Report of the Task Force on Property Disputes

In reality, it is the church “homes” of countless loyal Episcopalians, the legacy of countless Episcopalians, past and present, and the spiritual well-being of those who always have found immeasurable comfort in their church homes, that are at issue as well as the nature of TEC and Anglicanism. The strategy at play must be revealed and understood if we are to protect the faithful from having their places of worship, and the assets accumulated by generations of Episcopalians, removed from them and removed from their use in the mission of TEC

What they said, up to that last word—instead of <italic>TEC</italic>  it should be <italic>the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church</italic>.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Forgive me - but THIS is their AHA! moment?

I have not yet absorbed all of this. But my first impression is that these folks don’t begin to grasp the concept of all property belonging to God, with us as stewards.

Quote TEC: “It’s MINE, MINE, MINE!!!!”  No, it isn’t. It is, was, and always will be God’s.

Greg—I’m printing all to read. Early technical note—You have the Chapman and Barfoot documents flipflopped on their links (Append. D & E).

Gator - thanks. Fixed now.

Phil Hobbs,
I believe what you mean is that TEC is in the process of removing the assets from their intended use in the mission of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  We “conspirators” are trying to preserve them for their intended use.
At least, I hope that is what you meant.
Thanks Greg for putting in the hard work involved in finding this.  It is interesting that we are the conspirators, but the framers of this document, which was paid for with the money we put in the plate on Sunday, were able to keep secret for so long.

As a concluding note, it has occurred to many in the Task Force that it may have been misnamed. In truth, the matters that the Task Force has found it necessary to address are much larger than mere property disputes. Experience has shown that, at the root of every property issue, there is an issue of identity and integrity, and not merely an issue of polity.

I take it they are looking for a more fitting title for the committee that will assure both the property claims and the loyalty of all the bishops to said property and polity and the hierarchy of TEC- and, no doubt, the enforcement of the “parishes in distress canon” recently adopted by the diocese here, among many others.
Might I suggest an appropriate name:

INQUISITION

In Bishop Duncan’s Pastoral Letter he makes the statement “one can be ‘within’ something and not ‘under’ it.” Pardon me but, within it, under it, over it, etc…in one form or another you are essentially still a part of it! Thus connected to it! “Within” verses “under” is just an exchange of term but in the end it still means you are a part of something that is in apostacy and has gone to the way left of the true gospel, or maybe it’s the way center? No, maybe it’s the way under? Whatever term one chooses to use in the end the result is the same to me! Yoked to something that is not biblical, scriptural, & not of God!

Wouldn’t it be nice though, if one could just state that “since you, ECUSA, have chosen to go another way rather than continue in the righteous path of God the Father with Jesus Christ His Only Son and His true Word handed down through the generations, then you may go without property that belongs to Him and to those of whom He has entrusted it to who follow His teachings and are good stewards of said property in the workings of their faith & actions.”

But, alas….we as humans must make everything complicated and then that makes matters oh so much worse!!!

Greg, Thanks for posting the report it will take a bit to absorb. I didn’t notice any copyright notices in the report so I think you’re in the clear on this one. (Sorry, please forgive me I just couldn’t resist the temptation.) 

Regards, Conrad

“render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
I am willing to trust that those who insist that they are the rightful owners of the “things that are God’s” will face a higher court than that of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
After September 30, many of us may find ourselves worshipping in living rooms or rented storefronts or sanctuaries lent by other Christians.  If that happens, so be it.  I think there is a grave danger for us if we become as fixated on real estate as TEC.

You raise an excellent point Conrad!  I am wondering if ECUSA met all the copyright laws when dissemanating this information to the bishops!  Surely, they formed an appropriately named committee to study and inwardly digest this issue of copyrights and after having properly caucaused on the issue formed and properly named a task force. 
We can only hope. 

TJM:  Yes, of course….What I mean is that the excerpt reads a little like Caiphas’ “It is better for one man to die for the nation”—speaking the Word of God against themselves inadvertently.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

In reality, it is the church “homes” of countless loyal Episcopalians, the legacy of countless Episcopalians, past and present, and the spiritual well-being of those who always have found immeasurable comfort in their church homes, that are at issue

Ain’t that the truth, gentlemen.  Ain’t that the truth.  So, does this mean ECUSA reverses course to honor the legacy of countless Episcopalians, goes back to building up our spiritual well-being and restores some comfort in our churches in place of secular political rallies?

What kind of stewardship is this, by the way?  They spent a lot of money to figure out what Stand Firm could have told them for free three years ago.  Maybe the lesson here is to read the blogs instead of whining about them.

Mr. Dillon—Take it easy with the barrage of stones. Many of us fully sympathize with your stance, but find ourselves with a year or so until Social Security kicks in. Quote “O ye of little faith” if you must, but recognize that we are probably friends and cut us a little slack. There are great, wearing tensions for someone with basic theological integrity staying in a little longer. Please don’t pile on.

Hey Greg. I’ve printed everything out and am retreating to lunch to “read, mark, learn and inwardly….....”?? I’ll let you know how it turns out.

Thanks for posting all of this Greg.  I don’t have time to read any of it now, nor will I all week (my first week back in Africa and there is a huge backlog of work piled up that has been awaiting my return…)

Can someone who has read this clarify which bishops have volunteered to help?

Is it Bishop Bob Duncan (P’burgh) or Philip Duncan (Central Gulf Coast)?
And which Bp. Smith (there are 3, I believe:  Arizona, N. Dakota, and CT.).  Would appreciate clarification.  Thanks and sorry for being lazy.  Just wondering if there are ANY Network or Windsor bishops involved.  If it is Bob Duncan and Michael Smith (N. Dakota), that would be of particular interest.

Dear Gator….
It’s Mrs. Dillon! And I don’t see any sones in my post! Sorry that you do! What does SS have to do with property disputes? Just as Tjm has stated above which I myself said with different words…..“Render to Ceasar what is Ceasars and render to God what is Gods.” In most everything in this world it all belongs to God we are just the stewards. In some cases very good stewards in others very poor!

It’s really a matter of understanding the episco-meaning of the words “conspiracy” and “strategy”.

Ths planning and actions of a faithful orthodox Anglican parish (or diocese for that matter) who are attempting to walk out their faith, maintain ties with the worldwide Anglican Communion,  and retain thier identity and property is a “conspiracy”.

The planning and actions of an episco-beauracracy who are hell-bent on retaining hard assets and endowments through any means necessary whether through canonical processes or lawsuits is a “strategy”.

If you keep those definitions in mind the report makes perfect sense. (At least the part that I have read so far.)

Regards, Conrad

RE:  “In truth, the matters that the Task Force has found it necessary to address are much larger than mere property disputes.”

Having just skimmed this report, it seems to me that the above sentence is crucial to our discussion. 

What precisely is the point of this report?

As Greg rightly says,
“The report attempts to paint a picture of conspiracy on the part of the Network (it’s subtitled “Connecting the Dots”), but as far as I can tell, all of the evidence it provides is years old, in the public domain, or common knowledge.”

These documents have been referenced many times in the past.  This is hardly a news flash. 

The report also says,
“The strategy at play must be revealed and understood if we are to protect the faithful… ”

What is the real task of this Task Force?

As soon as I read the report, I was struck by the similarity in style and tone to many things Jim Naughton has written: The presumption of guilt, the accusations of dark conspiracy, and the technique of sprinkling circumstantial bits of information throughout in an attempt to enhance the conspiratorial tone. I immediately suspected the report of being at least co-authored by Naughton (if not written by him entirely and simply handed over to +Sauls). Even the title of the report = “Connecting the Dots” - is a friendly ripoff of Naughton’s hit-piece “Follow the Money.”

Speaking of…

Now I see that he’s posted the cover letter at his site, without attribution to us, and with one curious detail that’s different from our version: The link to “Follow the Money,” which is 404 in the PDF here on our site, is curiously correct in Naughton’s post.

He’s also gone to a lot of trouble to re-format the footnotes, if he indeed got the report from us.

Which, you know… he didn’t…

Anything else you’d like to tell us, Jim?

Karen B -

Philip Duncan and Kirk Smith

Yes, Jim Naughton indeed.  How lucky he is to have a blog post cited in this official report!  I see left-wing bloggers are practically authoritative in ECUSA’s eyes.  How about sharing the love, guys?

And check out this line:

All fees, legal expenses, meeting costs, travel costs, and telephone conference-call costs have been donated by the members and lawyers of the Task Force out of devotion to The Episcopal Church (TEC).

What martyrs, working out of devotion to their beloved “TEC.”  All calls taken from home, travel charged to personal credit cards, etc.  Or do they mean, “donated by our diocesan facilities courtesy of unwilling people in the pews . . . as always?”

But ... Greg ... I heard some of this ... and it’s all true It gets worse ... there more rumors out there ... IRD may ... possibly ... be funded by the Mossad ... there a new flow chart out there diagramming all this ... I’ve not personally seen it, but I’ve been told by some pretty reliable source. Something about Horwitz’s dog being the lynchpin ... again, I’ve not actually seen the diagram, but it sounds like IRD maybe in deeper than we thought ... shhh, better keep this under wraps  

(BTW - I much preferred this weekends post with all the pretty pictures, whoa, this is a lot of reading, I’m not sure the content is worth my effort).

If the benefactors of most of the trusts knew what their money was going in service to, there would be a collective earthquake from the rolling over in graves.  For some reason, liberalism eventually sprouts where there are endowments.  Maybe the whole lack of need to work for the money or some sort of related explanation.  Universities, foundations like Ford/Carnegie, etc.—all have slowly been taken over by liberalism.

Word to the wise: don’t tie your money up in a trust.  Your desires for the purpose of the trust will be thwarted, slowly but surely.

My favorite part reads:

“The strategy at play must be revealed and understood if we are to protect the faithful from having their places of worship, and the assets accumulated by generations of Episcopalians, removed from them and removed from their use in the mission of TEC.”

How ironic!  I wonder how many faithful, living and dead, feel that their places of worship and the assets they gave to the church have ALREADY been hijacked by the well-organized agents of a heretical ideology that has nothing to do with historic Christianity or Anglicanism?

For some reason, liberalism eventually sprouts where there are endowments.  Maybe the whole lack of need to work for the money or some sort of related explanation.

BINGO!!! , you win, Blessed Reason and Revelation.
I’m glad you added “some sort of related explanation” to your perfect answer, making it even perfecter and divinely inspired.

TIME Magazines list of the world’s 100 most influential people is interesting -  as representative of the Christian faith there were only two—a German born Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, residing in Italy, and a Nigerian Archbishop of the Anglican Communion, residing in Africa. But not one representative from the United States, and we used to be he most vibrant voice for the Gospel in all the world. A sad commentary. jbviewpoint

Considering we are talking about “only a tiny fraction” of disenchanted Episcopalian that are leaving, 815 is spending a lot of time, talent, and treasure on this issue.

TEC is more interested in Real Estate Management and assets, than on souls salvation!

“At that time, the council appropriated $100,000 for the task force’s work. The group also has $25,000 available to it from the Church Pension Fund. The task force has not yet spent any of the money, according to the group’s written report.”

The above quote is from ENS of Nov 15, 2006-click this link for the full report:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_79758_ENG_HTM.htm

The important part of the quote is that $25,000 has been diverted from the Church Pension Fund to support the work of the Property Task Force.

In any public company, under the ERISA rules, management would go to jail for stealing if they used pension fund money for anything other than pensions. Another egregious incident of blatantly dishonest behavior from the leadership at 815.

But if none of you are in the least interested in the money issues involved, why not just let TEC have the money and property and start afresh?

Seems to me on this score both sides are thoroughly committed to Mammon and their claim to it.

Jane4re, you beat me to it.  I was thinking the same thing.  If only a small number of parishes are “distressed” about the goings on of the Mighty Left, and if only a statistically insignificant number of parishoners stay behind, loyal to TEC, from the departing parishes, then we’re talking about this Task Force protecting the spiritual “homes” of a group of Episcopalians who could fit around my dining room table.  +Schori, is this a big deal or isn’t it?  Is this a Vast Conspiracy or a Tiny Minority?  Make up your mind.

But if none of you are in the least interested in the money issues involved, why not just let TEC have the money and property and start afresh?

Straw man, MM - not all of us have said we’re not in the least interested in the money issues. After all, as the report says, “property is identity.” What’s wrong with us fighting for what we’ve paid for? Seems to me that a breach of contract has occurred.

And Mersey Mike - many of us HAVE walked away.  Now, put your money where YOUR mouth is.

Because, Merseymike, we too are members of this Church.  We are no less valuable, in the eyes of God, than anyone else.  Why should we be the ones to walk away when we have remained faithful to the ancient faith?

Boy Mersey Mike, you have a short memory, it was 12+ days ago that Jackie posted a story St. Margaret, Baton Rouge, LA forming All Saints, Anglican ... How soon you forget ...

The words conspiracy, conspiratorial, plot, plotting, and secrecy do not occur anywhere in the Task Force report at all.  The word secret is used once.  These words are used extensively in the pieces by Matt Kennedy and Greg Griffith and in the comments on these threads.  It seems clear to me that the accusations of conspiratorial plot are all coming from the SF side of the aisle, and that your clear intent is, in Matt’s words,  “to shift the focus of debate away from the content of the issues at hand to integrity of the opposition.”

Mr./Mrs. bwd:  Can you honestly read <strike>Jim Naughton’s</strike> the Task Force report and honestly not see what Greg is talking about?  I guess it is true, the blind are truly those who will not see.

MM - Why should we conservatives who have toiled, prayed, paid, given, our all in monetary terms as well and hard work with voluntary time & services for so many decades - give up and let the left wing have it all? Why don’t you and the left go find your own property and build you own “New Thing” if you think it is the right way!

Maybe you don’t have enough numbers in terms of willing hands and pockets to do so so its better for you to move in and create division & controversey and then make statements such as yours:
“why not just let TEC have the money and property and start afresh?”

Is anyone else experiencing difficulty accessing blogs that are hosted at classicalanglican.net?
Mary M

For me it is not the buildings or the money, it is the leaving of things of God to be descrecrated.

Not too mention the loved ones that are interred in Columbarium’s in these chruches that when we come to worship we feel they are with us as well as all the memorials that people have placed in honor of a loved one who served God in those churches. To leave them to the liberal left would be horrible & unacceptable!

Jackie—
I was talking about tone as much as about content.  The Task Force report outlines what it sees as a “well-thought-out, well-organized, and well-funded strategy designed to enable and justify the removal of assets from use for the Church’s mission and ministry in the world.”  But the report does not use words like plot and conspiracy.  Matt and Greg are using those words quite deliberately I think, to inflame and stir up.  As the report says, “at the root of every property issue, there is an issue of identity and integrity.”  For me the issues of identity and integrity are clear.           
          BWD   It’s Mr (or Fr if you are thuribly inclined)

BWD - I disagree.  Did you read the reports from the Bishops who attended the last Bishops meeting?  Count words in those reports.  And Greg is correct, the report is written as if there were some great conspiracy being uncovered.  No, this report is written as if these documents are great AHAs.  I’ve been a member of the Network since Plano - these things have been out in the open since day one.  No, the big problem here is that the hatwearers have suddenly realized that this is not just a tiny minority but in fact a large number of people who feel ECUSA has abandoned the Christian faith.  Worse, they see their power bases eroding.  When these bishops stand up and start worrying that ECUSA is no longer working to convert the world to Christ, we can talk.

Phil, I heard the budget for this task force to come up with this stuff that is in the public domain was $100k. Good stewardship.

My question was entirely rhetorical.

It seems to me that both sides believe they have a right to the money and both will cite what are,from their perspective, reasonable cases.

What irritates me is that I have read BOTH sides blame the other whilst simultaneously making it clear they think they should have all the money - and at the same time blaming the other side for being concerned only with money.

This couldn’t be an issue in the UK because of the established status of the church but I think that money is clearly - from both sides viewpoint - quite an important aspect of the ongoing argument,and may explain why my desire for an agreed and ordered divide was unlikely.

rob roy read the report none of the money in the bidget has been spent.

M.Mike—The conservative side isn’t seeking “all the money” (unlike the other side). We are seeking the use of our own facilities and resources and a rightful share of the pensions that have been paid in for our old age.

Methinks that this report is designed to draw in the moderate institutionalist bishops in TEC that would rather not think for themselves or do the investigative legwork.  Think of the timing, and remember that the loon-left that is responsible for authoring this ridiculous piece of tripe has done its best to suggest that the bogeymen it describes in this report also tricked the ABC and the primates into writing the Communique to further their ends.

Those of us who have “moderate” TEC bishops should write them and let them know politely and respectfully that this report is utter, total and complete garbage and is very insulting.

But thats because you regard them as yours’ and they regard them as ‘theirs’

Depends on whether you class the affiliation to the Episcopal Church as primary to that of either individual Congregationalism or Anglican affiliation.

What irritates me is that I have read BOTH sides blame the other whilst simultaneously making it clear they think they should have all the money - and at the same time blaming the other side for being concerned only with money.

Mike,

While the people at 815 have indeed made it clear that they believe they should have ALL the money—that’s what Sauls report and the Beers instigated lawsuits are about—I think you’d be hard pressed to find a single statement from the Network or its allies (including any of the so-called secret documents above) making the corresponding claim.  I certainly have no authority to speak for the Network, but to the best of my knowledge their goal has been, first, that TEC(USA) would return to biblical faith, but barring that, that the Communion would recognize those who affirm its teachings as being the representatives of the Communion in North America.  Only as a last resort has the Network suggested separation, and preferably an amicable one.  A typical example would be the CANA parishes in VA who worked according to an agreed Protocol between the Diocese and themselves, only to have the Diocese renege on their side of the agreement.

Any legal actions taken by the Network or its allies has been to preserve the property of overwhelmingly orthodox parishes, bought and paid for by the members of those parishes.  Without an overwhelming consensus by the clear majority of the parishioners, no parish is going to leave TEC anyway.  In the cases where there has been a less than overwhelming consensus, the orthodox have simply walked away. 

If you know of a single case where the Network or its allies have taken legal measures to seize the parish property of a reappraising parish or diocese, you have a moral obligation to disclose it. Otherwise, you are bearing false witness.

But that’s because you give priority to congregational rights and doctrine - rather than denominational affiliation.

All I am saying is that BOTH sides actually do think money is important or it wouldn’t be causing such conflicts now.

As a result of this crisis, people that have walked from churches they have helped build with millions in giving.

They have risked harm to their professional careers as clergy, lawyers, business owners, judges, etc. by associating with a group that the opposition smears as a hate filled fringe group, just the opposite of the truth.

They have lost some friends.

They have acted against their own earthly self-interest.  Nothing like the sacrifice of our Global South or Eastern brothers and sisters, but a start for people that have lived largely sheltered lives.

I pray for my brothers and sisters in Virginia and elsewhere who attempting to preserve their house of worship, but in an important sense I ultimately don’t care what the secular outcome of the property disputes. The Bible tells me which side is going to get the blessing.

But that’s because you give priority to congregational rights and doctrine - rather than denominational affiliation.

This is a constantly repeated and blatantly false accusation.  If the Network’s identity was congregational, all of the so-called secret strategy in Sauls’ memo would be meaningless.  The Network’s ecclesiology is neither congregational nor denominational, but communal.  That is why it has aligned itself with the Primates, and, why, for all his procrastinating and, even perhaps, prevaricating, they keep holding RW’s feet to the fire.

Of course, the Network does intend to protect and provide for its affiliate congregations.  There are no churches without congregations.

OTH, TEC has made it quite evident in the last several years that its ecclesiology is denominational.  Having already played fast and loose with the first two articles of the Creed, it has now moved to jettisoning the third.

MM:
The VA CANA parishes were prepared to pay the diocese for their own property - “buying” it a second time -  from someone who did not even own it.  Why would they do such a thing for their own property? It must have been for the money.  Or maybe it was the only way (if any) to settle amicably and Christianly. As it turned out, the diocese was not terribly interested in doing the right thing.  Why?  Because they and 815 are interested in the $. They don’t have the butts for the seats. It could only be the property/$/intimidation of other would-be “Nigerians.”
a

I’d say that Bishop Sauls wrote it.  Let’s give credit where it is due :>

I can see how the institutionalists, the self-described moderates, would denounce this as undermining the institution. 
What I cannot see is why the same institutionalists did not denounce the consecration of VGR (having been warned that it would tear the fabric of the Communion) OR their fellow bishops who allowed ssu’s in defiance of the WR OR the nomination of all candidates for PB who were not Windsor-compliant OR the election of a twice-divorced bishop OR their fellow bishops led by Chane who immediately rejected B033.  Did not these actions also undermine the institution?  Yes, certainly.  Look at the rubble all around us.

Well yes, My Money is on +Sauls as author and I don’t know who leaked it to Jim Naughton or Stand Firm.  But merseymike is right.  Both sides want the property.  It will end up in court, state by state.  In CA, since there all trusts are revocable unless specifically stated not to so, breakaway congregations (liberal in San Joaquin, conservative elsewhere) will win.  VA in might be the hierarchical documents and a “contracts” point of view, but state by state.  For the left to say it doesn’t want the prperty of the right is nonsense.  It’s acting to hold onto it in court case after court case.  But for the right to claim it doesn’t want tne left’s property is equally specious.  The idea here is to replace TEC with the “orthodox"as the “true” Episcopal Church.  William Witt to the contrary, on both sides, right or left, the strategy on the property is “winner take all”

I don’t believe anyone leaked it to Naughton. I believe his differently-formatted footnotes (all of them at the bottom of the document, instead of at the end of each page) and his particular attention to fixing the link to his article indicate that he had the document the whole time, in a different format (Word or WordPerfect, as opposed to PDF) that made it easy to do so. Given the differences in the way Naughton’s text was posted, the odds that Naughton and Stand Firm were provided the same documents are almost zero. The timing is also a red flag: We received the report last week, spent a few days discussing how to handle it, and waited until Monday morning to publish it. Then within an hour or so of publishing it, Naughton rushed out his version.

I believe the language used in the report has Naughton all over it, down to the similarity of the title “Connecting the Dots” to his article “Follow the Money.” Both the article and the report are basically hit pieces, designed to sow deep suspicion of conservatives by pointing out what was already known: In the case of “Follow the Money,” that it takes funding to run organizations like IRD and ACN, and that often that funding comes from people who have a lot of money; and in the case of the Task Force Report, that the Network saw fit to fight for property its member parishes had bought and paid for over the years, and that it is willing to push in its direction at least as hard at 815 is pushing in the opposite direction. Both pieces use as their evidence information that’s well-known, and often very public, and scattered throughout both of them are footnotes and asides that begin like “It is curious to note…” and “It is worth pointing out…”, all designed to try and stitch together otherwise unrelated people and events.

I’m not saying Stacy Sauls wrote none of it; I’m just saying that as I think about Naughton’s publication of the report, it’s more and more difficult to believe that he had exactly nothing to do with it. Read the report and then read “Follow the Money” and tell me if you don’t agree.

Greg, I find your analysis of the authorship of the document to be Most Interesting.  ; > )

If true, it’s pretty much as bad as the outed email that Kearon sent to Louie Crew, proving that they were hand-in-glove in scheming. 
[ http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17414 ]

So . . . that would mean that Naughton is knee-deep in strategizing and actually authoring the documents that the “Task Force on Property” is “offering” to the HOB.

If true—what an incredibly horrible mistake he made—fixing the link, differently formatted footnotes, posted an hour after we posted ours.  I think it is a notable demonstration of desperation and ego—an interesting combo, yes?  ; > )  Oops!!

On another note: RE: “. . . that it is willing to push in its direction at least as hard at 815 is pushing in the opposite direction.”

And that’s the key right there.  What is really frosting the revisionist leadership in ECUSA is that they are meeting with resistance to THEIR carefully crafted, strategized, planned agenda.

That resistance outrages them.

William Witt to the contrary, on both sides, right or left, the strategy on the property is “winner take all”

I repeat the challenge I made to Merseymike:

If you know of a single case where the Network or its allies have taken legal measures to seize the parish property of a reappraising parish or diocese, you have a moral obligation to disclose it.

A single example would provide minimal plausibility.  Otherwise . . . nonsense!

RE: “But for the right to claim it doesn’t want tne left’s property is equally specious.  The idea here is to replace TEC with the “orthodox"as the “true” Episcopal Church.  William Witt to the contrary, on both sides, right or left, the strategy on the property is “winner take all” . . .

Emily H is wrong.  I don’t know of any leader on the reasserter side who would not happily offer parishes that voted to stay with ECUSA and leave the AC on an agreed-upon basis their property.  The bishops of Pittsburgh, Dallas, San Joaquin, and Rio Grande have demonstrated that fact in their actions and voted upon canonical and process changes in their dioceses.

So let’s put this into perspective.  Those reasserting parishes that vote to leave ECUSA and enter another Anglican entity—the revisionists claim their property as their own.

Those reappraising parishes that vote to leave a diocese and remain with ECUSA—the reasserter bishops are willing to let them leave with their property.

So no—it’s only a “winner take all” philosophy on the reappraiser side.  And the result—as I have said for three years now—will be decades of lawsuits in the secular courts, which will be a far fairer, more objective, and just place to do it than our beloved ECUSA courts.  Thank God for our secular courts!

Dear Sarah, Greg, et al…

I concur with both Greg & Sarah’s assesmemts. But, I have to mention something that to me is very intersting. Being a congregant in the San Joaquin Dioceses who loves her Bishop, Priests & Parish, I can affirm the fact that Bishop Schofield has said and stated on more than one occasion that if any parish who wishes to stay with ECUSA may do so and keep their property with his blessing providing they DO NOT leave the diocese owing a huge debt. Seems very reasonable to me and very Christianly as well. But, what is interesting is this….two priests who opposed the diocesan convention vote last year to change our canons to remove the name epsicopal have left this diocese to go to another in California. So for all their verbal uproar and for the graciousness extended to them by our bishop who said you may keep your church property providing you are up to date with your diocesan assesments they wasted no time finding and taking other assignments in a different diocese. Less than a year in finding and obtaining!!! Which begs a huge question in my mind…..How much debt did these revisonist priests leave with the congregations they left behind and for another to come in a clean up after them?

“. . .we used to be he most vibrant voice for the Gospel in all the world. A sad commentary. jbviewpoint”

Careful.  It is this kind of American pride that is the downfall of PECUSA, ECUSA, TEC (WHATEVER!!!!).  We don’t consider anyone could possibly do it better or know better or be “the most vibrant voice” than we are - as far as TIME Magazine goes, I haven’t purchased it since they agreed with McNamara that those in the military did not need pay raises.  Another one who sends people to war not worrying about what happens to their needs.

After September 30, many of us may find ourselves worshipping in living rooms or rented storefronts or sanctuaries lent by other Christians.  If that happens, so be it.  I think there is a grave danger for us if we become as fixated on real estate as TEC.

Mr. Mersey: this property thing is not your issue. This is a particularly local issue that, while it may impact the whole church in the USA. has nothing to do with you, your heresy, your atheism or anything else. I know you like to stick your nose into everything religously conservative, but you really don’t have a part in this.
Soooooo…why don’t you just get the hell out of here and let the people involved work out their problems!!!! Hunh, Hunh, Hunh????

Been there- don’t know if you meant to do this, but I think that is me you are quoting, not Merseymike.
And while I know it is not popular, and many people may not like me for saying it, I think we must be very certain to keep our priorities straight.
God first, our own souls and those of our brothers and sisters in Christ second, then worry about property, polity and the like.  That said, though, there are pieces of real estate I am willing to fight for too.  But much of it we will be able to buy back at bargain prices when the churches are empty and TEC liquidates.

Soooooo…why don’t you just get the hell out of here and let the people involved work out their problems!!!! Hunh, Hunh, Hunh????

Somehow I cannot visualize Jesus Christ making that kind of comment.  Is this what we have come to?

Is it possible for those of us who are involved to be objective?  I have found that very difficult myself.  I, also, have a problem with losing churches of our forefathers who would turn over in their graves if they could see what their church is up to.  I don’t think that is what they toiled to accomplish.  The message is much more important than the property.  OTH, it is not “fair” to have to buy back one’s own church that a congregation has worked by the sweat of their brow to care for in good faith.  But life is simply not fair, is it?  In the finality the property means nothing compared with the faith.  Let’s be sure that we are delivering messages “of” the faith and not “of” the world.  Are we so close to the apostate that we are getting fleas?

I certainly found the statement about buying back the property when, after they have accomplished “grabbing” it, TEC will have to sell for nothing.  They are going to go broke one way or the other.  do what you can to save those wonderful buildings, but, if in the end they cannot be saved, shake the dust off your sandals, turn around and obey the Great Commission.  (and, as someone said - I believe St. Augustine - try to do it without having to use words.  They don’t always come out the way our Lord would have them do.  We all do it!)

It certainly is galling to leave those beautiful, historic and beloved buildings to the apostates, but as Tevye if Fiddler on the Roof would say, “On the other hand…”  First, it may just be a test from the Lord to see who we love the most,  Second He has promised that if we leave father, mother, lands….He would give us more In This Life… Third, many of these buildings are very old and are energy black holes which with the high cost of heating and airconditioning could be a white elephant not to mention the hugh maintainance of an old building and lastly, I have noticed that for some reason, Episcopalians have an architectual genius for being able to build beautiful large buildings that while new look ancient and those beautiful little chapels that look straingt out of a Kinkade painting.  So all is not at a dead end.  Ultimately, we just have to obey the Lord.  IMHO

Just a follow up to those who would advocate walking away and a subsequent repurchase at a bargain price, similar to a mortgage foreclosure auction. Waht you are failing to realize is what the TEC wants to do is to evict the church family out on the street, and they don’t plan to throw your posessions to the curb along with you either. The want to destroy, demoralize and scatter those who oppose them. Should you be able to come up with the funding to repurchase your property AND reach a purchase agreement what you will find when you come back will be property that is in less than stellar condition. Remembering that many of the legacy properties are quite old and to be polite a bit fragile would be an understatement. Yes, it’s just a building but it’s also the home of the church family. Thus, I would strongly advocate fighting for my church home. Yes, it will be nasty, expensive and drawn out. Guess what folks, an old fashioned brawl will have the effect of galvanizing the remaining congregation, which will be substantial in number once the rest of the pew warmers wake up this fall. A sense of panic and a real fight for OUR church may be exactly what we need to wake us out of a long slumber and put us back on the path of proclaiming the gospel of Christ.
I know a lot of you will think I am a narrow minded hard nosed person, let me correct you in advance. I am a fed up parishoner who is more than disgusted with the squishy hand holding and endless delays that have marked the accelerating moral decay PEC has suffered since the Robinson fiasco. (Yes, I know it started much earlier, that’s for another post). There are lots of us out there in the pews in many parishes. We are the ones who attend during the weekday during Lent. We give financially even though we know Bishop Parsley will eventually channel a portion of our funds away to fund the fight against the orthodox. We give of our time and talents to those in need in the community through our church. To those of you who are in your place of “new” understanding let me make this clear: we are not going anywhere. I will not be run off or do the polite thing and leave quietly, nor will my friends. There comes a time to dig in and fight, a vicious fight to the very end, a time to draw the line between good and evil. Yes, this is a battle between two different faiths, the orthodox and the apostate. The time has passed to negotiate or discern or listen. This is time to talk to your children and your family, letting them know what is getting ready to happen emotionally and financially after the lastest line in the sand is ignored. My family is ready to pitch in any way we can with time, funding or whatever the Lord asks of us should a split occur. We hope for peace and an acceptable solution but are ready for the protracted war should it come.

bhamer, I feel for you in the Diocese of Alabama; I respect your determination to remain where you are. I must admit, those, I wish you werent indirectly funding the bad guys! (“We give financially even though we know Bishop Parsley will eventually channel a portion of our funds away to fund the fight against the orthodox.”) If your parish continues to give substantially to the Diocese, why not find an alternative means of stewardship?

But of course no-one will suggest ‘seizing’ a reappraiser parish.

No reappraising parish is wishing to leave the Episcopal Church. It is reasserters who wish to leave, and TEC judges that it is TEC which is the defining denominational body which , in turn indicates ownership. In other words, TEC is what matters, whether it happens to be part of the so-called Communion or not.

When my parish had a campaign to raise funds for our educational wing, I was pretty hard-up financially, and had little to offer.  What I did offer were some pieces of jewelry that represented my ace-in-the-hole - my total down and out knot at the end of the rope (pick your cliché) - essentially, my security.  I realized that Jesus is and always will be my security, and pledged my worldly safety net to the parish.  It was symbolic gesture, but the only one that I could make.
There are many of us that have pledged our widow’s mite to our parishes, out of faithfulness and good stewardship and love of our Lord.  We do not want to see even our small contributions being used as a tool for a church that believes in “polity” before it believes in Jesus.
MMike, imagine that you find that you have contributed to a charity out of a sense of duty or passion to a cause, only to find that the resources of that charity are being taken over by those with opposite purposes.  Would you just sit still, just say “well, I’m not all hung up on money, so it doesn’t matter”? Or might you do something about it?

For William Witt,  regarding whether a reasserter is trying to take the property of a reappraiser.  That is the whole premise of the Calvary v. +Duncan lawsuit.  Calvary maintained that +Duncan had redirected and was continuing to redirect funds belonging to it and TEC to the Network.  The most recent update on the case was Tuesday.  +Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh lost their attempt to get Calvary’s petition to enforce the previously agreed upon settlement stricken and the case will go on.

Obviously both sides want the property but for different reasons.  TEC wants to keep the departing churches’ property claiming to support the minority of the parish that chooses not to depart.  In most cases the remainder is not viable and will shut down.  TEC will then convert the property to cash.  TEC also needs to keep the property as a detterent to other congregations who would like to leave but are afraid to.  The departing churches want to keep their property in order to continue to worship God with their families, friends and neighbors in a denomination that is not alien to traditional Christian beliefs.  From a Christian perspective the departing would appear to have the high ground.

However, from the departing standpoint I think it would be better to either 1) publicly offer to cut a deal at the outset - say 40% of the equity in the property or a percentage based on the percent of the parish that wishes to remain; or 2) offer to share the building with the remaining Episcopal congregation as is being done in the Pacific Northwest for the next x number of years until one is strong enough to leave or the national choas is sorted out.  Obviously, the more rabid reappraising Bishops are likely to reject such offers but the departing parishes would 1) be acting with Christian charity towards the foe and 2) win points in the PR war.  I think it is critical for the departing parishes to show that they are acting out of principal (TEC’s theology is unacceptable and therefore we must depart) and with Christian charity and compassion to fellow parishoners who disagree.

Actually, the Virginia Protocol, which the CANA churches have said they would still follow, is along the ones of #1.  It was also reported that The Falls Church offered to the episcopal loyalists to continue to worship in its old chapel (something like #2) with an episcopal cleric conducting services, but Lee sued and did not respond to the offer.

So I agree those would be good, but it is apparent that TEC is not currently willing to consider either, except in rare circumstances where the bishop is willing to buck the rule of Schori.

On the Virginia cases.  On the Monday morning following the vote the attys for Truro Falls Church etc. went to register the vote with the appropriate civil authority.  By so doing, they laid legal claim to the property.  If the Dio VA did not intervene, the courts would grant the claim to the property to the congregations by default.  This is a peculiar to Va statute.  The congregations took legal action, the diocese responded.

Is there a “glitch” in accessing the PDF files? I was able to view the “Main Report” on Friday and now it seems to be unavailable.
Is there another location or source for the report?

“Our laszt chanceOO