During the briefing, [Welsh Diocese of St. Asaph Bishop Gregory] Cameron also vehemently criticized ongoing property litigation concerning people who want to retain church property after they choose to disaffiliate with their province or diocese. "I don't think there's any Christian who can't be anything other than aghast when Christians choose to play out their differences through the law courts," he said. "It's not an appropriate response."
He noted that the primates asked that the Episcopal Church not try to recover property through court action and that the departing members not seek to take property away from the church. "I have to say that I don't see either side of that equation heeded in the American situation," he said.
Would Bishop Cameron permit parishes in his diocese to separate from the Church in Wales and take property with them? I'd like to hear the bishop's answer to that question, before I give his words serious consideration.
I don't like the idea of Christians in litigation against each other, either, but what is the answer? Negotiations don't seem to have worked well thus far.
I don't like the idea of Christians in litigation against each other, either, but what is the answer? Negotiations don't seem to have worked well thus far.It's not a question of not liking it. In 1 Corinthians 6 we are forbidden it. To Paul it is such a scandal that this would happen that he says 'Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?' Would I like it if a fellow-Christian walked off with my property? Certainly not. But according to the New Testament I don't have the option of taking them to a secular court - whether I like it or not.
ReplyDeleteTim, yes. Unfortunately, Christians and Christian churches do a lot of stuff that's forbidden, like stealing. I know. Give it to them and even more.
ReplyDeleteAnd then, there were the holy wars and the Inquisition.
I'd still like the bishop to answer my question, but, of course, he won't.
Of course I will, Grandmere Mimi. In the first place, in the Church in Wales, they simply couldn't do it, as the property is vested in the Representative Body. But, assuming that the matter were otherwise free - my opening principle would be that the property is given, by and large, for the work and witness of the Church in Wales. People couldn't therefore expect to leave the Church in Wales, and take property belonging to the Church in Wales with them. If it were possible to make a case that this would be inequitable though because the money was given specifically for the work of this particular group currently leaving, or that it was given by them, then I think one would have to find a negotiated settlement. Civil law should only be the very,very last option. The request at Dar es Salaam was actually pretty even handed. Neither party should go to litigation - TEC should not seek to eject congregations, but neither should the congregations seek to alienate property from TEC ...
ReplyDeleteGregory Cameron
If you really are Bishop Cameron, thanks for your answer. You say:
ReplyDelete"In the first place, in the Church in Wales, they simply couldn't do it, as the property is vested in the Representative Body."
As is the property vested in the Episcopal Church here in the US. We simply can't do it either. That folks say differently, doesn't make it true. It's in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
I'd like to say more, but I must rush off to a meeting.
Bishop Cameron, Mimi makes an excellent point. While the legal manner in which church property is vested in the Representative Body in Wales is different from the way the Episcopal Church holds parish property in trust, the principle is the same. It simply is not true that parishioners in Wales simply “could not do it.” They may be less likely to actually take over property that does not belong to them simply because under your legal system the power of the national church is so firmly established and popularly recognized that most people would not dare to act as squatters and leave the church authorities with no other option but to use law enforcement agencies and/or the courts to exercise control over the property. Under our system, the authority of the national church is not part of our civil laws but instead is recognized as lawful over church affairs as a result of judicial interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That does not, however, make the situation significantly different.
ReplyDeleteWhat we find difficult to believe is that if a group of parishioners took over a church building, changed the locks, and refused to allow the bishop or others to enter or use the property as a parish in the Church of Wales, that you would do nothing on account of Scripture and simply try to “negotiate” whether those disgruntled people have a superior moral right to the property because of the seriousness with which they disagree with church authorities.
If, however, you are not really suggesting that you would not take action, at least as a last resort, then it seems that what you are saying is that the persons involved in litigation in this country resorted too quickly or easily to the civil courts. I am not sure how or why you think you can assume that is the case given the many different persons and circumstances involved in these disputes.
Your assumptions also seem to be based on what, to us, is a rather peculiar perspective on the U.S. legal system, which is that it is a Dickensonian nightmare that does nothing but pit people against each other over matters of money and property. While some people can and do go to court here for selfish and wrongful reasons all the time, just as they do anywhere, we also have a strong tradition of use of civil courts to correct or remedy wrongs and to protect individual liberties. God's work can and is sometimes done through litigation. The fact that the legal system can be and is abused here, as well as in the U.K. and ancient Rome, does not mean that it is inherently immoral or tainted in some way, somehow less pure, effective, or capable of resolving disputes peacefully than committees or councils of church authorities.
The problem with Biblical literalism and its anti-historical perspective is that common sense is lost. Laws, courts, dispute resolution structures are not better or worse or Christian or non-Christian simply because of their role in the civil order of society. The proof in this situation is that our civil courts seem to have a greater respect for church law and human decency than some church people who hold positions of authority within the Anglican Communion. In any event, whoever it is who is right or wrong in all this (or more likely, partly right and partly wrong), I doubt that it will rest on a distinction between civil and ecclesiastical bodies, laws, and procedures.
Mimi, your response is spot on. The fact that the Episcopal Diocese has to go to court stems from the fact that the dissenters are occupying the property. The cases are being treated as involving property law, under the civil code, rather than as criminal theft. I don't know if that is similar to the situation in Wales or not -- that is, when Cameron opines that a church "couldn't do it" does he mean the couldn't do it and get away with it? Well that's fairly much the same thing over here, as court case after case has found -- but they still keep trying.
ReplyDeleteCameron's comments reflect the kind of ignorant (that is, in the strict sense of not knowing whereof he speaks) opinionating from foreign bishops who don't even take the time to familiarize themselves with the facts of the situation, but wring their hands about the poor oppressed dissidents who are violating church and civil law. Cameron may not realize how difficult such ill-informed and hasty off the cuff comments make it for us here in the Episcopal Church, and the amount of tension and distress such things can cause. Perhaps it's something to do with Wales, as Rowan has a similar tendency.
And here I thought one of the hallmarks of the Covenant was to keep ones nose out of the internal affairs, according to Constitution and Canon and Law, of other provinces.
Enough said.
Thanks Klady and Tobias for filling in for me in my absence.
ReplyDeleteTonight, we had a meeting at which we humble pew warmers in the Diocese of Louisiana were given the opportunity to express our opinions about what kind of person we'd like to have as our next bishop, and I did not want to miss the chance to have my say.
My first concern was that we would elect a bishop who would be loyal to the Episcopal Church. 14 years ago, I joined the Episcopal Church. The Anglican Communion came as a fringe benefit, but it's looking less and less like a benefit.
Bishop Cameron, I don't know from which sources foreign bishops get their information on how the Episcopal Church functions, but they so often seem to get it wrong.
I have been accused of biblical literalism because I believe that the principle Paul expresses in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 forbids Christians from taking their fellow-Christians to court.
ReplyDeleteI understand the opposite of 'literal' to be 'figurative' or 'symbolic'. I would therefore be interested to know what my accusers think the 'figurative' or 'symbolic' meaning of those verses might be.
It seems to me that the principle Paul outlines here is very clear - that Christians ought to be willing, out of faithfulness to Christ, to accept wrongdoing from other Christians rather than taking their disputes to court before secular authorities. This is consistent with the entire thrust of the New Testament teaching that we should not return evil for evil, that we should turn the other cheek, that we should bless our enemies rather than curse them etc. etc. Yes, of course, it's hard - did anyone seriously think that taking up our cross wasn't going to cost us any money?
I would like to know what special circumstances in the current legal disputes in the Episcopal Church justify the contravention of this biblical principle? Property? Money? Is this really what the bottom line is all about? What sort of a witness are we giving to the world about the message of our Lord (who told us not to lay up treasure for ourselves on earth) when we're willing to engage in this sort of litigation to hang onto buildings? Is this how we want to demonstrate to the world what's really important to us?
Let me be absolutely clear - I'm not saying that those who attempted to take their buildings with them when they left TEC were right to do so. Paul did not forbid the Corinthian Christians to take their brothers and sisters to court before unbelievers 'unless they were in the right'. He said plainly that they ought to prefer to be wronged rather than take such a step. That's costly discipleship, and costly discipleship is our call, I think.
Property? Money? Is this really what the bottom line is all about?
ReplyDeleteNo Tim, it's really all about sex and contemplating the sex sins of others.
Today is the feast day of Lady Julian of Norwich, who wisely says that we should flee from thoughts of the sins of others as from the pains of hell.
You can read the entire quote here.
Mr. Chesterton, there are a couple of issues here, not only with your strict interpretation of Paul's comment to the Corinthians, but to the extent it ought to be applied.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it isn't entirely clear to me that Paul is establishing a universal principle applicable in all circumstances. He appears to be addressing the Corinthians about a particular cluster of cases -- the details of which we don't understand. He apparently felt the matters of dispute were "trivial" -- but would he have applied the same principle to more serious issues?
For instance, Paul also appeals to the very pagan secular authorities on other matters -- saying that the Emperor holds authority from God. He even appeals to the pagan Emperor himself, in his own case -- against fellow Jews, to be sure, rather than Christians.
It isn't clear to me that this is an absolute principle, then. If the pagan law has the right to discipline wrongdoers, and wrongdoing can be shown to have happened, there seems to be no universal principle at work in Paul's thinking, but rather something that needs to be looked at case by case.
I don't know if this answers your question, but that is my understanding of this text.
The other problem, of course, is what does the church do with Christians who do not accept the judgment of the church? That seems to be what is happening here. Paul clearly feels that Christians should be bound by the church's judgments. What do you do when those Christians refuse that judgment?
Tim,
ReplyDeleteI meant "literalism" in a very broad sense, that the words of the Bible, including non-Gospel passages, are to be taken as referring to similar institutions or entities in all times and places. (You may well want to dispute whether the word is properly used in that sense - no doubt I should have explained more fully rather than be imprecise.)
My point is that Paul wrote in the context of a particular time and place regarding particular kinds of disputes with which he was familiar. He was advising, pastoring if you will, new Christians. The advice certainly is sound to the extent it tells us not to get bound up in litigation and to find even more peaceful, conciliatory ways of resolving disputes. But to take that advice as an absolute prohibition of use of courts in another time and place to resolve different kinds of disputes is, I think, both missing Paul's point and treating the Bible as, well, if not literally true, as a detailed, descriptive code for behavior without regard to any differences in context, taking the descriptive details of a situation in Biblical times and using them to create a narrow, fact-specific rule rather than looking at the larger moral and theological principles at the heart of the Gospel message.
I admit that as a lawyer I have some bias towards the good that the civil legal system can and sometimes does to resolve disputes of all kinds (while, at the same time, I have ample experience with and knowledge of situations in which lawsuits have caused much harm and do nothing to remedy the underlying wrongful behavior that may have instigated them). In addition, as a student of history, I am mindful of the fact that the distinction between "secular" or "civil" and "relgious" or whatever else might be considered their opposites is something that is very time- and culture-bound. [A good recent discussion of this is Charles Taylor's A Secular Age.]
To simply dismiss our civil courts and law as "secular" and implicitly evil and a place for ill-spirited disputes reflects a naive and ahistorical view of the role of various kinds of legal systems, formal and informal, as somehow separate and apart from religious life and values. Our current civil legal system is simply one set of social tools for dealing with some kinds of disputes. There are others within TEC and the ACC, including committees, councils, legislative bodies, primates, bishops, clerics, vestries, etc., all with different kinds of authority and roles to play in persuading others to deal with their differences in a Christian mannner. Anyone who has been involved in the work of these institutions knows full well that they are no less immune from contention, strife, and unChristian behavior than civil courts or legislatures.
This is really just a long-winded way of saying that courts and litigation are themselves morally neutral -- just another set of social tools for dispute resolution. What makes behavior right or wrong, moral or immoral, Christian or not, has little or nothing to do with the venue.
I think it is certainly open to debate whether the litigation in TEC has been, could be, or will be helpful in resolving not only disputes over property but the underlying divisions among the parties. But I don't think there is a Biblical or factual basis for condemning it all, as I think it can be argued in some circumstances that it was the best way to deal with the tactic of some people trying to secede from the Church and take property with them, a tactic that some believe violates The Law in its various forms -- civil, perhaps criminal, canon, and moral. In any event, there have been and will continue to be some circumstances where Christians should and must sue other Christians to resolve disputes, including some with contention, such as the litigation that was part and parcel of the Civil Rights movement and the end of de jure and some de facto racial segregation and discrimination in the U.S.
Also, I have known a great many lawyers and judges in the U.S. legal system whose conduct well commports with Christian ethics and values. One I worked with personally, Judge Harlington Wood, Jr., who died a few months ago, was one of the greatest, having served honorably as a prosecutor, as an asst. attorney general (under Nixon) who was instrumental in bringing peaceful resolutions to the conflicts at Wounded Knee, Alcatraz, and various anti-Vietnam war protests, and later as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Cases and conflicts brought by and before him were dealt with in as Christian manner as one could hope.
In short, the law and lawsuits are not inherently evil any more than the church or its members are inherently virtuous. Christ is present everywhere, as our those who follow Him and those who fall astray.
Tim, I rest my case based on the arguments of Klady and Tobias. I have nothing further to add.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I would add to what Tobias and Klady have said already.
ReplyDeleteIn the American legal system, courts exist to resolve disputes of fact and disputes of law. In the current disputes, the conservatives had claimed that the civil law trumps the internal rules of the church, and that the civil law gives them the right to the property. This is, pure and simple, a dispute of law. It is also an enormously important one for all parties involved to have clearly resolved. Whether a liberal or a conservative, why would I contribute money when I do not really know to whom I am giving it?
Private mediation is fine for resolving disputes of fact - and I think this would be more the situation Paul would be discussing in the Corinthian church - but disputes of law can only resolved by courts. It is time-consuming, costly, and messy, but in our system there is no real alternative when fundamental disagreements about a point of civil law are involved.
Either the laws of the state trump those of the church or they do not. Both church and state need to have this resolved.
John, that is very helpful. Let me add that in some states (NY being a case) unless I misunderstand, the civil law also protects churches from alienation of property, not simply on the basis of the church law alone, but as part of the law governing not-for-profit corporations. As i understand it, this goes back to a number of English laws governing property that is held in trust for some larger entity (a church, university, or other corporate entity that persists beyond the lifetime of individuals making it up at any given time.) This is precisely why, in NY, cases involving parishes attempting to alienate property from the larger church have been settled in favor of the church from long before the existence of protective language such as the Dennis Canon(s).
ReplyDeleteThe legal principle makes it clear that the property doesn't "belong" to the temporary incumbents in charge of it, and that they have no right to it.
It seems to me that deploring the fact that the Church needs to resort to the civil authorities, rather than putting the primary blame on those who are violating church law -- and in some cases civil law -- is an inverted and perverse way of interpreting scripture. This is not just individual Christians suing each other, it is the church trying to prevent some of its members from violating the church's laws -- and the fact that they need the support of the state to enforce such actions is lamentable. But the thing properly to lament is the original lawlessness and disobedience that leads to the confrontation. I think Paul was quite clear about those who set themselves up against the authority of the church.
John and Tobias, good points. I hope that a bishop and a canon (or two or three) from the Church of England read the comments here and, perhaps, get a clearer idea of what's involved in the litigation here in the US. And maybe even a priest from the Anglican Church of Canada named Tim will gain a better understanding.
ReplyDeleteWell, an interesting discussion. If you look at my comments, I think you will see that I deliberating avoided making a judgement about who was in the right and who was in the wrong precisely because as a foreigner I don't know half the situation or the law, and am therefore in no position at all to judge. What I said was that I think Christians are aghast when they see other Christians going to civil courts to sort out their differences, and think that every other route should be explored first. I pointed out the rather even handed request of the Primates, but I have no doubt that any analysis can get things wrong - in fact, most blog analyses seem to fall into that trap ...
ReplyDeleteBishop Cameron, if you are truly Bishop Cameron, you have no idea of the pain and distress caused by statements by archbishops, bishops, and canons from the UK, from the Archbishop of Canterbury on down, that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the polity of the Episcopal Church.
ReplyDeleteIt begins to seem willful, because we can't imagine who has your ears, for your statements display one misunderstanding after another about how the Episcopal Church functions.
Mine is, no doubt, a cri du coeur that should be directed to others more so than to you. But you are here, maybe. It's hard for me to believe that an Anglican bishop from Wales would make his way to my humble blog, but if, indeed, you have, then, I apologize. And I thank you for taking the trouble to stop by and leave your words.
It is me, I promise. There are those early mornings in Jamaica when there are moments to surf the net and see what people are saying about us. I'm never terribly sure why Americans always respond to comment from abroad - but you never understand our polity. Most of the Churches of the Anglican Communion are governed by synods; most are respectful of the leadership of the laity, and I still need to hear how you think you're so very different. But I have to say that from abroad we see things deeply disturbing - 10% of diocesan coventions saying that they want out, strident voices condemning each other, and seeing conspiracies under every stone, and always the cry - we're proud that we do things our way. I love and admire so much about the American Christians I know - it is the ones I don't that fox me. Well, I go home to my diocese tomorrow, and there'll be little time for browsing, so you may not see much more of me - God's blessing to you.
ReplyDeleteBishop Cameron, I don't give up hope that the provinces of the Anglican Communion may come to a better understanding of each other. It's not my church or your church, but God's church, and God wants us to be one in his son Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteMany of us in the Episcopal Church see inclusion of all baptized persons in the full life of the church as a matter of mercy and justice. It's not so much pride in doing things our own way, but doing what we believe is right.
May God bless you and give you a safe journey home.
Bishop Cameron, should you venture back this way, you may want to read an appraisal of the ACC meeting and the RCDC, written by an Englishman, Adrian Worsfold, of Hull.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Godspeed.