Comments on: “Why not rather be cheated?” A note on lawsuits, divorce, and Anglican court battles

By: Original Lee

Original Lee — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:53:04 +0000

Viriato, I agree with you on this. The people making up the congregations in question knew at the beginning that the bricks and mortar belonged to the diocese; their financial contributions over the years do not supersede the initial and ongoing commitment of the denomination to the buildings. Also, many of these congregations did not vote unanimously to leave the denomination - a minority of the people in these buildings would prefer to stay, even if they are unhappy with some of the new policies. The denomination is therefore making sure that the minority is not wronged or cheated out of their church home by a disgruntled majority. My feeling on this whole matter has always been that if you are unhappy enough to go elsewhere in a spiritual sense, then you should go elsewhere in a physical sense. Perhaps the best solution would have been for the breakaway congregations to offer to buy the properties from the diocese, but as far as I can tell, this path wasn’t followed very far.

By: Viriato da Silva

Viriato da Silva — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:41:42 +0000

“The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” — I Corinthians 6:5

Chiming in late on this thread (will anyone even see this comment?), but am new to visiting this (wonderful, btw) blog, so anyway, here goes:

Hugo (et al. who support the diocese walking away instead of being in court, albeit you’re consistent and think the “reasserters” should likewise walk away from their property), as I read I Corinthians 6:5, methinks you might be misreading it a tad. Aside from what’s been raised above regarding historical context, there’s the question of “third parties.”

In other words, when Christ admonished us to “turn the other cheek,” He was referring only to one’s *own* being struck in the face. N-O-W-H-E-R-E does He say, “Oh, and also let them strike other folks’ cheeks.” It’s not up to any of us to offer up others’ cheeks; only our own.

If the “reasserters” sought only to walk off only with +Bruno’s personal property, well, OK, then there might be a scriptural case for why he should *let* them (and maybe even offer them an extra building or two!), following the “turn the other cheek” and I Corinthians logic. (Personally, I think that gets overly literal, but I’m assuming here for the sake of argument that that is what one should do as a Christian.)

But that’s *not* what they seek to do; they seek to walk off with the property of the entire Church Catholic (and including both present and future members thereof), held in trust for it the specific expression of the Church Catholic known as the Episcopal Church, held in turn in trust for *it* by the Diocese of Los Angeles.

So, in light of the “turning the other cheek” model, I can’t read I Corinthians 6:5 as saying that one should allow *others* (and more specifically, other Christians) to be “wronged” and “cheated,” even if (arguably) it *does* call on one to allow oneself to be wronged and cheated.

And this reading actually dovetails beautifully with the demands of law in the USA and its various states, namely, requiring that bishops and dioceses act as fiduciaries.

Turn the other cheek? Allow myself to be wronged and cheated? OK, I’ll struggle with whether Christ demands this of myself in any particular situation.

But I see no evidence that the Christ Jesus whom I meet in Scripture, in the Sacraments, and in my fellow humans *ever* commanded or challenged me to turn *my brother’s* cheek for someone else to strike him, or to allow *my sister* to be wronged and cheated.

By: John

John — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:53:12 +0000

Renegades? Ain’t them who moved, Hugo. If you ask me, it’s the diocese who are the renegades, which fits quite well with all that Give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death rhetoric we’ve been hearing from the liberal wing lately.

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:18:13 +0000

Camassia may well be right. Another reason for the conservative renegades to leave without their property, and for the diocese to let them take their property.

By: John

John — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:30:35 +0000

And from the conservative Pentecostal corner, I am singing a very quiet chorus of “God moves in a mysterious way….”

:-)

By: John

John — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:29:01 +0000

Lynn is right. It goes on “And brother against brother goes to law, and that before unbelievers”. Churches should settle their differences internally before causing scandal-and the one thing the secular world is not saying when they watch Christians sue each other is “see how they love one another”.

I’m naturally on the side of the congregations-they haven’t moved. But in the end, they should be prepared to leave their property, and take the bullet. I understand why they won’t, but we’re all called to suffering, and they’ll get it all back eventually. No-one who has left houses, land, etc. for the sake of the kingdom of God loses by it-I have that on very good authority.

By: Camassia

Camassia — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:22:10 +0000

So what is the diocese is going to do with the buildings? Without congregations for them, I’d assume they’d have to sell them. Given the types of up-and-coming congregations these days, it is ironic but entirely possible that the ECUSA will rescue the buildings from conservative Anglicans only to fill them with conservative Pentecostals.

By: carlaviii

carlaviii — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:47:22 +0000

About allowing yourself to be cheated, taken advantage of, etc, as a Christian, may I offer my own favorite verse, Matthew 10:16 -

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.:

i.e., “Don’t be stupid”

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:32:09 +0000

Lynn, I agree completely that it’s a direction to how Christians interact with other Christians (which is relevant to how a Christian couple divorces, and how a church schisms, but not to non-Christians). I do think it goes beyond avoiding the appearance of scandal, and is a genuine reminder that we are called to let ourselves be cheated rather than to stoop to litigation against our fellow believers.

By: mythago

mythago — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:53:42 +0000

That’s an interesting take, Lynn.