Bad analogy.

Suppose you are a 13th English peasant. You build a straw house, occupy it, pay all the bills, cut the lawn, do the repairs etc. You live there for 30 years.

You are loyal to the King but happen to be the vassal of a lesser nobleman and from time to time he rides about to collect an assessment. You give it willingly recognizing that this particular nobleman also pays homage to the King.

It just so happens that at some point, your nobleman decides to revolt.

You decide that your loyalties will remain with the king.

The lesser nobleman decides that because your house lies within his jurisdiction, it has now become his house. He kicks you and your family out.

Is it legal? Possibly. Is it just. Hardly.

“Likewise, congregants gave money to build an Episcopal Church. If a bunch of people, or even most of the people, decide to leave the Episcopal Church, they are not *entitled* to take the church with them.”

Again, that a Christian organization would claim ownership over a building it neither built, occupies, pays for, ares for, maintains or invested in in any way–kicking out those who have done all of those things for 130 years or more is morally sickening.

In secular property law, if a landlord tried to pull that kind of thing, he’d be laughed out of court.

“This point was uncontroversial in the Episcopal Church right up until the last few years. Who paid for the building is moot.”

That’s simply not true and I think you know that.

“Sadly, a tragic combination of congregationalist polity and supremacy of individual rights has taken hold in some quarters.”

Sadly, greed, unconscionable malice, and a penchant for pettiness has taken hold in others. Hence the conflict we see today.

“That said, if it were up to me, I’d want to reach amicable and equitable settlements with congregations in cases where the vast majority of congregants seek a new denominational home.”

nice of you.

“The viciousness of behavior from both sides is sinful.”

Agreed.

If I had not known the background, I would have been furious with your Bishop and the Diocese of Quincy for putting you into the situation. However being aware of the secessionist behaviour of your Bishop’s predecessor, and the way in which you and certain other clergy in the Diocese were encouraged to disciple your congregations into schism from your Episcopalian roots, I can understand a little more of the circumstances.

However, all that being said; perhaps you were, in a way, the author of your own misfortune. You had made an oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop in TEC, and you chose to follow the path of his predecessor, who is no longer in TEC. How could you have expected to retain your place in TEC while yet disagreeing with its polity and the vows you made to abide by that? However, I admire your pluck, if not your perspicacity.

Suppose I donate $100,000 to a project at my church to install stained glass windows. A couple of years later, I get angry about something and decide to go to a different church. Am I entitled to take the windows with me? Of course not. I gave the money, as a gift, to the church. If I leave, the church keeps the windows. Who paid for them is a moot point.

Likewise, congregants gave money to build an Episcopal Church. If a bunch of people, or even most of the people, decide to leave the Episcopal Church, they are not *entitled* to take the church with them. This point was uncontroversial in the Episcopal Church right up until the last few years. Who paid for the building is moot.

Sadly, a tragic combination of congregationalist polity and supremacy of individual rights has taken hold in some quarters. Hence the conflict we see today.

That said, if it were up to me, I’d want to reach amicable and equitable settlements with congregations in cases where the vast majority of congregants seek a new denominational home. The viciousness of behavior from both sides is sinful.

Pax,
Scott

Scott unfortunately for your narrative, that is precisely the truth.