A. S. Haley is an attorney who practices real property law and civil litigation, with a subspecialty in church property litigation. He blogs as the “Anglican Curmudgeon,” on the “trials and tribulations of being in the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Communion at the same time . . .”. Mr. Haley is the chancellor for his local Episcopal parish in the Diocese of Northern California, and is co-counsel for Bishop John-David Schofield and other clergy and laity in a number of the cases currently being litigated in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.
SETTING THE EXAMPLE
A little over two years ago, when it seemed that nearly every day brought news of more litigation initiated by the Episcopal Church (USA) and its dioceses against former parishes, I authored a post which presented an alternative to litigation between the departing group and the group wanting to remain in ECUSA. Nothing needed to change as a result of the vote to depart, I argued; all that needed to happen was that the majority (on whichever side) agree to accommodate the needs of the minority to make use of the church facilities (at different times to be worked out, of course), and to share the expenses of the facilities in proportion to their numbers. They could have different clergy, but they could share the same clerical staff, Sunday schools and extracurricular activities, and keep the same fellowship with each other as before.
I called the post “A Legal Fable“, because to my then view of the matter, the opposite sides were anything but inclined to follow St. Paul’s precepts for disputes among Christians, and preferred to duke it out in the courts. And in so doing, they were confirming the truth of an old Spanish proverb from the middle ages:
El judío échase á perder con pascuas, el moro con bodas, y el cristiano con escrituras.
“The Jew ruins himself on passover feasts, the Arab on weddings, and the Christian on lawsuits.”
Little did I know, as I laid out some of the blueprints that a Christian-minded congregation might follow to stay out of the quicksand of litigation, that there was a parish in the Episcopal Church (USA), led by a godly rector, who was prepared to take just such a step. A friend has pointed me to the website of The Episcopal Church of the Blessed Sacrament in Placentia, California — in the Diocese of Los Angeles, but (with apparent permission from its diocesan, Bishop J. Jon Bruno) under the jurisdiction of Bishop Ed Little, of Northern Indiana. (If only you could have helped St Luke’s-of-the-Mountains to work out a similar arrangement, Bishop Bruno !)
As you can see from the “Welcome” page of Blessed Sacrament, it shares both its website and its physical facilities with the Anglican Church of the Resurrection, under Bishop John-David Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin — and which, to be sure, maintains its own website at the link just given. (The separate sites allow each congregation to update their respective calendars without having to involve the other.) I find this to be such a healthy and heartening precedent for Christian cooperation that it is worthy of being more widely noticed and studied by all Episcopalians — those who may be thinking of leaving, as well as those who wish nothing more than to stay.
In fact, it appears as though the congregations of Blessed Sacrament and of the Church of the Resurrection have taken the Christian spirit of cooperation and harmony to a level that I did not even envision as possible: as you can see by comparing their respective service calendars (at the bottom of this page, and at this page), they are identical! Apparently Father David Baumann of Blessed Sacrament and the Rev. Richard Avery, Vicar of the Church of the Resurrection, have worked out arrangements for their congregations to concelebrate mass. (It appears as though Fr. Avery does celebrate one additional mass per month on his own, on the third Monday of each month, but this does not detract in the slightest from what the two congregations and their rectors have agreed to do together.) They also share their ministries together, as well (example at this page).
The history page of Blessed Sacrament’s website provides a little more background of how the current arrangement came about:
The founding priest, Father Ernest Scully, built a healthy congregation in a short time. Under his leadership, the people built the church, offices, and a small parish hall. Father Scully retired in 1969 and died in 1983. His successor, Father Tony Rasch, continued to draw people to the parish. In 1976, the larger parish hall and expanded kitchen were built. Father Rasch resigned early in 1978. During turmoil in the national Episcopal Church at this time, the congregation dwindled to merely 100 people. Father Baumann arrived in October 1978, and in subsequent years, the congregation was restored to full size. . . .
In October 2003, Blessed Sacrament celebrated Father Baumann’s twenty-fifth anniversary as Rector, and at the Annual Meeting of the parish in January 2004, Diocesan Bishop Jon Bruno announced that he was making Father Baumann an honorary canon of the Cathedral as a recognition of exemplary ministry in the diocese. . . .
In December 2009, Blessed Sacrament established an Anglican congregation under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin, and nearly fifty members joined. The Anglican congregation provides a home for any member of Blessed Sacrament or anyone else, apart from the Episcopal Church but still connected with the unique Episcopal/Anglican community in Placentia.
Reading between the lines of the full account, I have no difficulty in concluding that the unifying factor holding these two congregations together, under most trying circumstances in the Episcopal Church (USA), was the leadership of Father David Baumann. Also playing a role, no doubt, was Bishop Bruno’s acquiescence in alternative pastoral oversight by Bishop Little, and the personal friendship between the latter and Bishop Schofield.
But all Christians everywhere should rejoice in what is happening every week in Placentia, and thank all those who make it possible, down to every individual in each congregation. They are truly the inspiration which the rest of us so sorely need in these litigious times!
Related Articles
21 users responded in this post
This might be the first time I rejoice over a co-habitation plan.
What’s next, “Three’s Company?”
pewster: Wonder who would be the church equivalent of Mr. Furley???
Curmudgeon: Fr. Baumann shows the value of once “normal” practices that seem in short supply: a long term Rector with skill and authority born of relationships rather than title; an Anglo-Catholic who puts a high sense of the church ahead of passing controversies; a faithful priest who stands for the Gospel even when it makes life more difficult.
But if everything is the same as it was before, what makes it two separate churches? Our experience (we used to attend here) was that calling it two separate churches didn’t make it so, and when we felt obliged to leave the Episcopal Church, we had to leave Blessed Sacrament too, because it was still Episcopal. Given the, well, *episcopal* structure of the church, if the head priest is under an Episcopal bishop (which Fr. Baumann is), so is the congregation. How can it be two churches when it looks like one, when it acts like one?
Sadly, if it still walks and quacks like a duck, calling it a goose doesn’t make it a goose.
It’s very hard, because all of the intentions behind this were and still are (as far as I can tell) the very best. It’s people trying very hard for unity and love. But, at least for us, being at Blessed Sacrament meant still being Episcopalian, and we weren’t able to stay. I can see how it did work for people who didn’t feel the obligation to leave the Episcopal Church (I don’t think God calls us all to the same actions in this mess).
I still miss them very much and hope it works out, despite my misgivings.
Jessica Snell, the “Welcome” page for Blessed Sacrament explains that the two congregations are jurisdictionally and financially separate:
“The linked congregations are members together in the Anglican Communion but jurisdictionally separate. Blessed Sacrament is in the Episcopal Church under the pastoral care of Bishop Ed Little of Northern Indiana, a noted traditionalist. The Church of the Resurrection is in the Anglican Church in North America under Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin.
Membership and finances are separate, but ministries are shared for the common good.” (Emphasis added.)
Those in the Anglican congregation have all left the Episcopal Church, and they are under the care of their own vicar, who is under Bishop Schofield, not any Episcopal bishop. (So he would perform confirmations, etc. when he visited.) They just like worshiping in the building to which they have become accustomed, and it matters to them not a whit that Fr. Baumann, whom they know well and love, and who is dedicated to keeping orthodoxy, also participates in the concelebration of Communion.
With all due respect, I feel like this is hair-splitting and, honestly, a buffet-style approach to church.
On the one hand, come to Blessed Sacrament where you can be part of ECUSA, a church that has is graudually abandoning creedal Christianity. On the other hand, if you’re not interested in that sort of thing, come to the Anglican Church of the Resurrection, a church that left because it could not in good faith remain under the leadership of ECUSA.
If the reason people are staying part of this is because “they just like worshiping in the building to which they have become accustomed”, what kind of faith is that?
I do not mean to sound judgemental and if I do, forgive me. It just seems that often times when an orthodox community leaves ECUSA for the Anglican Church, it is normally on theological grounds. However, when an undecided community stays in ECUSA, it is typically because they are either in love with the building or scared of legal consequences. Take a stand!
I’m with Jessica and Droopy – this is one church. At this point, remaining in TEC, no matter what you profess, is supporting the leadership of TEC.
This is like a couple living together. They’re joined in every way but name to the casual observer. Sleeping together without the benefit of marriage can lead to consequences – physically, emotionally, and spiritually – that no one can anticipate.
Thank you for the response, Mr. Haley. I do know how it looks on paper (I was even there when the proposition was first floated), however, in practice, it still looks like one church. They have the same masses, the same ministries, the same classes. There is technical separation of money, but I believe that most of the ACNA’s tithes go to BlSac as rent (though this might have changed since I left – I’m going on my understanding of how things were when it was starting – I may be mistaken).
Basically, I think it was leaving without leaving. I have dear friends who disagree with me, so I know that I could be wrong. But I have yet to have seen anything to convince me that there was any substantial change other than one of paperwork.
Also, the fact the Episcopal Diocese of L.A. didn’t have a problem with the plan is . . . troubling, at the least.
Our plan is not “leaving without leaving”; it is “leaving without schism”. We reject the philosophy that someone else’s heresy requires our schism. That philosophy gives away far too much power to the revisionists; they do not have that power and we will not give it to them. It also questions the power of God to redeem, protect, and to preserve his faithful and their witness in all circumstances.
As Mr. Haley noted, we believe the Biblical injunction not to go to law against one another. We also believe the Biblical injunctions to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” and to “love one another.” We worked hard to devise a godly solution that was authentic to Scripture.
Mr. Haley has rightly described our situation as being two separate churches that function together: jurisdictions, finances, membership, and attendance are separate; Christian life and labor are in common, with mutual recognition of authenticity and service, with the gifts and strengths of each congregation offered to the other for mutual upbuilding.
The two congregations even have separate Boards (Bishop’s Committee and Vestry). They usually meet together for common business, but vote separately for matters that require it, and even meet and act separately when needed. Those who are Anglicans and meet at Blessed Sacrament are as separate from the Episcopal Church as anyone who has formed or joined an Anglican congregation elsewhere. Yet their separation from Blessed Sacrament did not violate the fellowship and love and labors of the Episcopal faithful that existed in Placentia before the linked congregations were formed.
We also reject the idea that being in the Episcopal Church automatically places one in the position of being “tainted” by Episcopal apostasies or somehow compromising our principles and convictions. It is just not true. Again, that philosophy gives far more power to the revisionists than they really have. Just as schism is not an acceptable option for us, neither is compromising the truth. Schism itself compromises truth as much as heresy.
I am grateful to Mr. Haley for noticing what we have done, correctly discerning why we did it and how well it is working, and making his insights public. The two churches have been linked since December 2009; this solution has been blessed beyond my best hopes for how it would work out.
Hi, Fr. David!
Just for what it’s worth, I have faith that you and those who stayed are acting in good conscience, just as those of us who left were. Sometimes it seems like a “can eat meat with good conscience” and “can’t” situation, doesn’t it? tho’ I think in reality there’s more too it than that. That’s what makes it hard, I think, because when you believe something enough to act on it – as both of us have – it mean saying “you’re wrong” to people who disagree with you, and that’s hard for anyone to hear – or to say.
At least I think everyone in this situation can say, “you’re wrong – but I love you and wish you well.” We’re all still Christ’s, even if we have to serve Him in different places. God have mercy on our weaknesses. I’m glad He’ll bring it all right in the end.
Anyway, all that said, and back to the topic at hand, the logical problem I have with your argument is that if leaving the Episcopal Church is schism, don’t you have to see the Anglican Church of the Resurrection folks as schismatic? And if so, why are you cooperating with their schism?
It seems to me that it has to be one or the other: either ACNA is schismatic, or it’s being faithful to the larger Anglican communion. I’ve no doubt there are people of good conscience on both sides, but, objectively, I don’t see how leaving can be both schismatic and okay at the same time. Unless “schism”, as you’re using it, just applies to the local church? <-Actually, upon typing that, I'm wondering if that's where the difference of opinion lies. I can see an argument that could be made for that.
I suppose the other place I disagree with you is that I think that – though they can have no effect on the church universal – people *can* ruin individual churches. God's given us free will and we can really mess things up sometimes. Just like people can burn down houses or kill children, they can ruin churches. Not *the* Church, but churches.
I can see having an honest disagreement about whether or not that's happened though, and it's awfully hard to look at the Episcopal Church and try to judge whether it's still okay or not. So very hard. No wonder we end up with so many different opinions.
I hope you and yours are well.
Oh good grief – I posted the above last night and came back this morning and noticed all the typos. I shouldn’t post so late! Sorry about the typos.
Anyway, I wanted to add: I think another place of disagreement might be: what makes two churches separate? I know you all have answered that by “they are under two different bishops and two different rectors”. I suppose I would say, in contrast, that if you’re having mass together and sharing ministries, you’re still the same church. Also, “attendance” being separate? It may be counted separately, but those attending are usually at the same place at the same time. I am also dubious that the money is going to any separate purpose in the end, even if on the books it goes to two different places first – presumably both churches are paying for the maintenance of the same property. (Important to point out: I’m not accusing any kind of false bookkeeping! I’m sure all accounts are kept with the highest level of integrity. Just wondering if the separate bookkeeping ends up making any practical, philosophical difference when all is said and done – and this is an area where I am completely speculating – I’m in ignorance of the books, obviously!)
I hardly ever disagree with Mr. Haley, but on this, I do. Staying in the same building gives credence to the theological errors and behavioral sins of the liberal pan-sex promoters.
It is more Scriptural to dissociate, publically (in writing and in speech) renounce and repudiate (give the Biblical reasons) these false doctrines and practices publically – not to mention getting the children out of the same spiritual/emotional/relational atmosphere as the wrong-doers.
To stay in the same building minimizes these critical problems. It’s like a man and wife who are divorced or estranged still living together despite the fact that he is still fooling around with another woman. It confuses issues and the children when one side says it does, uses the same language, hymn-books and the same style vestments, but really does NOT represent or respect (but instead hedges, pollutes, doubts, counterfeits) God’s holy Truth, God’s holy Love or God’s Life-giving Gospel and Word.
Schism has occurred and schism must be honored, defined and publically recognized.
Oops – This sentence needs help and dividing for clarity:
It confuses issues and the children when *one side says one thing and does another.*
Likewise, when both groups use the same language, same hymn-books and Bibles, the same style vestments, but really does NOT represent or respect (but instead hedges, pollutes, doubts, counterfeits) God’s holy Truth, God’s holy Love or God’s Life-giving Gospel and Word – it is extremely confusion.”
Schism has occurred and schism must be honored, defined and publically recognized.
Sorry – more revision (more coffee) needed –
Likewise, when both groups use the same language, same hymn-books and Bibles, the same style vestments, but *one side* really does NOT represent or respect (but instead hedges, pollutes, doubts, counterfeits) God’s holy Truth, God’s holy Love or God’s Life-giving Gospel and Word – it is extremely confusing.”
I’m one of the Episcopalians that stayed as an Episcopalian at Blessed Sacrament. I don’t see that that makes me a “liberal pan-sex promoter”.
Actually, I’ve been watching all this unfold for 35 years now. Back in the ’70′s when the Philadelphia 11 were “ordained”, I considered leaving the Episcopal Church. I’ve considered doing so a number of times since. And I always shipwreck on the question, “Where would I go?” Every church, no matter how doctrinally pure, is subject to the same forces as the one I’m in. As long as we live in a broken and sinful world, and as long as churches are made up of broken and sinful people (redeemed, yes, but broken sinners nonetheless), you’re not going to find the “true church” on this planet.
I’ve been called to stay. I don’t know why, and frankly it would have been a lot easier to leave than to go through those two years in the Discernment Group. But this is the post I’ve been called to man.
@Fr. Baumann – I don’t get it. You’ve formed two separate churches that meet and act separately as needed and yet, this is not schism. Part of the congregation has split from TEC and yet this is not schism. I don’t nessarily agree with it but I understand the statement – We reject the philosophy that someone else’s heresy requires our schism. However, I don’t believe it holds any weight in your argument because you’ve split away from somebody somewhere but you refuse to acknowledge the schism.
@nannerdoman – You are correct. You won’t find the true church on this planet but you can find a church that understands that Jesus is who he said he was and who believe that the Bible is authoritative and the Word of God. They believe that Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness.
Shicsm, no schism, together, apart. To be frank, the symantics in all of this is just exhausting.
Look, no one is calling anyone a “pan-sex promoter” for being part of the Episcopal Church. You’re just part of a church that is full of them.
Likewise, we wouldn’t want to offend anyone in the Anglican church for calling them a creedal Christian that believes in the Bible and Jesus. You’re just part of a church that is full of them.
I’m sure there are people in TEC that are truly faithful Christians, have grown up in TEC, and have a hard time leaving because it’s what they know. My heart really does break for them (as I am that person). But at some point you have to draw a line in the dirt (didn’t Jesus do that at one point?) and decide whether comfort is more important than conviction. The answer to the question “Where would I go?” should be simple: “Somewhere else.”
Having slept on this several days, I have to stand with my convictions that separation is the Biblical way – see Acts, Epistles and Revelation.
Shared domiciles is enabling, validating the false gospel and can cause infection, compromise confusion, pollution of the true Gospel.
Do you want your children in the same building with posters advertising ‘gay pride’ parades, etc.?
Or THEIR pro-gay, syncretistic, liberalism books in the church library?
@Sibyl–You must be talking about some other parish. I assure you, you’ll find no gay pride posters on the walls and no pro-gay, syndretistic, liberalism books at Blessed Sacrament. You might want to look before you leap.
Nanner, I had the same reaction to Sibyl’s comment: is she talking about OUR church? I have to laugh!
Yes, I say “our” in a unique fashion – Nanner is in TEC and I am in ACNA, and we both sing in the same choir on Sunday morning. Like the article points out, we’re under separate ecclesiastical jurisdictions but we labor together.
Thank you, Mr. Haley, for recognizing what we’re doing. It has been a long hard road getting here, with sorrows along the way, but as Fr. David said, it has ended as a blessing.
Just looking down the road a bit and thinking more pragmatically than theologically…
If Mr. Haley’s point about “the unifying factor holding these two congregations together” is Fr. David is accurate, what happens when/if (presuming his mortality) Fr. David’s tenure comes to an end?
I imagine that will be one very interesting rector search.