Fr. George Clifford: Church property: let go with love

“When a majority of a parish (or a diocese) votes to leave TEC, those who leave should recognize that the property belongs to TEC and, if they wish to have the property, offer to purchase it at fair market value. “

SHOW ME THE TITLE!!!!

Fr. George talks about the missions which could be funded with the money spent on legal bills.  BUT
1.  TEC does not do mission.
2.  #1 is a good thing. 

It is not right to spend the legacy left to the Church for lawsuits, but if that is the way it is then this is the silver lining to a black cloud.

I’ll just celebrate that this is posted where it is posted, it also odd that the comments tend to me favorable. Praise God that He can to the improbable and impossible. Even the smallest change is very welcomed in my mind. This is different than the report given from NOLA private meeting, I may not trust this to carry the day but I do trust the our Lord & know He can change even the hardest heart if it’s His will.

Well, look out for airborne swine, I am in almost complete agreement with a poster over at the Episcopal Cafe. Does this mean that the end of the world is nigh?

Seriously, he is right. And you can get ibnto a world of disappointment if you think about how we are told to behave in Scripture and compare to the bahaviour of the parties in the current range of disputes. The Episcopal Church has behaved egregiously, but 815 has some serious competition as regards to some of the conflicts.

Episcopal Lawsuits: Information, Please

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

It would sure be interesting to know how widely held are the reasonable views set forth here by former chaplain George Clifford over at Episcopal Cafe.  Of course a lot of it is still patronizing, self-congratulating nonsense (as if TEC really loves those who have departed, or that we who have departed are somehow the unfaithful ones who have abandoned the relationship).  But at least this amicable viewpoint is being aired at the Cafe.

Personally, of the two excuses for filing lawsuits over church property mentioned by Fr. Clifford as what he hears all the time, I’d be willing to bet that the primary one is the latter, not the retaining of the property for the small remnant that stays loyal to TEC, but the intimidation factor.  It’s all about attempting to scare parishes out of departing TEC.  And that is about as unChristian as you can get.  It is outright Maciavellian manipulation of a blatant sort.

Fr. Clifford still ASSUMES that the property rightly belongs to the diocese or denomination.  That is simply false.  Despite the Denis Canon, the unfairness of this standard “mainline” tactic is obvious.  The property rightly belongs to those who bought it and have maintained it.  This is simple common sense, and I expect the legal system to eventually recognize it as such almost everywhere.  But hopefully, enough liberals and moderates will come around to Fr. Clifford’s sensible viewpoint that negotiated settlements will become much more common.

Indeed, my hope is that this kind of statement on the liberal venue Episcopal Cafe is the beginning of the dike beginning to crack and give way.  Sooner or later, the dam WILL break.  I just hope it’s sooner, rather than later.

In the meantime, “let goods and kindred go!”

David Handy+

Does anybody know of any parish/church that left TEC to go AMiA and then got sued by TEC?

Response to (1) ctowles,  When our parish went to get a loan to purchase the property and construct a building our diocese didn’t want any part of the financial responsibility.  They signed a “quit claim” deed.  The name on the mortgage is our priest. When our priest and vestry met with the bishop to tell him of our decision to leave, he told he was told by Schori that he was not to negotiate a purchase that the bulding was theirs (TEC). He then went on to boast that there was no use in suing because he had the money to fight it and we don’t.  He then declared our vestry “extinct” then he “inhibited” our priest and told us that we were to be out of the building the day after Christmas. 

We sought legal advice and in a few short weeks we had run up a bill of $30,000 so we decided we had no choice. so you see (1), we “showed them the title,” and they still stole our property.  They can fight and win because they will always have more money than the individual parish. 

My hope is that God holds these people accountable for what they’re doing to His church and His people.  They are truly evil people.

When the Episcopal Church was first formed under the Acts of Association, one of the principles was:  “That no powers be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government, except such as cannot be conveniently exercised by the clergy and laity in their respective congregations.”

Where we originally set out to sever the relationship between the King and the church, all we did was replace a King with a presiding bishop. 
http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/mcconnell1934/02.05.html

I think the good father speaks to the core of things here.  IMHO, we are called upon to fight the good fight, but when it really comes down to it, we must continue to follow Christ, even “on the grass”.  There is going to come a time, very soon, where we will have to accept defeat and move on, secure in Christ.  With recent developments relating to certain “orthodox” bishops (Howe, Gomez etc) we must begin to think about what to do without our comfortable churches, and start building new lives in Christ.  No more talk.  We are wasting our breath in arguing with the adversary.  Remember the joy of conviction!  I am thankful for the presence of such leaders as Fr. Matt and Dr. Packer.  I pray for their continued strength.

Civil societies require a mechanism for resolving disputes.  Christian churches are part of civil society.  Law suits may be a one viable tool for denying financial aid and comfort, avoiding being financial enablers, to the TEC in its heresy and apostocy.

The Federalist Society has a conference on Church Autonomy on March 14 at Georgetown University.  One of the issues cited is “An older and still important line of cases deals with intra-church disputes in which two factions litigate ownership of church property.”

Render unter Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.  That which is God’s is not necessarily TEC’s.  Civil litigation may not be an un-Christian way of dealing with this.

Forgive me #11, but are you saying that we should rain down suffering upon our foes?  Would we not doing unto ourselves as Caesar has done unto us by your reasoning?

# 12
I did not, and do not, suggest that we “rain down suffering” upon anyone, and I must say that I am unable to find anything I said which suggests “raining down suffering” upon anyone.

If anyone is “raining down suffering” upon anyone, I assume they know, and that God knows, who they are.

Civil discourse is essential to learning and growing and resolution of differences.

I propose “raining down” salvation based upon commitment to scriptures, the faith once delivered to the saints, the creeds, the Articles and the BCP (prior to 1979).

#7 ODC—After the SC fiasco (where AMiA is the plaintiff) they’ve become extremely litigant-shy and will disengage and let it go. So in Texas where Christ Church and Church of the Resurrection were able to settle with +Stanton they kept the property, but in NY recently, when the parish was going to be sued they settled for a period of occupancy to find another space then will walked away. In MA they walked away and were sued anyway.

Thanks Hosea6:6! That is helpful information!

#1 ctowles… Interesting what part of the article you wish to “cherry-pick”... why not the sentences following??? Dosen’t suit your agenda??? You may be very surprised when you see said title. LOL

In case Chaplain (Captain) Clifford, USN Ret. might read this thread:

Sir.

First, thank you for your service to our country. Welcome home.

Thank you for the Christian message you have brought to both sides in these terrible times. We all could pick nits in your wording. I can think of a couple of dozen myself and I presume, so could someone who is more attuned to the program of TEC.

None of that matters. The message has sent waves of surprise throughout the Anglican community. It can do nothing but good. I pray it is taken to heart by those who are using funds to litigate which should be spent advancing Christ’s message.

I also read (for the first time) your Viewpoint article   link from 2006. I disagree with the rather over the top language you used in demonizing Abp. Akinola and conservatives in general.  I do find myself in a large measure of agreement with your three predictions. Your last paragraph should be noted by us all and I commend it to patrons of StandFirm.

Sir, I do hope meaningful changes can grow from the seeds you have planted. Perhaps, especially during this Lenten season, we can all take rest from snide remarks and pause to discern the work of the Holy Spirit.

Respectfully,

Robert A. Livingston,
LTC MI USA, Ret.

Generally, I endorse this article.  It is good to see someone (on either side) who recognizes that the Christian thing to do is to give up the property.

David Handy+ wrote:

Fr. Clifford still ASSUMES that the property rightly belongs to the diocese or denomination.  That is simply false.  Despite the Denis Canon, the unfairness of this standard “mainline” tactic is obvious.  The property rightly belongs to those who bought it and have maintained it.  This is simple common sense, and I expect the legal system to eventually recognize it as such almost everywhere.

Congregations can be divided into 2 categories: those that joined TEC before the Dennis Canon in 1979, and those that joined after.  In the former instance, those who bought the property are dead (assuming that it was in fact local members who bought it—i.e. not the diocese, not a donation, etc.).  And until very recently, no one even thought of putting envelopes in offering plates with detailed statements as to the reason for and intended recipient of the donation.  So you can argue until you’re blue in the face about past generations and get nowhere.  Common sense doesn’t help.  On the other hand, those that joined after the Dennis Canon accepted the rules when they joined.  That too is common sense.

Nor is it as simple as you suggest.  How would a court determine who bought and maintained the property?  If in the 19th century a congregation went through periods of struggling to make it and was sustained by visits from Bishops, help from other Episcopal congregations, Episcopal seminary students, etc., does that count?  If so, for how much?  Or are you saying the property should go to whoever paid for 50.000001% or more of the current buildings?  How do we know that if buildings have changed over time, if people disagree with how to value money over time, if people made non-monetary contributions, etc.?

Obviously there will be some instances when it is clear who paid for property.  I’m not suggesting it never is.  I’m just pointing out that what seems like a simple common sense way to resolve things can be quite complicated when you get down to it.

Even looking only at the state of the title is complicated.  If a deed says “St. Bob’s Episcopal Church,” is the court supposed to focus on the “St. Bob’s” or the “Episcopal”?

Anyway, the uncertainty is, in my mind, all the more reason for one of the sides—either side—to do as Pastor Clifford suggests and give up the property, thereby avoiding going to court.

And, of course, there will be times when a church joined before 1979 and founding members are still around.  My general point still stands.

The more I see of this whole issue, the more rationalizations, arguments and justifications on both sides, the more it appears that the Almighty is challenging ALL of us where it appears we really “live.”  In the pocketbook.