Bible Before Buildings: Local Congregation Pays a Price
Category: Faith... Local...
Posted Thursday, May 05, 2005 at 08:41 AM [GMT-6]

File this one under "Sadly Unsurprising." One of our local Episcopalian congregations has voted (89%-11%) to split from the national Episcopal Church over the latter's non-Biblical stances in several areas. According to the article in today's Midland Reporter-Telegram:

Dissenting members of St. Nicholas' object to decisions made by the 2003 ECUSA General Convention which elected Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual man, as bishop of New Hampshire. Other points of contention include ECUSA's approval of same-sex marriage blessings and "refusal to adhere to traditional Christian teachings."

"As a culture, we're saying right and wrong is one person's definition against another. We've been captivated by the culture which is a moral free fall right now," said the Rev. Jon Stasney, St. Nicholas' rector or senior pastor.

This is certainly not a unique move; many local congregations across the nation are doing the same thing. What makes this story unusual is that "diocese officials" (Bishop Wallis Ohl of the Northwest Texas diocese was the only one mentioned by name) have ordered the departing congregants to vacate their church location by May 31, 2005. According to the associate rector at St. Nicholas, Rev. Jonathan Hartzer, other churches making this decision have been allowed to retain their property and worship "according to their conscience."

I'm just cynical enough to entertain the fleeting thought that the fact that the St. Nicholas church facilities are only about four years old and rest on one of the prime locations in Midland from a real estate perspective might have ever-so-slightly influenced the national body's decision in this case.

Regardless, this is a sad day for one of the true success stories in Midland's church life. St. Nicholas has always had a reputation for being one of the most ethnically diverse congregations in the area, and the rector, Rev. Jon Stasney (who, by the way, voted with the 89%, as did Rev. Hartzer) has ensured that his flock was always at the forefront in the significant interdenominational activities and events in this area.

I got to know Rev. Stasney during the planning for the 2001 International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church, which Midland hosted. I consider him to be a compassionate, wise and gentle man who is devoted to reaching others for Christ, and reaching out to others in Christ's name. I know his heart breaks at seeing his congregation split, but I also know that he places God's will and Biblical principles ahead of human motivations. I suspect that what was a painful decision was at the same time an easy one to make.

I want to be careful not to imply that those relatively few who are staying behind are doing so for un-Biblical principles. I suspect that there are some who strongly disagree with the national body's stances on the issues referred to above, but who also want to stay and try to influence those positions. God bless 'em; they have, perhaps, chosen the more difficult path in the long run.

Technorati tags: | |

Permalink
Comments

This type of thing is one of the strengths of local congregational control. While there are advantages to be gained from heirarchical denominational systems, disagreements that evolve into disputes over church property are one big weak spot.

FWIW, I think the good folks of St. Nicks who contributed money to build this new building should consider asking for their money back (with interest, of course). Callous? No more so than asking them to vacate a property they helped pay for.

Posted by: bryan at May 5, 2005 11:16 AM

I think the good folks of St. Nicks who contributed money to build this new building should consider asking for their money back...

Well, I realize that you're being mostly tongue-in-cheek with that suggestion, but it does raise some interesting issues.

Apparently the building and property, while paid for by the local congregation, was held "in trust" on behalf of ECUSA. I don't know the legal implications, but I can't see a legal basis for the local group taking back control of the property, since the break from the national organization was voluntary and unilateral.

I also think such an attempt would detract from the purity of motive for the split...just as the current situation now reflects on the ECUSA's decision.

Posted by: Eric at May 5, 2005 12:16 PM

Again, more arguments for local control (read "congregational polity") rather than a hierarchical system.

And purity-schmurity. The national church broke that all off with the idea of holding something local "in trust" for the larger entity (how very Catholic of them). If they are the local body of believers, then why shouldn't it be their church? And if the parishioners gave in good faith, why couldn't they demand their money back if the national church is going to be so assine about it?

I'm being partly tongue-in-cheek, sure. But they should ask such questions of the national church. If they want to play hard ball, then play hard ball back.

Posted by: bryan at May 5, 2005 09:50 PM

I'm not arguing that it's right or wrong, just that the rules were probably clearly laid out at the beginning, and the national organization has the legal, if not the ethical right to do exactly what it's doing. AFAIK, no Episcopal congregation really ever owns its own church property; it's all "held in trust."

But, I'm not Episcopalian, so someone else with more firsthand knowledge can weigh in if I'm off base.

Of course, probably somewhere in the dim recesses of time, ECUSA probably had in its charter something about adhering to Scriptural truth. And we know how that turned out.

Posted by: Eric at May 5, 2005 10:05 PM

It could be a very intresting fight if they wanted to have one. The national body has veered off in a direction inconsistant with the churches teachings and likly the very "constitution of St. Nicks. I was involved in lending to churches in a financial institutiion in California and there the church had to have a very clearly spelled out constitution stating tenants of the faith, doctrines, and legal formation (ie corporation status) If there is a loan on St. Nick's, who pays? That will determine who owns the building. If pledges were taken by the parishiners to pay then it still would belong to them, and the dioscese is out of luck, but if they gave donations to the dioscese, and they built the chuch and financed it... well... theyd lose out. But there could be compensation due to the doctrinal split. all of this wrangling is costly nasty and does nothing to further the gospel...

they are in my prayers

Posted by: hokulea at May 7, 2005 10:40 AM

Here's what I don't understand: Other reports say the Bishop "ordered" anti-ECUSA parishioners out of the parish and out of the Church. Is this true?

How can he do that?

If I sign a petition expressing my disatisfaction with the national Church and do nothing else, on what grounds can I be "ordered" to do anything??

What Episcopal Church rule or law permits this?

Posted by: orthodox Episcopalian at May 11, 2005 04:59 PM

Well, while I don't have a definitive answer, my guess is that once the congregation voted to end its formal affiliation with ECUSA (which apparently is the legal owner of the property), the national organization then exercised its apparent right to evict them.

I further suspect that had they only "signed a petition" or otherwise expressed disagreement with the national body's stance, but kept their affiliation, they would have been permitted to stay on the property.

If anyone else is more familiar with ECUSA procedures, feel free to weigh in.

Posted by: Eric at May 11, 2005 05:03 PM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]
Note: You must provide either a website URL or an email address...but there's no rule that says you have to tell the truth. If you don't want your email address published on this site, just input a website URL, or make up an email address.









Remember personal info?