the State of Maine is not free to leave the United States, take its property along, and become part of Canada -- individual Mainers may leave, but as a state, Maine cannot -- even if every person in Maine voted to do so. Why not? After all, the state has been maintained, funded, supported by the people of Maine for 200 years! Why should they not be allowed to secede and take their own state with them? Isn't this the land of the free?

You see how this analogy fits far better with the present intramural conflicts in the Church? In the Maine case, the situation is self-evident: what reasonable person would think otherwise? Is it not the same with the parishes/dioceses of the Church? Are they not indissolubly part of the greater whole, rather than small independencies out there on their own? Have they not actually been defined by their relationship to the wider Church? Haven't they gained their very nature as "church" from their affiliation with the nation-wide Episcopal Church?

If one seeks "grace and love", that comes into play when/if a departed group wishes to return - e.g., the Prodigal Son - when they should be able to expect to be treated with joy and forgiveness.

I thank Fr. Clifford for his provocative piece. But I'd ask that we all step back and look again with a broader perspective.

This schism has been, from the beginning, based on a strategy of withdrawing from TEC, keeping the property, and replacing (displacing) TEC as the Canterbury-recognized Anglican Province in the United States.

The secessionists have based their entire strategy on their physical plants, the parish buildings, the diocesan headquarters - the appearance of financial stability and prosperity. They've done so knowing that war is expensive.

They need the ability to borrow against their real estate to finance the building up of their replacement province. This is Bob Duncan's strategy.

What's interesting is that John-David Schofield and Jack Iker seem to be abandoning Duncan for the Southern Cone, while sticking to the Duncan strategy. They've become impatient because they don't see sufficient progress by Duncan, while the Southern Cone already exists and is recognized by Canterbury.

But they've always known there would be lawsuits and expenses, which they don't have the money or political strength to pay for. They need the property to pull this grand plan off.

Otherwise how likely would it be to succeed against an entrenched and wealthy Episcopal Church? Their own parishioners may well have many issues with TEC, but few of them are ready to jump ship from this prestigious and historic vessel; the waters are cold and the destination is unclear. Africa? Pittsburgh? Argentina? Parishes need some security in the midst of all the confusion. They need reassurance that "you'll still have your place of worship and nothing will change here at home."

If TEC bishops were to follow Fr. Clifford's pastoral advice, loyalist bishops would soon find themselvse sued by loyalist parishioners for dereliction of fiduciary duty. Thus the bishops have no choice but to sue, as they've done in Virginia and California.

Duncan and other secessionists have always known TEC bishops would sue; how can the secessionists (numerous but still a small minority) pay to defend themselves from these inevitable suits? They must have the property to survive. Otherwise they'll collapse and lose everything (including TEC pensions from the minute they jump ship).

What's interesting is how Duncan has gone into eclipse by recent events. Every time a major conservative leader publicly dissents (say, over GAFCON in the Diocese of Jerusalem), Duncan grows weaker. He must have his movement united behind him to survive - but they are far from united.

And what's the biggest stumbling block to secessionist unity? Women's ordination. Duncan favors it, Schofield and Iker are adamantly opposed. So there's no real hope of uniting the secessionists, and there never really was.

If TEC hangs on persistently and stays united behind our bishops, we will come out of this successfully and remain the only Anglican province in the U.S.

Fr. Clifford's analogy of the unrequited lover doesn't pertain. The proper analogy is war. We didn't seek this war and did everything in our power to prevent it; but the war came. Now we must defend what is ours. With patience, unity and a ready willingness to forgive our self-declared enemies, we will see this through to a bearable conclusion, then go about the work of reconstruction and reconciliation.

I think that Rev. Clifford has written an eloquent defense for any of us who would like to vote with our congregations out of diocese with whom we disagree. I wonder, however, whether the metaphor of romantic (eros) love is really the most apt metaphorical justification for this type of action. I wonder if we need to do more biblical and theological reflection on the question of how to proceed. I agree in my gut that these lawsuits don't feel particularly Christian, but then many of the tactics used leading up to the lawsuits also don't feel particularly Christian.

A question I have is what is our understanding of the ecclesiology of our church if we as congregations (or dioceses?) are able to vote ourselves out and take the property with us? Are we not bound one to another in some way, or do we really yearn to be a congregational church and not an episcopal (episcopos-bishop) church.

One fact check that is needed is whether all these lawsuits were filed by the Diocese of Virginia. It was my understanding that some of them were filed by those who are seeking to leave The Episcopal Church.

This post (and the comments) has me thinking and praying in new ways and I appreciate it.

Peace,

Peter+

I have been in a diocese that fought against a departing congregation and lost; but in losing proved that congregation to be unique, preventing the departure of six other congregations who were just as unhappy, but didn't have the unique characteristics. I live and work within a few miles of Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas, where a negotiated settlement with the diocese has, within a few years, turned out to be much better for the diocese than for the congregation. I think we don't do well to take a "one size fits all" approach. I also think we don't do well just to get "angry, even angry enough to die!"

At times it seems to me that neither the image of the "thief" nor the "rebellious state" is an apt metaphor. This is a family fight, and all the more bitter in consequence. After all, Sister, before they decided they were unhappy, we would have gladly said the property was just as much "theirs" as "ours." Just as, Fr. John-Julian, we can't be surprised that even in departing they would claim to take with them some part (greater or less) of the "family heritage." We have the argument that we remain with the continuing institution rather than going to some new one, and that's important; but seen as a family feud (and I've seen my share), we can hardly be shocked they they would feel some claim on the family's heritage even in separation.

As angry as we might be that these folks want to leave, they are still our siblings in Christ; and we have to think hard how we should be treating them in that light. That may sound simple, but it's not easy; and, again, I don't think "one size fits all" will serve. But I think that does need to be the perspective we begin with, and the rhetoric we use.

Peter, regarding your question: the congregations filed papers with Virginia courts claiming a division within the Church before the Diocese filed for control of the property.

Marshall Scott

I appreciate the thoughtful comments regarding colonial history and my analogies. However, the many of the comments miss my basic point: that the Church to be the Church must conduct itself differently than does a business enterprise. Admittedly, bishops who fail to sue in order to retain property may find themselves sued for breach of fiduciary responsibility. Being the Church is a risky endeavor. But if the Church adopts the modus operandi of business, then the Church has lost its witness as an alternative community in which love rules.

See also the comments on this essay over at

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10480/

Other than the expenditure of money I don't see that using the courts to retain property is unloving. To me it is a form of "tough love" for people who seem to want what they want with no consequences for others. The other interesting bit is that many members stay with the building - they may vote to leave but the reality is they come back to the building regardless of which side ends up with it.