You are here
How Can We Call It Robbery?
By Maurice M. Benitez & William Wantland
11/12/2007
Many of those on the liberal side of The Episcopal Church (TEC) have called those who have chosen to depart from TEC, and who feel they have some right to retain their property, to be "robbers," and that their actions amount to "thievery" and "stealing." We wish to make the case that those who feel that TEC has moved on and left them, because this church has departed in significant ways from the doctrines of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, are not bad people. They are not criminals, nor any worse sinners than the rest of us. They have been our brothers and sisters, and we need to let them go graciously.
We still believe that reasonable and godly folk can find equitable solutions to these kinds of problems that are fair to TEC, to bishops and dioceses, to those congregations that are separating to another Anglican jurisdiction, as well as to those who are staying where they are.
We begin by asking how can it be robbery for those congregations to retain their property in cases where the congregations have full title to the property, if neither their dioceses nor TEC have ever invested anything in the purchase of the real property of those congregations and in the construction and maintenance of the improvements on the property? Even in those cases where their dioceses have title to the properties, a case can be made that the congregations that built the buildings and maintained them over the years have at least some rightful interest in the property.
In cases where the current congregation has inherited from those who preceded them valuable historic property, it needs to be fully considered. Likewise, when the current congregation has, through its sacrificial stewardship, invested significantly in building a magnificent plant, that also should be considered. If the time comes when those congregations choose to separate from TEC, and would like to retain at least some of their interest in the property, it may be unfortunate and painful for all concerned, but it hardly can be called "robbery."
It is our contention that reasonable and godly Christian people, through deliberation, and perhaps through a mediation process, can arrive at reasonable solutions that are equitable to all parties, such as possibly leasing, or even selling the property to the congregation that is becoming a part of a different Anglican jurisdiction. Such financial payments, whether through paying on a lease or a mortgage, could at least partly make up for the lost income incurred by the diocese in the departure of most or many in the congregations.
Certainly such a process has to be preferable to what is happening now. What is the merit in TEC and its dioceses, by litigation, driving congregations completely off the properties in which they have at least some interest, requiring them to purchase other properties, and to build anew, with TEC, as it did in 2006, according to the treasurer, spending $900,000 more than was budgeted for such litigation? This does not take into account the resources that the dioceses are expending for this litigation - funds that were given by faithful church members for the doing of the business of the church, the winning of more people to Christ, and the planting of new churches.
How does it further the kingdom of God to relegate the smaller remnant congregations that are left after the majority are gone and have vacated the church to those all but empty church buildings? These churches were built for much larger congregations, and the remnant will struggle to maintain them without the ongoing support of their dioceses. And how does it further the kingdom for the dioceses, even if they win all of their litigation, to gain back all but empty church buildings for them to maintain, for the new, smaller congregations? They might even be faced in the future with a financial requirement that they sell the property to someone else.
And who is to blame? One side says it is the other side that has departed from some of the historic teachings of the apostolic Church and the authority of holy scripture. The other side declares that it is those who are walking out of TEC who are to blame. To argue this way is like two young boys arguing after a fight over who started it. It does not matter at this stage! What matters now is attempting through reasonable negotiations to find an equitable solution - one that will best serve all parties, including TEC, to get out of the lengthy and expensive litigation. What matters is getting all parties back to using their resources, money and energy for the furtherance of God's kingdom. Just think how many new churches could have been planted by even a fraction of what is being consumed by lawyers' fees and court costs for this extensive litigation.
We return to the original question, "How can you call it robbery?" We humbly suggest that no robbery has been, or is being committed. We specifically note successful cases of balanced response in past years in Oakland (Diocese of California), Tulsa (Diocese of Oklahoma), Plano (Diocese of Dallas), and Overland Park (Diocese of Kansas), to name a few such cases. Finally, can we comply with the request of the primates at Dar es Salaam and end litigation as a tool of repression? We think so.
---The Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez is the Bishop of Texas, retired, and the Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland is the Bishop of Eau Claire, retired.
