Comments on: Churches are people too - and some are targets

By: joseph

joseph — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:20:07 +0000

Thanks for your comments, Jake. One of the factors here is how one interprets the “Windsor Report”, and what constitutes a breakaway from the mother church as opposed to a revolution by the people. I see some of the spirit of ‘76 coming through. It is hard though (as Bene reminded me on a different thread) to be certain of motives, and so probably wiser for me to tread lightly.

I think one of the differences for me (at least in some aspects) is that you are speaking from an American context & I’m in a Canadian context. Both of us are in national churches which are facing these “troubles”, and usually around specific issues, but perhaps our respective contexts makes us see things a bit differently. We really have no property, no endowments, etc over which to go to court when things get messy, as I’ve seen in some US cases of parishes “leaving” ECUSA.

Prayer all around, and blessings to you.

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 06:00:47 +0000

Joseph,

The plan for alternate oversight of a parish in tension with their bishop always includes reconciliation. That is the only acceptable goal. These churches plundered by bishops from “foreign” (not Episcopalian) churches never had the opportunity to try and be reconciled with their bishop, because they were wooed away by promises from a foreign bishop.

If the foreign bishops would have abided by the recommendations of the Anglican Communion as spelled out in the Windsor Report, and kept their mits off of that which did not belong to them, these parishes may have eventually been reconciled. So, yes, I call it theft.

By: joseph

joseph — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:30:57 +0000

In the case of Anglicanism (my own corner of the kingdom) there is such an internal divide, and it is getting difficult to separate the facts from the spin. In a view from the pew, Anglicans have practically given up the “parish boundary” principle; and so some do not see a big fuss over ditching “episcopal boundaries”. Raises a whole bunch of questions about community and polity.

Fr. Jake makes it sound as if foreign (by nationality, not by denomination) bishops are taking on parishes against the will of the parish in question, but my reading of the situations here in Canada (New West) and in the US (Florida, West Coast) show that parishioners are choosing for themselves to align with certain bishops.

You can’t “steal” sheep who are leaving a fold of their own accord.

By: bob smietana

bob smietana — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:50:34 +0000

I skimmed Dorhauer’s account and found it interesting, thought wondered how accurate it is? Here in the US, there’s a move away from denominational identity and toward local church identity. So, a new church plant that have a denominational name, despite taking denominational funds, is a pretty common occurence, not necessarily a sign of contempt toward the denomination.

To use a business cliche, there’s a paradigm shift going on, and denominational institutions are losing influence, which can be threatening. That doesn’t excuse any pastor’s poor behavior, but it does affect how a denomination employee evaluates a pastor’s behavior. Also, the UCC has congregational roots, which can clash with a denominational structure.