Press Release from Anglican churches in California regarding Court Decision

?

Why no comments. I think this is an extraordinary ruling, and appears favorable to the parishes. The Supremes have returned the issue to the Superior Court for a rehearing on the issues as viewed from the neutral principles of law, not hierchical nonsense. What’s not to like about that.

Bruno must be gagging on this. I think he is going to lose in the end, and this ruling seems to assure that.

I hear the Bakersfield PD needs some experienced traffic cops JJ. Great opportunity to whack people with sticks again, get back to a profession you really did well in. None of the frustrations of bishoping, just knock their teeth out if they disagree. I’ll pay for the uniform just to help the transition.

I’m hearing two entirely different versions of who “won”.  Someone mind clearing this up?

Does anyone know if the congregation can stay in the property in the short term while the decision is appealed?

http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw

#2…It seems that the parishes’ slant on the ruling completely contradicts the 815 macho machine’s champagne hoisting and the incredible depth of the Chancellor’s game time analysis. Clarity would be helpful.
Intercessor

#2- The point is that the Cal. Supreme Court kicked the ball back to the lower court.  The lower court’s original decision was apparently based on a “misunderstanding” of California legal precedent by the judge.  That is all the higher court was ruling on.  Therefore, the stance of the Supreme Court has been clarified, and the case goes back to the lower court.  The upside for TEC appears to be that the higher court is holding that the Denis canon is valid because no one challenged its adoption for 25 years.  The downside for TEC is that neutral principals still apply, which means that the court now balances the claims of the Denis Canon against the rights of the parishioners, and the fact that TEC never enforced it by putting their name on the deeds. (For that matter, it is very difficult to find ANY canon that TEC has enforced over the years.  It seems that all the canons are either ignored or abused, but never enforced as written.)
  We could see this sort of ruling go much differently in a state like California (which has much legal heritage from Spanish law) than a state like Virginia (English common law). But it isn’t over til it’s over.

#5- not sure what opinion you read. The CA Sup. Ct. did not “kick the ball back to the lower Court”. It affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that the governing documents of the parish provided it would be subject to the governance of the higher church, including the “Dennis Canon” and that upon disaffiliation, the property reverted to TEC. It discussed and dismissed each point of argument raised by the parish. I don’t like it either but the decision is clear. As Matt states in his original publication of the opinion, “the bad guys won”.

The press release from St. James and tjmcmahon are leaning on a mighty thin reed. Just read the decision, folks. The California Supreme Court rules unanimously that the decision of the Court of Appeal is correct and the property belongs to the Episcopal Church. One justice (who agrees that the property belongs to the Episcopal Church, mind you) says his colleagues misunderstand neutral principles of law, which don’t necessarily support the position of the bishop and the national church, but that a proper reading of California statutes support the Episcopal Church position anyway. There’s nothing in the majority decision or the concurring decision kicking the matter back to a lower court. How anyone can read that as a victory or even a toehold for the seceding congregations is beyond me.

#6 and 7-
I am not an attorney, and not in California, so I admit I may misunderstand what the court was ruling on.  But my understanding was that the original appeal was over a point of law- that is to say that court of appeals overturned the judge’s original decision based on its interpretation of California law, and this has now been upheld by the California Supreme court.
TEC won the round. However, if my undertanding is correct, this would indicate that the trial would proceed, or be retried, based upon the interpretation of law as expounded by the California Supreme Court.  Whether it would be worthwhile for the parish to proceed with this, I don’t know, since I don’t know how much of their case rested on the particular interpretation of this one point.  However, their legal counsel is obviously of the opinion that they could still make a case if the issue went back to trial.  Whether they should go forward or not is another matter. 
  In the long run, TEC loses either way.  If they establish themselves as a hierarchical church, they become liable for all those 7000 parishes and every slip on the ice on the properties.  Not to mention all the vacant buildings.  The current procedings will make it very difficult to raise money for new churches or to maintain old ones. Will you be giving any money to the building fund knowing that your children might be thrown out of the church building 10 or 20 years from now?  And once the precedent is established, there is nothing to stop this from happening to progressive parishes sometime down the road, if leadership changes, or just because, in 30 years, what is now progressive will be the church’s right wing. And something that I’ve noted before, that perhaps bears repeating- orthodox believers go to church on Sunday, and put money in the plate.  Losing the orthodox is already showing up in the ASA numbers. (the reason why the ASA is declining faster than the general membership is that the orthodox go to church almost every Sunday, so when you lose 10 orthodox members, your ASA may decline by 8 or 9.  When you lose 10 progressive members, your ASA may decline by 2 or 3)
  At any rate, I think it best to leave the decision on whether to proceed with the legal option up to the parish and their legal counsel.  And pray for them whatever decision they make.

On a cursory reading of the opinion, I agree with the view of it expressed by Doubting Thomas and trueanglican.

TEC is being walloped in the pocketbook, and they are being severely hurt financially every Sunday.  Sure, they’ve got investments, but they’ve been hurt there, too.  And their endowments?  I have a very strong suspicion that they’re being tapped into as well, and no smart investor or legatee will sink any more money into them, unless they have money to toss down the drain.

If neutral principles is the order of the day - then TEC has perhaps bigger problems.  California is often used as a harbinger of things to come in other states (usually bad things) - but if neutral principles start being applied it could result in a real train wreck for TEC.

I do not follow your reasoning, chips. Upon closer reading of the opinion, I am more strongly convinced that there is very little wiggle room for appeal by the local parish. Here is what apparently happened: the trial court never reached the merits of the dispute, dismissing the case on Defendant’s motion under the anti-SLAPP statute. Since I do not have the opinion of the first appelate court, I can only assume that it reversed on the motion and sent the matter back to the trial court for adjudication on the merits. Whether it engaged in a review of the relevant statutes and cases, as the higher court does here, I do not know. This court affirms the first appelate decision, but does not explicitly affirm and render, which presumably would send the case back to the trial court for decision consistent with the relevant law as stated in this court’s opinion. That statement of the law is entirely in favor of TEC. I am trying to understand how some posters are finding something encouraging for departing parishes in this opinion.

Pounding Sand, while TEC may have “won” this battle in the courts, this does not mean that they will “win” the war which they brought upon themselves, and   their “victory” may very well prove to be a pyrrhic one.  They will one day have to count the cost and ask themselves if the cost was worth it.

I agree completely, Cennydd. TEC may well wind up with buildings and grounds that it cannot maintain. All I am saying is that, from the perspective of legal analysis, I see nothing in this opinion that suggests a line of reasoning that leads to individual parishes’ being able to leave with their property. There may be some special fact situations that could attain. For example, some congregations on the East Coast that pre-date the organization of the Episcopal Church (1789, I think) may have come in under agreements that would alter the outcome for them. Even so, under this court’s analysis, they would be cut off by the amendment to the Canons adopted in 1979.

I am not at all unsympathetic to the departing parishes. I just see no encouragement for them in this decision. Maybe if TEC winds up with a number of underutilized buildings, departed congregations could buy them for cents on the dollar, although I would think that that would be TEC’s very least-favored alternative.

Mrs Schori has said that selling vacant buildings and other properties to non-TEC churches will never happen, but she isn’t going to be PB forever, and I’m sure that by the time she leaves, whoever succeeds her will be glad to dump them.  After all, she’s only got six years left after their next General Convention.

Six Years! The last three have been an eternity. I do hope that these churches will prevail in the end. I would just hate to see empty churches.

The only ray of hope I can see for parishes in this ruling (and that is only a sliver) is that the court based a lot of its decision on the fact that early on St. James agreed to be bound in perpetuity by TEC’s C&C;.  If a parish has not made such a vow in perpetuity, then perhaps, a different result would come, but that is questionable.

Directly from the opinion:

The Court of Appeal in this case criticized these Court of Appeal decisions for, in its view, violating principles of stare decisis. The Court of Appeal believed that early cases of this court specifically adopted the principle of government approach, thus precluding the more recent Courts of Appeal from adopting the neutral principles approach. We disagree.

That is where they have room for appeal to the US Supreme Court. The Cal. Supreme Court DISAGREED with the lower appellate court but AFFIRMED its judgment. If the Cal. Supreme Court disagreed, then the lower appellate judgement MUST be reversed. The actions are contradictory.

TexasJoe: No, the CSC is free to disagree with the rationale but nevertheless sustain the outcome.  In this case, the CSC called for a “neutral principles” approach, but then, nevertheless adopted functionally, the “church heirarchy” approach.

Silly question perhaps, but if “the church” confiscates the property, who exactly is “the church?”  Isn’t “the church” us?  What defines “the church” that’s supposed to get the property?

I belong to a parish who separated from TEC last year. We had to move when the property was confiscated by the bishop of Southern Ohio.  Here’s my question.  While attending the church, our offerings went toward things like charity, outreach, etc but they also went toward paying off a mortgage on the property and buildings, taxes, etc.  In other words, we were helping buy the property, yet “the church” was able to somehow lay claim to it and take it away from us.  This raised the question: Suppose I belong to the Elks in Anytown USA and we’ve decided to shut down due to low membership.  The National Elks headquarters in Chicago would have no rights to our property.  How is this any different from what TEC is doing.  Lawsuits aren’t based on philosophy (supposedly), they’re based on fact, so what legal rights does a diocese have to confiscating property they haven’t paid anything toward.

Good question, Templar!  Maybe it’s time the U.S. Justice Department took a look at what’s been going on in TEC!

No, the CSC is free to disagree with the rationale but nevertheless sustain the outcome.

If they disagree with the rationale, then they disagree with the judgment of the Court of Appeal. That is because the judgment of the Court of Appeal is BASED on the rationale.

Like I said, contradictory.

I just finished reading the first thread on this subject and this one. Some ask about SJ and I would too. I don’t really think it affects them. The highest authority of TEC in California is the Diocese, just as any other state except the one where the national HQ is. For all legal purposes isn’t TEC just a corporation in the state of NY? The only reason TEC could even get involved here is because the local diocese was suing. The Vatican has no legal right to sue in any US court room, a local bishop must do that.

The ruling upholds the Denis canon but disposition of any diocese property is still up to the diocese, even by TEC own canons.

who exactly is “the church?” 

Templar, there are two levels to this question: the legal and the theological. The legal aspects have been well-covered in this post and in the previous one (“bad guys win”), not the least by JamesW, whose opinions I respect very much.

So at the theological level, who is the church? Is it the people of the congregation, who pay the bills? Or is it the bishop—the episkopos, or overseer—who supposedly is in charge of things?

If you were to put this question before Ignatius, the ca AD 98 bishop of Antioch, he would probably have replied, “Where you find the Bishop, there you will find the church.” It was he, for instance, who declared that no Eucharist is valid which is not conducted by the Bishop or by someone specifically authorized by the bishop—the very foundation of our Anglican insistance that only a priest can conduct the Eucharist.

It was in the next few centuries after Ignatius when the church had to find ways to deal with heretical bishops. What do you do when the bishop himself no longer upholds the apostolic faith? The church’s answer came in the form of regional synods and church-wide councils.

Unless I am mistaken, these synods and councils were conducted by bishops, not laity. The bishops were still in charge, not the congregations. I doubt that one can find theological justification from early church history for a congregation taking over a church in defiance of its bishop.

I am no expert in church history, so I cannot outline how or when the congregational model of church governance grew up. Yet it would seem that the choice is stark, if you are a church which claims to be episcopal, that is, run by bishops, either the Bishop is in charge or he is not. The job of restraining rogue bishops, then, must fall to someone. In the episcopal model, this duty falls to the synod or the church-wide council.

In our case, the synod (that is, the annual convention of “The Episcopal Church”) has itself become heretical. The church-wide council (that is, the Lambeth Conference) has been sidelined through clever manipulation by Canterbury. We have only the council of the highest bishops (that is, the primates) to appeal to, and they are divided—not to mention that they believe that they don’t even have the power to call their own meeting absent a call from Canterbury.

And the property? Who makes the rules about property?

Render unto Caesar the things that are of Caesar, and unto God the things that are of God.

TexasJoe, 18 & 23, you are incorrect.  Perhaps from a non-legal perspective, it doesn’t make sense to separate the rationale for a decision, expressed in an opinion, and the decision or judgment itself.  But in the legal world, jamesw is precisely right.

The other error in your original post is that even if you were right about there being a contradiction, your implied suggestion that the US Supreme Court cares about or has any business dealing with contradictions in California law is wrong.  It doesn’t.  The only way the US Supreme Court can get involved is if there is a decisive federal issue.  It is very difficult to see any such issue here.

This press release perfectly illustrates that bit about denial not just being a river in Egypt.

Rocks, 24, you do not have to be a citizen or resident of a state to sue in state court.

TexasJoe:  DavidH is correct in post #26.  I am having a hard time seeing this as anything other then a decisive victory for TEC in parish departure cases.  I don’t like the decision, and I disagree with it.  But that’s the decision.  If St. James’ attorneys think they can appeal or make other arguments that will lead to victory, I wish them well.  But at this point, being realistic, any parish that chooses to leave TEC MUST assume that it will LOSE its property.  Not to do so would simply be imprudent.

You also need to realize that there isn’t that big of a difference between the Court of Appeals decision and the CSC decision.  Even though the CSC says that the appellate court was wrong in applying the church heirarchy approach, the CSC nevertheless applies de facto the church heirarchy approach, even if it calls it by another name.

But, as to the rationale vs. results issue generally - the lower court can rule that X gets the property on the grounds of rationale A.  The higher court is perfectly within its rights to say “no, the lower court is wrong as to rationale.  X still gets the property, but it is on the grounds of rationale B instead.”  This is eminently reasonable.  Another example.  Your youngest child comes to you and complains that her older sister wrongly insisted on having first choice of cookie.  Older child tells you that she had the right to choose first because she was older.  You consider the situation and say “Yes, older child, you do have the right to first cookie choice, but not because you are older.  You have the right to first cookie choice, because your little sister chose first yesterday.”  Same result, but different rationale.

Jamesw, DavidH and others.  Is this why TEC was quick to set up a Faux Diocese to “replace” a Diocese that exited TEC?  Is the Bishops of a Faux Diocese then going to claim that they are the legitimate Bishop so TEC can go after the property of each departing Diocese?  Would this confound the legal issues by asking who is the real Bishop of a Diocese.?

While a bishop may indeed be an “overseer,” that’s all he is, so how does that give him legal authority to confiscate property.  Theology, canons or whatever, fact is people were spending money for a product “a building and property,” and a church leader claimed some kind of ownership of it.  The lunacy of it was that the bishop didn’t want to co-sign for the mortgage loan we took out to build our church, but when we separated he was literally standing at the door demanding the keys. 

If our parish owned a cabin in the woods that we used for recreational purposes, would a bishop be able to lay claim to that as well.  If that’s the case then there would be no limit on what properties a bishop could lay claim to.

In essence, what TEC is claiming is that every piece of land,every building, every painting, every piece of furniture, every rug, book, light fixture, hymnals, light bulbs, tools, every single item in a parish church belongs to the Episcopal Church even if they haven’t paid a dime for any of it.  They hold title to everything without investing anything.  Someone can argue the philosophy of that, but you’ll never convince me of the legality of it.

Dcn Dale, the claim that the Diocese of San Joaquin that exists within the Episcopal Church is the continuation of the single Diocese of San Joaquin that existed before +Schofield and co. departed for the Southern Cone is certainly an important issue.  The Anglican Curmudgeon has written quite a bit about that and other aspects of the San Joaquin litigation, if you’re interested.  Obviously, he has a certain viewpoint on things, which you may or may not agree with.

I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “confound the legal issues,” but certainly there is US Supreme Court case law that secular courts don’t decide whether someone was properly removed as a bishop.  I’m sure TEC would be very happy if the California courts applied that in the San Joaquin instance.  And the recent California Supreme Court decision does raise the chances of that somewhat, I think.

It also remains to be seen whether TEC vs. diocese litigation is treated significantly differently than TEC & diocese vs. parish litigation.  There are arguments either way on that.

Thanks for the responses.  Perhaps I just should have asked,
1.Is it more difficult for TEC to sue a departing Diocese for the property than a departing Parish?
2. Can the language in the canons of a Diocese help their cause against TEC?

31, you’re spotting some of the key issues.  Check back in a few years, and we might have some answers (at least in California, Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania).

#5 - tjmcmahon wrote:
“For that matter, it is very difficult to find ANY canon that TEC has enforced over the years.  It seems that all the canons are either ignored or abused, but never enforced as written.”

Good one!  I had to laugh out loud!

There was an article yesterday in the Santa Rosa Democrat, a newspaper in the Diocese of Northern California, that the rump priest of St Johns, Petaluma CA was quoted as saying this court ruling was an opportunity for reconciliation. St Johns Church separated from the Episcopal Church and is attempting to keep their property.  I noted also that Bishop Bruno, of the LA Diocese also stated the court ruling was an opportunity for reconciliation.  I thought this was odd since the I would expect the court ruling would cause anger and frustration in those Anglicans who had separated themselves from the Episcopal Church. These public announcements would not make sense unless 815 had sent out instructions on their public information.
  Additionally, it occurs to me that should this California Supreme Court decision hold sway, it makes little sense for Episcopal parishioners to support buildings, maintenance, insurance, organs, choir robes, hymnals, prayer books etc. since they have no ownership of what they are paying for. The Bishop could, if he desires, at any time throw them out of their church. Does this bode well for the long term future of our local churches?

The long term future for churches (parishes) choosing to remain a part of The Episcopal church is not good, considering the rapid decline in membership, and if the ASA figures for the years since the last General Convention are any indicator, it’s going to get worse.  When deaths consistently outnumber baptisms, there’s something very seriously wrong.  In the meantime, the churches of the ACNA are planting new missions.

#34,
“reconciliation”  The definition of this word in TEC parlance means litigate against those who depart until they submit. It is just one of many words co opted to suit public relations purposes. A synonyms would be “healing”. Additionally, the word “Legacy” means property. One could “live into” a whole dictionary filled with old words given new meanings.

Reconciliation in God’s parlance comes this way: Conviction - Repentance - Confession - Forgiveness - Reconciliation - Restoration.

There is no path or special pass around the Cross for anyone.

Rick Warrn offers refuge:
“Timothy C. Morgan
A few minutes ago, I received a letter from Saddleback’s Rick Warren, who many conservative Anglicans realize has been extremely supportive of their cause.

Here’s what he wrote in part to a handful of leaders:

... [The Episcopal Church has] already considered me an adversary after partnering on projects with Kolini, Orumbi, and Nzimbi, and writing the TIME bio on Akinola.

But since last summer… I’ve been on Gene Robinson and other’s attack list for my position on gay marriage. ....[Our] brothers and sisters here at St. James in Newport Beach lost their California State Supreme Court case to keep their property.

We stand in solidarity with them, and with all orthodox, evangelical Anglicans. I offer the campus of Saddleback Church to any Anglican congregation who need a place to meet, or if you want to plant a new congregation in south Orange County.”

DaveG, what great news.  Where’s this from?

From Christianity Today liveblog

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/01/displaced_angli.html

That is Christian love #38.

So, Greg Griffith and other skeptics of Rick Warren, what say you now?

And in doing so, leave TEC with the mortgage payments, insurance premiums, healthcare costs, utility bills, maintenance and repair costs, empty buildings, etc, etc…....

Mad Potter, If I open a dealership and agree to sell Ford cars, I then become, in a sense, part of the hierarchy of the Ford Motor Company.  But, if I decide that I no longer want to associate with Ford Motor Company and decide to sell Chevrolets instead, I don’t think the courts would support Ford trying to take my dealership buildings and property away from me.  The Denis Canon is a sham and was concocted as a CYA tool for TEC once they realized that the money pool was drying up.  Roman Catholics don’t have this “exodus” problem because their church stays true to the faith.  Hierarchical or congregationalist, if you didn’t pay for it, you don’t own it.

#46 Templar.  Your discussion of car dealerships would be an effective analogue if
we were talking about ordinary corporations, but we are not.  We are talking about something constitutionally different, a religious institution.  I found Judge Kennard’s remarks particularly revealing in that regard.  You might want to take a look at the “Court Ruling in Ca. Bad guys win” circa #s 116-119

EmilyH, I took a long hard look at it, and it stinks!  It’s putrid!  While TEC may have “won,” that “victory” may well turn out to be a pyrrhic one, because in the end, your “Church” will end up being the loser.  All of the money in TEC’s investment funds, all of their properties, and all of their endowment funds can’t buy people’s allegiance nor save their souls!  Sooner or later, those pew sitters who can’t see beyond the four walls of their local parish church are going to wise up, and they’re going to pull up stakes, just as we did.  It may take years, but rest assured, it will happen!

And Templar, I agree with you.

Mad Potter, what do you suggest TEC should do with all of those empty churches?  Judging by the numbers of people leaving TEC for other Anglican provinces….including the ACNA….they are not filling them up on Sunday mornings.  And what happened to all those gays and lesbians who were supposedly re-populating those empty churches?

Mad Potter I hate to repeat my self but…  TEC is doing what is legal, but shouldn’t they be doing what is Christian?  Since they have won the case, perhaps they will show some Christian Charity and sell the churches back to those who worship in them for the price it would take to build churches for the few that want to remain in TEC.  Would you support this?

Mad Potter
Years ago there was a mission church in my diocese that wandered off the path of what the Bishop thought was acceptable.  He could have just taken the church or made them buy it from the Diocese.  Instead he let them have it after paying back the diocese for what the diocses put into it.  He did what was fair and Christian, not what he could legally get away with.  Why do you think TEC will not do this?

The best way to protect the interest of past Episcopalians is to act as Christians and do what God would want, not what you can legal get away with.  If they have “passed”, they have no interest in the property.  I know of two alive Episcopalians that for over 3/4 of a century, they (or their families) have support the Episcopal Church.  If you asked them, they would tell you to let the property go with those who worship in them.  For you or those who have recently come to power in the Episcopal Church to assume what the past Episcopalians would want to do with the property is as arrogant as assuming the Holy Spirit is telling you to change the teachings of the same church, a church that once honored the bonds of affection of the Anglican Communion.  Don’t you think those past Episcopalians/Anglicans would have wanted the TEC to honor the bonds of affect which one tied the Anglican Communion together?

Mad Potter
Sorry for all the post, I’m guess I’m on a rant. 
If I understand correctly the liberal’s think they are right and in time all will come to understand and agree with them, it inevitable.  If this is true, then wouldn’t it be best to let the property go, since once the congregation learns the error of their ways, they will come back?  By taking it you are putting a road block up to thier ultimate reunion and have to maintain it in the mean time.

I would offer the following to the leadership of TEC.
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36) This passage applies to organizations as well as individuals.

Mad Potter, we had no option to buy our church, TEC won’t sell the buildilngs and property to those who leave.  They simply take it.  This argument of owning something because of theology or some canon overriding civil law should be criminal.  IF TEC is going to lay claim to properties, they should help pay for them.  Our bishop didn’t want to sign for our mortgage because of liability, yet he was literally standing in the doorway of our church demanding the keys to property we’d paid for for years.  Using the umbrella of the church to steal property is not only wrong, it should be criminal. And answer me this; who is this “church” that owns our properties?  What church?  What entity gets the money if any is exchanged?  815?  Is the diocese a church?

The PRIMARY issue in God’s eyes is not the property but the swill and effluent being fed to His Church, His people…in HIS NAME by false and deceitful shepherds like Robinson, Spong, Bruno, Chane, Williams and the rest!

Just read VGR’s foul messages…any of them…read Spong…it is sick stuff…leading to more sickness and misery.

It is not the Truth about the wages of sin.

God’s people in both the Old and New Testaments are commanded to bear our vessels (bodies) in holiness, purity, chastity…to be Holy as God is Holy.  That is the reason for the circumcision in the Abramic covenant…symboling the cutting off the excesses of the flesh, placing pleasure, progeny, appearance, prosperity, power under God’s dominion….this act and following holiness would delineate God’s people from the other groups with ungodly sexual, religious and practical customs that surrounded them.  They were to glorify God in their whole lives, their very beings and their behaviors.  They were to be just, righteous, honorable, pure, loving, true and honest…even to our enemies. 

The wages of sin is always death (separation from God) but the gift of God is eternal life (John 17:3) through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
The Word of God and the Love of God must dwell in us (John 5:38,42,46-47)...we must live His Love and Truth to be fully alive.
We must repent and confess our sins to be His vessels.  We cannot pour out foul and pure, bitter and sweet.  We must be fully His, consecrated, dedicated, holy.  That is not just for professional clergy, but for every Christian.  We compromise, we lose.

Fie on Gene Robinson’s, (Spong’s, Crew’s, Kaeton, Russell and the rest) cursed and abominable messages. 

May the Lord have mercy and grant them repentance.

May the effete polluted silent wine and pleasure-soaked bishops of the Episcopal church wash themselves and lie before the Lord in shame and grief.

May God’s people repent and speak out fearlessly and lovingly against sin in any form.

May the Church be the Church where all sin is healed and no one condemned…but brought to the Cross of Jesus Christ where all power in heaven and earth is brought to bear…and we are saved to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25)and restored to Our Father…Our True and Faithful Father.  May the Church be the Church of those being crucified, healed and the Church of the compassionate (I Corinthians 1:3-4) and learn to restore, teach and mentor and heal all who are caught in the thorns of sin like Abraham’s ram, in (the obsessions, compulsions, bitterness of anger and unforgiveness, the confusion and chaos of lies, the pain and emptiness of) sin.  Our healed sins are our callings.  Let us learn to live in the hope of our calling. (Ephesians 1:10, 18)

“The best way to protect the interest of past Episcopalians is to act as
Christians and do what God would want” ???

That’s easy - Teach the Truth, Love and Life as God defines it in Scripture! 

The foul unspeakable deceptive messages coming from TEC pulpits are a violation of the interest and legacy of past Episcopalians.

Mad Potter,

For some bishops, it isn’t about ministry for them anyway.  It has been my observation that they want the job for the power and prestige.  Not all bishops, mind you, but more than a few.

Mad Potter, that’s where you and I have differing perceptions.  A bishop may have the “responsibility for” oversight of that property, but the actual responsibility is that of the parish.  I don’t know what the Bishop of Southern Ohio does 8 - 5 but I do know that it was our vestry that worried about mortgage payments, maintenance, taxes and everything else that goes along with owning a property.  Oh our bishop “oversaw” things during his “annual” visit to our parish.  Whup tee do!   

He took the property we paid for and gave the keys to the 90 “stayers” and essentially told them, “here, now you can assume the 2.5 million dollar mortgage.  If you do the math, that means that to cover mortgage payments, taxes, maintenance, etc etc, each member would have to pledge $9000 to keep the church running (and the 90 includes children).  That is impossible and the bishop knows it.  His solution….“well help you out for 2 years, but after that you’re on your own.” 
While I pray they don’t in all pobability the parish will have to sell the property.  This made absolutely no business sense at all and was done simply for TEC to show it’s clout. 
I used to hold most bishops of TEC in high regard, but   I’m beginning to see very litle difference between some of them and greedy businessmen. This property dispute thing isn’t about “the church rights” it’s all about the money.

The Anglican Curmudgeon has published an extensive ‘Pathology Report’ of both the decision and the deceptive MSM coverage -
<ahref=“http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/01/instant-history-syndrome.html”> HERE </a>