Perhaps if the Primates had put a date on this request, it too would have been viewed popularly as an ultimatum to which the bishops felt compelled to respond immediately.  Of course, this urging of the Primates’ communique is directed not just at the leadership of the Episcopal Church, but also to representatives of the congregations seeking to “alienate property” from the Episcopal Church.  (And, of couse, unlike some of the other requests in the communique, this piece is not directed at the HoB, but at “representatives of the Episcopal Church,” a phrase that should properly be seen as including the diocesan bishops currently engaged in legal actions).  It seems to me that both groups of people—bishops involved in lawsuits or congregations involved in lawsuits—should feel free to respond to this request in due course, either singularly or in groups.  And, of course, should anyone—parishes included—wish to show profound deference to the request of the Primates, unilateral disarmament is always an option.  One that requires holiness and sacrifice, but a courageous and clear one.

My view on the underlying is clear and likely not that different than the view of most Primates: when the large majority of a congregation leaves the Episcopal Church, the diocesan bishop should excercise as much flexibility as possible in negotiating a settlement that would allow property to be transfered at a fair cost.  Bishop Steenson’s negotiations around the pro-Cathedral last week were such an example of this.  In my view, there are certain exceptions to this principle (a very historic property, a property where a sizeable group of the congregation does not desire to leave TEC etc.), so generosity and flexibility should be the operating principles of both sides.  Bishops ought to be as generous as possible, and congregations need realize that they have no unalienable right to squat forever and without cost in a property whose deed is owned by a diocese of a religious body to which the congregation no longer belongs.  If they wish to keep the property, they need to be willing to use their treasure for that purpose.

All of that said, this entire issue could best be avoided if congregations in the United States were to heed the advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury and be much slower to seek solutions outside the corporate life of the Episcopal Church.  The movement of the House of Bishops this week—a process publicly recognized as very constructive and significant by some of the Church’s most conservative bishops (including some in the Network)—should be a sign to all except those who are absolutely hell-bent on schism that movement and mutual conversion is still possible in the Episcopal Church.  I thought it very significant that this—and only this—was the advice that Archbishop Rowan gave dissenting parishes when invited to do so by a reporter in New Orleans last week.  He seems to understand well what Jesus meant when he said that one member of the body cannot say to another, “I have no need of you.”

Um, SanderD #1, it was St. Paul, not Jesus. It doesn’t matter for those of us who think the Church is bound by ALL of Scripture, but it might seem important to those who try to play Jesus and Paul off against each other.

SanderD, with respect all you need do is look at the Reformation.  Protestants did in fact say to Rome: “We have no need of you.” What will happen now will happen.

I think they were right to ignore the Primates on this issue.  Don’t they have more important things to be concerned about in the Global South than lawsuits happening in the U.S.?  Also, what familiarity have they with American property law and the canons of the Episcopal Church (regarding the latter, obviously none—no understanding of the Episcopal Church’s structure at all given how often they want our Bishops to do things without any regard for laity, deacons and priests.)  The Primates “should” be pleased that the meeting happened at all - it was their complaints that caused it.

Mark, thanks for acknowledging that they did ignore the Primates on this issue.  Brother Michael, Protestants like Luther did NOT say that to Rome.  They were faithful under great duress and in some cases got pushed out.

“I have no need of you.”

This is precisely what the HoB has said to the rest of the AC.

Well yes, of course, #2, but surely you can forgive quick typing early in the morning.  I, for one, see Scripture as a body not intended to have its component parts “played off” against one another, so the essential point to me is that Paul’s observation about being living limbs and members of the Body of Christ is that it is part of the essential theological identity of the Church.

Once again, though, in response to Kendall’s point, the Primates did not ask for a response from the House on this question.  They asked BOTH representatives of the Episcopal Church AND parishes to radically alter the way they are doing business on this point.  I offered my view of how this might look in my first post.  Rowan Williams has offered another.  Bishops like Jeffrey Steenson and Ed Salmon have shown how it can look in practice. 

Written responses are important, particularly in the gotcha games we love to play, but actions are far more so.  Dissenting parishes and their bishops both bear an equal onus here.

Kendall, maybe so in Luther’s case.  But not in the case of others.  Many were quite happy to distance themselves from Roman heresy as they saw it.

From Whispers in the Loggia:

Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit informed his priests last week that the archdiocese will spin-off its parishes as individual non-profit entities in civil law, ending its “corporation sole” status. “According to church law and theology each parish and diocese has its own unique set of rights and responsibilities,” Maida said in his letter to the clergy. “Creating non-profit parish corporations is the simplest and most effective way of ensuring that the rights of parishes regarding church property are respected not only in church law, but also in civil law.” While an attached Q&A;form from the Motor City chancery said that “parish incorporation allows for direct involvement of the laity and a proper ordering of the rights and responsibilities of parishes and the diocese,” it also noted that the Holy See has been prodding the dioceses of the United States to move away from corporation sole status since 1911.

And I would like to note—in case any sympathetic Primates are reading —that this is precisely why the CT6 agreed to drop the appeal of their federal suit against Smith et al.  The Primates asked, and—at some personal emotional cost—we complied.  We laid down our understanding of “justice” for the sake of the Church—did you note that, TEC?

My take is that the HOB responded to this particular Primate request at a higher level: the HOB told foreign primates to get out and stay out.  Given that the section heading was “Incursions by Uninvited Bishops”, I interpreted that as “we’re not discussing any details of the US church with foreign bishops”, no?

#5.  Dr. Harmon,  Did Rome ever get back the building Martin Luther preached in?  I know they did not recover Calvin’s church in Geneva.
—Stan
P.S.  I am still hopeful that TEC will not win their suit and recover the VA churches.  They are needed for Christian work.

I’d give the Primates some time to analyze the HOB’s statement carefully for any hints of compliance, then to make some sort of statement about whether it’s acceptable—even partially.  If and when they say it isn’t, then there is no imperative for them to stop the so-called “incursions.”  As a member of a Ugandan parish whose property is being sued for, I can say that we’ve gone too far in the last three years to backtrack.  My level of trust in the HOB, 815, and with a certain former bishop (who just got caught in a huge lie) is so low that even if we were to tell our wonderful new bishops to stay away, I doubt whether the lawsuit would be dropped even then. Speaking for myself, I’ll never go back to TEC, even though I was a member for all of my life. The mourning period is past and we have had great joy being lead by Godly bishops whose only agenda is preaching the Gospel.

Since the new thang gospel of ECUSA/TEC is really law - righteous by actions- why would ECUSA/TEC distance itself from legal suits.  IT is, after all, about human justice and only human justice.  There would be no compelling reason in the mindset of the HOB to act with gospel grace, in fact, they think and say they are.  And they have only begun to employ their law.