From the Orange County Register:
Prominent evangelical pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church has thrown a lifeline to a conservative Newport Beach parish on the verge of losing its house of worship because of a feud with its parent church.
The California Supreme Court this month ruled that St. James Anglican Church, a 500-family congregation on the Balboa Peninsula, forfeited the rights to its church property when it split in 2004 from the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the national Episcopal Church.
....
"(Our) brothers and sisters here at St. James in Newport Beach lost their California State Supreme Court case to keep their property," Warren wrote, according to Christianity Today.
"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."
....
"We are overwhelmed by his generosity," [St. James's rector, Rev. Richard] Crocker said. "It is an encouraging sign of support from Christians in the community."
Warren would not make the same offer to progressive Episcopalians who have lost the use of their property, however temporarily, because he could hardly say with any honesty that he stands in solidarity with them, since, in his view, they would not be "orthodox, evangelical Anglicans".
If the sharing works out for the congregants of St. James and Saddleback, then God bless them as they continue their worship.
UPDATE: If anyone has information as to whether all 500 families in St. James left with the Rev. Crocker, I'd like to know.
I know it's quibbling, and hardly a point an evangelical congregationalist like Warren could be expected to understand, but this wasn't "their property" to lose.
ReplyDeleteWhat they lost was what they never had: a claim to a building and the ability to use it for any purpose they chose.
And I'm not sure "orthodox" Anglicans could ever be called "evangelical." Well, at least, not in the sense in which Warren calls himself "evangelical."
"Evangelical," in his use of the term, has never been "orthodox." Not to say heterodox, but not orthodox.
So it goes.
What they lost was what they never had: a claim to a building and the ability to use it for any purpose they chose.
ReplyDeleteRMJ, that's settled now, but it was the subject of the dispute before the court ruled.
There certainly are and have been evangelical Anglicans both here and in England. As for "orthodox", it depends upon what you mean by "orthodox Anglicans". Most of us think we are orthodox Anglicans, if by that you mean adherence to the creeds and the baptismal covenant in the Book of Common Prayer.
Tobias Haller likened Episcopal Church "ownership" to usufruct in Louisiana under the Napoleonic Code, in which a widow with children, whose husband died intestate, would have the use of the house she shared with her husband but would not be able to sell the property.
whether all 500 families in St. James left with the Rev. Crocker
ReplyDeleteThe problem w/ such a question, Mimi, is that it looks at a single moment in time (the day a vote was taken, and/or a lawsuit filed). It ignores that, almost inevitably, faithful Episcopalians will have been driven out for YEARS before.
[An illustration. Like many a city-dweller, I would prefer to attend the nearest Episcopal church. In Portland, Oregon, in the mid-1980s, there was one literally 3 blocks away from my apartment. However, all it took was ONE SERMON in that parish (St. Mark's, NW Portland), denouncing "the latest atrocities of the Presiding Bishop" (that was dear ++Ed Browning), to drive ME out! Somehow, they (St. Mark's) were allowed to depart (don't know where) in the mid-90s w/ their (beautiful) property (don't know what, if anything, they paid for it). It was quite notorious, that their clergy were Anglo-Catholic closet queens.]
Mimi--I understand what the court fight was about. I never thought the outcome was in doubt, however, and as Warren's comment came after the court ruling, I disagree with his characterization of the situation.
ReplyDeleteA quibble, as I said. With such hair splitting do we theologists occupy our time.
AS for the "orthodox" issue, I was referring to "orthodoxy" as Warren would use it. He would consider W.A. Criswell, who inspired him to enter the ministry, as "orthodox."
He would most assuredly consider me heterodox in Xianity, even though I am quite orthodox in my views, in both the UCC and the TEC. So I think his use of the term was a swipe at the rest of the TEC; the "heterodox" who caused the "orthodox" to leave the California church. I'm sure Warren would say the church left them, not that they left the church.
So it goes.
he can have them. all of them.
ReplyDeleteand when they try to take his congregation's building away then he will see.
Rmj, the decision in Virginia went the other way, but that one is an outlier. The other suits were settled in favor of the TEC.
ReplyDeleteJCF, you make a good point. The dissenters were, for the most part, already gone.
Dennis, I agree. The two groups are well-matched.