tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post8422816053586359199..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: The Amazing Hubris of the Three AmigosMark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-2539608307887049912007-03-13T16:14:00.000-04:002007-03-13T16:14:00.000-04:00In regards to the call to end litigation, I will p...In regards to the call to end litigation, I will point out that the realignment faction is ignoring the like call to not block the faithful Episcopalians from access. Indeed, the entire reason Bishop Lee terminated negotiations and filed suit was that the breakaway congregations were not allowing the faithful remnant Episcopalians access to the property.Jim Trigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826685708625250305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-80534223676098169302007-03-01T09:58:00.000-05:002007-03-01T09:58:00.000-05:00Mark+ asked, "As to the Moderator being unbettered...Mark+ asked, <I>"As to the Moderator being unbettered in "humility and gentleness" ... what is there to say?"</I><BR/><BR/>Nothing. <BR/><BR/>Mostly because it's so hard to speak when one is choking on one's morning coffee in astonishment at "Humility" and "+Duncan" appearing in the same sentence ;->Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10124314924693077453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-57995741765800075222007-02-28T11:48:00.000-05:002007-02-28T11:48:00.000-05:00Mark wrote: "so one cannot sue a corporation witho...Mark wrote: "so one cannot sue a corporation without naming its officers." This is patently untrue. Every time someone sues General Motors, do they also sue its officers and directors? Of course not. Joining the vestry members serves two purposes -- one possibly legitimate and the other, clearly not. The legitimate reason would be to prevent them, in their representative capacities, from taking action to change the facts on the ground (like conveying title to a new entity). I am not a Virginia lawyer and cannot speak to whether that is necessary here although I doubt it is. Generally, the pendency of the suit and filing a notice that there is litigation pending that relates to ownership of the property is sufficient to prevent a change in the facts on the ground. The illegitimate reason is to try to intimidate individuals and promote division. Make it cost them time and money and hopefully you make them back off and/or you make others in the same circumstance think twice about doing the same. To my mind, this is not how my church should act.<BR/>DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-62632887297049958662007-02-27T19:28:00.000-05:002007-02-27T19:28:00.000-05:00James+,The end of the litigation is tied to the en...James+,<BR/><BR/>The end of the litigation is tied to the end of attempts to alienate property.Frair Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03855036304956508405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-30523933676990049922007-02-27T19:20:00.000-05:002007-02-27T19:20:00.000-05:00Mark, you said: "This is not about members of the ...Mark, you said: "This is not about members of the body of Christ suing one another, but about incorporated entities suing one another."<BR/><BR/>This is just too disingenuous by half. I wonder if external non Christian observers would make such a distinction and therefore refrain from critizing what they might reasonably conclude is "Christian" behaviour or behaviour by "Christians"?. In other words, I still fear that such legal action by so called "Christian" entities such as local parishes, dioceses and even the national organisation damages our witness to the world of Christ's love, forgiveness, mercy, tolerance and inclusiveness, especially when the legal action is being initiated by the more powerful entities against the lesser ones, and in some cases specifically names the vestry members, who are not legal entities but Christian persons in their own right. This appears very much to be bullying of the highest order, and is certainly forbidden by Scripture.<BR/><BR/>If we continue to draw out the implications of your logic, then what is to prevent the local parish, diocese or the denomination as a whole from behaving as an Exxon, Microsoft or a News Corporation? Oh, I forgot - ECUSA has already done so in trying to go global with its newly styled PB/CEO - "PB of the TEC in the USA and 15 other countries" in her own words - what is that if not an attempt at corporate global imperialism that other American corporations are so adept at?<BR/><BR/>Brian FAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-80439499403816936912007-02-27T10:41:00.000-05:002007-02-27T10:41:00.000-05:00Scott... thank you for your comment. I absolutely ...Scott... thank you for your comment. I absolutely agree that we are not absolved of our responsibilities to others, and in particular fellow Christians, simply because we are parts of larger corporate entities. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that we have, on a secular legal level, assigned to the disembodied "person" of the corporation the real persons of the officers, so one cannot sue a corporation without naming its officers. That means in a very large number of suits Christians are every day required to sue other persons also Christian in order to precisely insure the welfare of others. <BR/><BR/>You are also right to note that the 'itch' continues that we are in a moral quandary in that no matter the legal situation it still seems we ought to find a way to turn the other cheek.<BR/><BR/>You are right ... no shirking. And, unfortunately no shrinking back. The Diocese of Virginia believes the people who left the congregations had every right to follow their consciences. At the same time the Diocese believes the properties are held in trust for the Episcopal Church and in some cases for those who continue in the Episcopal Church who remain.<BR/><BR/>Unfolding all this is quite complex and I thank you for your observations on what I wrote.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-8097611730092973782007-02-27T08:54:00.000-05:002007-02-27T08:54:00.000-05:00It appears, that the litigation is not going to en...It appears, that the litigation is not going to end, as suggested or perhaps demanded by the Primates. This is perhaps an indication of the direction that will also be taken with their other recommendations and or demands. I would suggest, that an amicable split begin to be negotiated between ACN, AMIA, and what ever other conservative groups there are out there. I think TEC should stick to its guns and do what it believes, and stop trying to shove its beliefs down the throats of the conservatives, and visa versa. A new name could be dreamed up for the "conservative branch" of TEC, and all of the church could get on with the great commission and all of this squabbling and bickering could come to a blessed END. Neither side is going to change, nor should they, they are where they are and believe what they believe, and I think that should be celebrated by both parties, and move on. The Church Pension Fund could still run the same way as it does, but with two factions. There would have to be some realignments of Diocesan boundries etc, but all that could be worked out, and a new PB could be elected for the conservative element. If TEC does not want to be part of the Anglican Communion, that is their decision. Let it go, and lets move on from SEX to spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-43105583231082811662007-02-27T07:20:00.000-05:002007-02-27T07:20:00.000-05:00"This is not about members of the body of Christ s..."This is not about members of the body of Christ suing one another, but about incorporated entities suing one another."<BR/><BR/>Much as I'm sympathetic and don't know what the right answer is, I think this is a cop-out. We are not absolved of our responsibility for the welfare of others (e.g., harsh labour conditions, exploitation, justice issues)--we are not absolved of that moral responsibility simply because we set up "incorporated entities" (corporations) to act on our behalf.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, when we set up incorporated entities for our churches, they continue to act on our behalf, and the fact that they are separate "persons" from the individuals involved may be legal fact, but I don't think it says anything to the morals and ethics of a situation.<BR/><BR/>I think the call to "turn the other cheek" is there. I don't know if I could do it if it was my parish or my diocese, but I think we need to struggle with it and not rely on legal fictions to shirk our responsibilities as Christians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-90923530479873354182007-02-26T22:45:00.000-05:002007-02-26T22:45:00.000-05:00Anonymous... no more comments on this post. The ne...Anonymous... no more comments on this post. The new house rule is one time anonymous per post.<BR/><BR/>About the content of your comment. I continue to believe that because what we are dealing with is a matter of civil law and the problem of possession in fact, there is no alternative but to contest continued use of property by groups who have left the Episcopal Church.<BR/><BR/>As to the Moderator being unbettered in "humility and gentleness" ... what is there to say?Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-28633731075934127852007-02-26T21:43:00.000-05:002007-02-26T21:43:00.000-05:00Okay, Mark, I thought you were thoughtful and fair...Okay, Mark, I thought you were thoughtful and fair, if somewhat heavily invested in your positions. But, yikes, to try to say that Christians are not suing Christians at the present, or to ignore the scandal of it in light of biblical norms (or exhortations) because we're talking about institutions . . .oh my. In Corinth, would you have said, as a litigant, to St Paul something like 'I am not suing my brother in Christ as a Christian. I am acting as a property owner--and standing up for the rights of future property holders . . .it's institutional, you know, not incarnational . . .in this instance, anyhow.'<BR/><BR/>I will leave the rest of the piece alone. I would like to say that even if one disagrees with Duncan it is almost impossible to see how anyone has bettered him in humility and gentleness, anyone on the front lines that is.<BR/>But I will leave that and everything else for now. I've decided that it's all just too far gone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com