Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. - Isaiah 40:1
Dcn Dale Matson 05-07-09
As I reflected on a portion of the Gospel lesson from Luke (Chapter 6) for the Daily office for Wednesday May 6th, it also occurred to me again that we are in the midst of a serious legal struggle in our Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin against The Episcopal Church (TEC). It is easy to be anxious and fearful about the possible outcome. It is also possible to adopt a self righteous anger too. However, our Gospel lesson is quite a contrast to what would be an expected human response. “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.” This is a portion of Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” which is a kind of parallel to Mathew’s Sermon on the Mount.
There is a property dispute of course but hopefully both sides would say that ultimately, God owns the property not a Parish, Diocese or a Denomination. It also occurred to me that while property provides a place to gather for worship and fellowship, it can also be an occasion to misunderstand and be misdirected as to what is meant when we talk about the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has never been about bricks, stones, mortar, wood and steel.
I believe the Jews of the Old Testament confused God’s presence among them with the Temple in Jerusalem. Much of their pride and identity was centered on the temple rather than God Himself. Seeing the Dome of the Rock sitting on the very ruins of the Temple should be evidence enough that God has left an historical reminder that the Temple and the land of Israel are not as important as the God who gave both to Israel. While it is what they are fighting each other about, who owns the land and the buildings is really not the central issue for the Arabs and Israelis nor should it be the central issue for us either. “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:20, 23).
With each crisis in our personal lives and in the life of our faith community, we are faced with understandable initial human responses of anxiety, fear, anger or self righteousness. I am reminded of the man who put his faith in his possessions. "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” (Luke 12:20) My brothers and sisters, we are the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The property and the buildings belong to God and Him alone. Amen
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Diocese of San Joaquin: It's not a done deal -- Court arguments made
By Mary Ann Mueller
VirtueOnline Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
5/5/2009
FRESNO, CA--- Time is ticking away, hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second until the courtroom showdown starts today (May 5). The attorneys are closeted, double and triple checking their notes, references and arguments. The interested parties are in prayer, barnstorming the gates of heaven and trusting the Lord to make His will manifest and followed. The media is observing with baited breath to see what happens. Everyone is on pins and needles, watching and waiting for the courtroom drama to play itself out.
A hint as to the result of that drama may have been released Monday (May 4) by the California Superior Court - Fresno County -- when a tentative ruling basically struck down all of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin's arguments. Basically, the tentative ruling says that both the defendant (Bishop John-David Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin) and the plaintiff (the TEC Diocese San Joaquin represented by Bishop Jerry Lamb) see eye to eye and agree on the facts of the case. A tentative ruling will not necessarily be chiseled into stone by the judge this afternoon.
The Honorable Adolfo M. Corona signed the tentative ruling on May 4, scheduling a hearing for the next day in his Department 97A courtroom.
So far, the judge in the case has supported all of the arguments presented by TEC and its battery of lawyers. His tentative ruling says that Bishop Lamb is the legitimate church authority for the Diocese of San Joaquin. That determination was tentatively made because the judge believes that TEC is a hierarchical body and therefore, the ecclesial authority comes from the top down with the top being TEC headquarters in New York.
"A hierarchical church is one in which individual churches are organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine, and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church," Judge Corona writes in his tentative ruling. "In a hierarchical church, an individual local congregation that affiliates with the national church body becomes a member of a much larger and more important religious organization, under its government and control, and bound by its orders and judgments."
However there is no agreement to the presumed facts of the case, as the judge seems to see them, so the litigants will argue their separate positions before Judge Corona their separate positions. The attorneys for the defendants, lead by Russell G. Van Rosenboom of Wild, Carter and Tipton, a Fresno law firm, intend on demonstrating that the judge is mistaken in his tentative judgment. Van Rosenboom is also chancellor for the Diocese of San Joaquin.
"It's not a done deal," The Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger told VOL this morning. "Whichever way the judge rules, the other side is going to appeal."
"The 'Tentative Ruling' in the San Joaquin case is nothing more than that, 'tentative'," explained Texas attorney William Fisher who has been keeping an eye on the various TEC lawsuits around the country. "This ruling is on a Motion to Adjudicate, or, as is commonly known a Motion for Summary Judgment. Such a motion is often made by one of the parties in a law suit when they believe there are no contested matters of fact for a jury to decide."
A summery judgment approved by a judge, and in this case Judge Corona, declares that both sides agree to the basic details of the case. If both sides agree, a summery judgment is issued.
"The purpose of a tentative ruling is to let the parties know the way the judge is inclined to analyze the arguments and the evidence that has been offered thus far by each side. In that way, the parties know what points they need to address specifically at the hearing.,." explains attorney A.S. Haley on his blog 'The Anglican Curmudgeon'. "The judge will not issue a final ruling until after he has heard the oral argument by counsel, and he can either affirm or modify his tentative ruling, or revise it completely."
The article continues here.
VirtueOnline Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
5/5/2009
FRESNO, CA--- Time is ticking away, hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second until the courtroom showdown starts today (May 5). The attorneys are closeted, double and triple checking their notes, references and arguments. The interested parties are in prayer, barnstorming the gates of heaven and trusting the Lord to make His will manifest and followed. The media is observing with baited breath to see what happens. Everyone is on pins and needles, watching and waiting for the courtroom drama to play itself out.
A hint as to the result of that drama may have been released Monday (May 4) by the California Superior Court - Fresno County -- when a tentative ruling basically struck down all of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin's arguments. Basically, the tentative ruling says that both the defendant (Bishop John-David Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin) and the plaintiff (the TEC Diocese San Joaquin represented by Bishop Jerry Lamb) see eye to eye and agree on the facts of the case. A tentative ruling will not necessarily be chiseled into stone by the judge this afternoon.
The Honorable Adolfo M. Corona signed the tentative ruling on May 4, scheduling a hearing for the next day in his Department 97A courtroom.
So far, the judge in the case has supported all of the arguments presented by TEC and its battery of lawyers. His tentative ruling says that Bishop Lamb is the legitimate church authority for the Diocese of San Joaquin. That determination was tentatively made because the judge believes that TEC is a hierarchical body and therefore, the ecclesial authority comes from the top down with the top being TEC headquarters in New York.
"A hierarchical church is one in which individual churches are organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine, and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church," Judge Corona writes in his tentative ruling. "In a hierarchical church, an individual local congregation that affiliates with the national church body becomes a member of a much larger and more important religious organization, under its government and control, and bound by its orders and judgments."
However there is no agreement to the presumed facts of the case, as the judge seems to see them, so the litigants will argue their separate positions before Judge Corona their separate positions. The attorneys for the defendants, lead by Russell G. Van Rosenboom of Wild, Carter and Tipton, a Fresno law firm, intend on demonstrating that the judge is mistaken in his tentative judgment. Van Rosenboom is also chancellor for the Diocese of San Joaquin.
"It's not a done deal," The Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger told VOL this morning. "Whichever way the judge rules, the other side is going to appeal."
"The 'Tentative Ruling' in the San Joaquin case is nothing more than that, 'tentative'," explained Texas attorney William Fisher who has been keeping an eye on the various TEC lawsuits around the country. "This ruling is on a Motion to Adjudicate, or, as is commonly known a Motion for Summary Judgment. Such a motion is often made by one of the parties in a law suit when they believe there are no contested matters of fact for a jury to decide."
A summery judgment approved by a judge, and in this case Judge Corona, declares that both sides agree to the basic details of the case. If both sides agree, a summery judgment is issued.
"The purpose of a tentative ruling is to let the parties know the way the judge is inclined to analyze the arguments and the evidence that has been offered thus far by each side. In that way, the parties know what points they need to address specifically at the hearing.,." explains attorney A.S. Haley on his blog 'The Anglican Curmudgeon'. "The judge will not issue a final ruling until after he has heard the oral argument by counsel, and he can either affirm or modify his tentative ruling, or revise it completely."
The article continues here.
St James Church Legal Battle Moving to United States Supreme Court
ST. JAMES CHURCH’S LEGAL BATTLE OVER ITS PROPERTY
MOVING TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO BE FILED IN MAY 2009
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 5, 2009 – St. James Anglican Church, at the centerpiece of a nationally publicized church property dispute with the Episcopal Church, announced today that it will file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to resolve an important issue of religious freedom: Does the United States Constitution, which both prohibits the establishment of religion and protects the free exercise of religion, allow certain religious denominations to disregard the normal rules of property ownership that apply to everyone else?
Under longstanding law, no one can unilaterally impose a trust over someone else’s property without their permission. Yet, in the St. James case before the California Supreme Court, named Episcopal Church Cases, the Court created a special perquisite for certain churches claiming to be “hierarchical,” with a “superior religious body,” which may allow them to unilaterally appropriate for themselves property purchased and maintained by spiritually affiliated but separately incorporated local churches. St. James will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that this preferential treatment for certain kinds of religion violates the U.S. Constitution.
The constitutional issues St. James will raise before the U.S. Supreme Court go far beyond St. James or even the Episcopal Church. Every local church, temple, synagogue, parish, spiritual center, congregation or religious group which owns its property, and has some affiliation with a larger religious group, is possibly at risk of losing its property upon a change of religious affiliation. As a result, religious freedom is suppressed, as those who have sacrificed to build their local religious communities are now at risk of having their properties taken based on some past, current or future spiritual affiliation. A United States Supreme Court decision in favor of St. James would benefit local churches and religious groups throughout the country because it would allow congregations the ability to freely exercise their religion without having to forfeit their property to a larger religious body or denomination with which they are affiliated in the event of a dispute over religious doctrine.
The article continues here.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Camp H2O Celebrates Tenth Anniversary
| 2009 MARKS THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF CAMP H2O! Camp H2O meets July 19-25, 2009 at ECCO in Oakhurst. The cost per camper is $325. Camp H2O is designed for high school students and its main focus is to make disciples for Jesus Christ. It is there for students who want to explore their faith, deepen their faith, or even find it for the first time. This is done through various workshops and teachings. Students are taught and mentored by leaders with years of ministry experience who will cultivate their faith in ways that they may not have thought of or encountered. Through worship and teaching, Camp H2O hopes to bring many young people to follow the living Lord, Jesus Christ. Some young people find it difficult to come up with the camp tuition. If you would like to make a contribution to provide a scholarship for one of these campers, please call Daniel Marker at 559-244-4828 or send you contribution to The Diocese of San Joaquin, 4159 E. Dakota Ave, Fresno CA, 93726 - Attention "Camp H2O" |
National Day of Prayer - May 7th
| Numerous cities are taking advantage of the annual Day of Prayer next Thursday, May 7th. Locally, people are meeting at Fresno City Hall at 7:PM and Clovis City Hall at 12:Noon. The Very Rev Carlos Raines is the M.C. at the Fresno event. WHAT IS YOUR CITY DOING, AND ARE YOU AND YOUR PEOPLE PARTICIPATING? Started in 1775 with the first National Call to Fasting & Prayer by the Continental Congress; 1863 - Pres. Lincoln declared a National Day of Prayer & Fasting; 1988 - Pres. Reagan signs into law the designation of the First Thursday in May as the annual observance for the National Day of Prayer. "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God." - Pres. George Washington, 1789. www.ndptf.org/ for more information |
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Bishops' Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church
The following is an excerpt from "Bishops' Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church" Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009 II The Fundamental Structure of The Episcopal Church Is That of a Voluntary Association of Equal Dioceses Given the constitutional reservation of authority within the diocese to the Bishop and Standing Committee, it is not surprising that the fundamental structure of our Church is that of a voluntary association of equal dioceses. It is significant that the same term, "voluntary association," has been used by both the founding father of The Episcopal Church to describe the organization he was so instrumental in forming and by the civil law to describe religious societies and other unincorporated voluntary organizations in general. Our Church's primary architect was, of course, William White, and his blueprint was The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered, published in 1782 as the Revolutionary War was nearing an end. As a result of American independence, many of the former Church of England parishes had become independent churches while others were still organized as state churches under the control of state legislatures. White's concept, later accepted by others in the former colonies, was that the Anglican churches would first be organized into state churches and then the state churches would organize themselves nationally as a voluntary association of state churches (now called "dioceses"). Pursuant to this plan, White was one of the first two Americans consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1787 to serve in the Episcopal Churches. When The Episcopal Church eventually was duly organized in 1789, Bishop White and Bishop Samuel Seabury, consecrated by the Scottish Episcopal Church, sat as the first House of Bishops at the first General Convention. Just as the thirteen states were the "independent and sovereign" constituents of the American confederation that existed when the church now known as The Episcopal Church was being formed, the state churches were the bodies that combined to constitute what was initially called the Protestant Episcopal Church. It was the dioceses, then co-extensive with the newly-independent states, that created our Church's Constitution and General Convention. The constitutional mechanisms of governance they created preserved their status as equal members of a voluntary association of dioceses. As noted by the official commentary on our Constitution and canons, "Before their adherence to the Constitution united the Churches in the several states into a national body, each was completely independent." It then describes that national body they created as "a federation of equal and independent Churches in the several states." As this brief summary of our founding history shows, the fundamental structure of The Episcopal Church from the outset has been that of a voluntary association of dioceses meeting together in a General Convention as equals. This structure is clearly reflected in our Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution that defines a diocese. The dioceses are the undefined constituent elements out of which The Episcopal Church is formed. In contrast, General Convention is created and defined in Article I, which still provides in language virtually unchanged from the original that "The Church in each diocese which has been admitted to union with the General Convention…shall be entitled to representation…." As this current language makes clear, "Churches" in dioceses are not created by General Convention. They are "admitted" (upon their application and its acceptance) to union with the General Convention. Dioceses are both historically and ontologically prior to the Constitution and the General Convention. And upon admission, it is the diocese, not any other body or group, that is "entitled to representation" at General Convention. This fundamental concept of dioceses as equal constituent members of The Episcopal Church is manifest in the mechanisms of governance created by the Constitution, including the provisions for representation and voting at General Convention, the means by which the Book of Common Prayer and Constitution are amended, and the procedures by which new dioceses are admitted to membership in The Episcopal Church after they are constituted. The full text of the document may be found here - http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=391 |
Will HR-1388 begin the erosion of religious liberties?
| The following is an excerpt from HR 1388, a bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama to institute mandatory volunteerism for students who are receiving government education loans. Note the activities and organizations that students would not be allowed to participate in. SEC. 1310. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS. Subtitle C of title I (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 132 the following: 'SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS. '(a) Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities: '(1) Attempting to influence legislation. '(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes. '(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing. '(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements. '(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to Federal office or the outcome of an election to a State or local public office. '(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials. '(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132. '(8) Consistent with section 132, providing a direct benefit to any-- '(A) business organized for profit; '(B) labor union; '(C) partisan political organization; '(D) nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and '(E) organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless the position is not used to support those religious activities. '(9) Providing abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services. '(10) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive. '(11) Carrying out such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit. The entire text of the bill is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)