In a rather surprising ruling, the 4th Circuit of the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles yesterday. For those not in the loop, three conservative parishes within our diocese have broken away over the issue of homosexuality; in opposition to same-sex unions and the ordination of non-celibate gay clergy, these parishes have sought to leave the diocese — and take their church property with them. Yesterday, reversing a lower-court ruling, the appellate justices said that the church buildings belong to the diocese, not to the rebel parishes. Y’all can leave, in other words, but the bricks and mortar stay.
It’s a setback for the break-away traditionalists in California, and perhaps nationwide. Though the Times reports that the rebels haven’t decided on whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court, I can’t imagine that they won’t. The stakes are much too high to let things come to a tidy end here.
I have mixed feelings, of course. On the one hand, I’m a strong supporter of same-sex blessings and of the full integration of non-celibate gays and lesbians into holy orders and into the full, rich life of the Anglican Communion. I’ve also known Bishop Bruno for years, going back long before his stunning upset victory in the 1999 bishop coadjutor election. (You’d have to know a lot about dull diocesan politics to know what a shocker that was. He beat the favored candidate of All Saints Pasadena, and it took a couple of years to patch things up between the new bishop and the largest parish in the diocese. Let’s just say that there were some very, very disgruntled people at All Saints when Jon was elected; they’ve become “gruntled” since.) So as the bishop’s friend and admirer, I support him in his decision to do battle.
On the other hand, I know a thing or two about divorce. And having managed to get through three divorces without any serious legal fights, I know that the smart thing to do is to be generous towards those with whom you are ending a covenanted relationship. In the end, as my third wife and I agreed when we split, “it’s just money.” And no, neither of us had so much cash that we could afford to be recklessly cavalier about the subject — we just both knew that new houses could be bought, new silver patterns selected, new retirement accounts opened. Adding my three divorces together, I’ll reckon I walked away from somewhere around half a million dollars (most of it in real estate, of course). Could I find good use for $500,000 today? No doubt! Would it have been worth a nasty court battle, or two, or three? No.
I love what Paul says about lawsuits in 1 Corinthians 6:5. It was a great comfort to me during my last divorce, which was amicable and kind and generous on all sides:
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?
So many people say “I’m not going to court over money, it’s the principle of the thing.” But Paul is truly subversive here; he calls on us to allow ourselves to be wronged and cheated rather than turning to secular courts to resolve our disputes — particularly our disputes with fellow Christians.
Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? That’s the question I ask equally to both sides in the property dispute between the church and its traditionalist rebels. It’s the question I would pose to Jon Bruno, and to the vestries of the three renegade parishes. I would urge the rebels to abandon their property rather than sue to keep it; I would urge my friend Jon to let the dissenters take that same property rather than sue to get it back. If both sides act with glorious generosity, who knows what good might come of it?
I kind of agree but kind of strongly disagree. The sentiment seems admirable, on the other hand, law is there *for* dispute resolution. If there is respect for the other party and respect for the system, I don’t see anything ignoble about using the justice system for its intended purpose. Traditionally, in Judaism at least, the establishment of systems of justice for dispute resolution is a commandment for all peoples. Law is also from God. Why ignore and abandon it in the very circumstances for which it was meant?
If there’s a place where we’ve gone astray, imo, it’s in our inability to separate our legal disputes from our personal feelings and relationships, and our inability to lose gracefully.
Tara, most Christians think Paul’s words in Corinthians were meant as admonitions to them alone — referring specifically to Christians suing Christians. And of course, this sort of thing can be used to encourage the abused to avoid pursuing justice.
But when we have a divorce between a diocese and a parish, or between two married partners, the “let yourself be wronged” admonition is a powerful one. It’s got a potentially anti-feminist implication if it means women are to endure mistreatment rather than fight back through the courts, of course. But sometimes, prioritizing peace and harmony rather than victory is a very good idea.
One might take Paul’s Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? as specifically admonishing us not to hang on what the law provides, and what society encourages us to demand, with respect to our entitlements. It is difficult to forego what we are certain is rightfully ours, or Paul wouldn’t have had to start telling people that so long ago.
Unrelated: while perfectly acceptable in the mouths of people who don’t have to premeditate its use for sassy-ethnic-sitcom-character effect, “y’all” is as grating in written form as “meh,” “feh,” “um, actually” and the rest of the Internet’s favorite passive-aggressive particles.
Flippanter, I grew up saying “y’all”, and try — as much as possible — to imitate my spoken speech in my writing.
Seems a day for religious news, what with His Holiness Benedict XVI releasing the long awaited motu proprio which is allowing a wider use of the 1962 Latin (Tridentine) missal.
Since I already attend a FSSP Mass, unless I go to an Eastern Rite church, it doesn’t have a whole lot of impact on me, personally, but it does mark a very significant turn towards the traditional in the RCC.
It’s easy enough for you to say that, Hugo, with a career and job. But when some people divorce, they’re out with worse than nothing: they have a gap in their work history so it’ll be harder to get a job, they have no savings, and there’s no retirement. They need to take it to courts, for “half” the marital assets, or else they’re up a creek without a paddle.
we just both knew that new houses could be bought, new silver patterns selected, new retirement accounts opened
That cuts both ways, doesn’t it? If it’s so unimportant that you should let the other person have it, is it not also so unimportant that they should let you have it? And yes, there is a great deal of privilege in being able to walk away from money, Hugo.
As for Paul’s question, allowing cheaters and wrongdoers to triumph encourages cheating and wrongdoing, and don’t think cheaters and wrongdoers share your reluctance to turn to the legal system. It’s one thing to encourage forgiveness among persons of goodwill–but the problem of dealing with evil in the world is not something you’re really addressing well.
I think the privilege argument weighs in favor of putting the burden to “be cheated” on the Episcopal church, rather than on the breakaway congregations, since the church is better able to cope with losing the assets than those congregations are.
I must admit that these kind of cases bring out my surprisingly strong congregationalist sympathies — to me, it seems obviously morally correct that the buildings and so forth belong to the local congregations, not to the national organization. The fact that the congregations are trying to claim that right in order to facilitate doing a bad thing (continuing to be anti-gay) is neither here nor there.
Stentor, but we’re the EPISCOPAL (bihop) church, not congregationalists. The bishes call the shots.
“Why not rather be cheated?” For the same reason I’d rather not be beaten with a sledgehammer. Because it’s painful and does me harm.
No opinion on the matter of the schism within the Anglicans (or any other church or denomination), but within the context of marriage, it’s a fine argument for prenuptial agreements and making the courts actually honor them.
I must admit that these kind of cases bring out my surprisingly strong congregationalist sympathies
My sympathies lie more toward people sticking with whatever church polity they started with. Since it’s the Episcopal church, it seems more natural to me that the property would go with the diocese, and I think I’d feel the same if it were a breakaway parish from a Roman Catholic diocese that wanted to go somewhere more gay-friendly and keep its church. But if the dispute were in a church that was already congregationalist, I’d feel the larger organization was overreaching.
That still leaves a plausible case for the larger church accepting “being cheated,” though.
The same argument applies to physical wrongdoers and since Hugo is a pacifist, I doubt it holds much water for him.
I think the problem is that there is an apparent contradiction between seeking peace and harmony and seeking recourse in law. But the contradiction is only apparent if it’s not about seeking victory but seeking justice *when* there is trust in the system and a desire to uphold it. Unwillingness to ‘lose’ is a problem that’s larger than seeking judicial recourse.
Tam, I don’t recall Hugo calling for the abolition of all police departments and law-enforcement agencies. And it’s still not something that supports Paul’s question: the “why?” is that you make the world a worse place.
Of course, it’s a different thing to suggest that people of goodwill work out their differences in peace.
As I recall, the context of Paul’s question is a very contentious Christian community, deeply divided, who are suing each other in court, at a time when the courts are all run by pagans, and pagans are dubious about Christians. So I’d see it neither as a suggestion that people of goodwill work out their differences in peace - he seems to be suggesting that Christians work out their differences with other Christians without resorting to courts even when those other Christians can’t necessarily be trusted not to cheat you - nor yet as a general call on everyone to abandon the use of courts. It’s an appeal to a Christian community not to create scandal by showing that the church is incapable of settling its own differences.
So I don’t really see how it would apply to non-Christians getting divorced (plus, sometimes what people try to do to each other without lawyers is worse than what they do when they both get lawyers involved). On the other hand, if there’s still enough good will left between the divorcing couple for both to prioritize peace and harmony over victory, then, you know, go for as much peace and harmony as possible.
That’s an interesting take, Lynn.
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.
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”
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.
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.
And from the conservative Pentecostal corner, I am singing a very quiet chorus of “God moves in a mysterious way….”
:-)
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.
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.
“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.
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.