March 26, 2017

June 1, 2012

“The Episcopal Church Sued for our Shirt. We Give Them our Coat (Mt 5:40).”

The following is a statement of Redeemer Parish to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh upon the Relinquishment of Its Property:

May 31, 2012

After prayerful consideration, the Vestry of Redeemer Parish has decided that it is not interested in “purchasing” any property from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. We had hoped to quickly reach agreement on the list of items we wanted to take to our new home, but the Episcopal Diocese’s response - particularly its interest in “retaining” memorial gifts and items purchased after we realigned with the Anglican Diocese - make clear to us that this is not possible.

We cannot agree to “purchase” items of property that were lovingly donated by our parish members for the use of our congregation. The Episcopal Diocese sued for our shirt. We hereby give you our coat. Matthew 5:40.

We have completed our departure from St. David’s.

We have taken only our personal property and that which is not ours to give - 9 green striped chairs and spinet piano that the owners loaned to the church.

The Clergy, Vestry and People
The Anglican Parish of Christ the Redeemer in the South Hills
Canonsburg Pennsylvania 15317

[H/T: The Rev. David Wilson, Redeemer Parish.]

The Episcopal Church (USA) is garnering even more helpful publicity these days from its property “victories” (I call them “Dog in the Manger” stories). Check out this article about how the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has no congregations to put in the [three] largest churches which it took over recently—The Falls Church, Truro Chuch, [and Church of the Epiphany, Herndon]. [H/T: Baby Blue.]

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



Henry Burt- “The objective here is not to hurt the Anglican congregation…”

He is so lucky not to be Pinocchio; otherwise, his nose would be the length of the Falls Church steeple.

[1] Posted by sophy0075 on 6-1-2012 at 12:03 PM · [top]

“Episcopal Diocese’s response - particularly its interest in “retaining” memorial gifts and items purchased after we realigned with the Anglican Diocese”

This behavior is so revolting on the part of TEC I’m not quite sure what to say. I assume the matter would normally be resolved by asking the donor of such gifts about their intent, but that the church is not pursuing the matter because they are just tired of the litigation?

[2] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 6-1-2012 at 12:50 PM · [top]

SpongJohn SquarePantheist (#2), the individual donors are free to sue the Episcopal Diocese to claim their gifts back. The Church of the Redeemer itself is bound, alas, by the terms of Judge James’s (confused and nonsensical) order.

[3] Posted by A. S. Haley on 6-1-2012 at 12:54 PM · [top]

Really particularly repulsive and grotesque actions by the Episcopalians in Pittsburgh.


They just keep . . . covering themselves in . . . well . . .

[4] Posted by Sarah on 6-1-2012 at 04:45 PM · [top]

What tragically often goes unnoticed is the local ministry that is lost to the surrounding neighborhood. Even if the TEC organization had the congregation to fill and maintain the buildings, would they continue the local ministry? In central Fresno, we know the answer. The Episcopal church on the North side of town would stay where they are and sell our buildings. They have already taken the cross down from the front of their church, removed the kneelers and are preparing to build a garden with a meditation labyrinth.

[5] Posted by Fr. Dale on 6-1-2012 at 05:11 PM · [top]

I’ll bet Redeemer Parish has an attorney who would be willing to send (pro bono) the usual progressively stern letters to the TEC diocese, on behalf of the Redeemer Parish donors. Then, if nothing happens, the donors can decide whether to file lawsuits against the TEC diocese.

I wouldn’t normally encourage doing anything to feed lawyers or help them make payments on their Bentleys, but this is egregious.

#5 - a garden with a meditation labyrinth? Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh! That’ll bring people to Jesus, for sure.

[6] Posted by Ralph on 6-1-2012 at 05:55 PM · [top]

The people at Redeemer are better Christians than I am.  They will know blessings in eternity.

But wouldn’t want to be the average modern day TEC bishop come Judgment Day.  Hard to believe that TEC leadership ever read the Bible, or Chrysostom, or even skimmed Dante in that Humanities class they took in 1975.  Obviously, they don’t believe any of it, because if they did, they would recognize the great peril that they face in eternity.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end.

[7] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-1-2012 at 09:31 PM · [top]

#6- More to the point will be that large scale gifts to TEC parishes are going to dry up completely.  Very few gifts are given to the Church at large- they are given to local parishes.  But once it becomes obvious that any gift given to a TEC parish “belongs” to the diocese and national church, to be treated as a chattel, accounted not to the glory of God, but as some sale-able asset, just another part of the accumulated wealth of the 815 Real Estate Investment Trust, I can’t see there being many large gifts given.

[8] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-1-2012 at 09:42 PM · [top]

“I’ve had two principles throughout this,” Jefferts Schori said. “One, that the church receive a reasonable approximation of fair market value for assets that are disposed of; and, second, that we not be in the business of setting up competitors that want to either destroy or replace the Episcopal Church.”

It seems to me that the Episcopal Church is doing a pretty good job of destroying itself, thanks in large part to its strange theological innovations and its ruthless policy of suing departing congregations and dioceses. I wonder if any delegates to the upcoming General Convention will be brave enough to point this out.

[9] Posted by the virginian on 6-2-2012 at 09:32 AM · [top]

I hope Fr. Wilson is aware that Diocesan officials are publicly accusing them of stealing stained glass windows from St. David’s…

[10] Posted by Nevin on 6-2-2012 at 11:27 AM · [top]

The Virginian, the converse also seems to be true: that K J Schori and her cronies are doing an excellent job of setting up competitors.  From the second article linked by Alan Haley above:

“Before the Falls Church congregation broke away from TEC, the church had to get permission from the denomination to plant churches, and had planted two. In the five years since the breakaway, it has planted four churches in Virginia and is planning to plant another this year in Washington, D.C.”

Each of these breakaway congregations not only has the freedom to grow as they wish, but also to plant churches where they wish, unrestrained by the need to ask permission from diocese or province (I suppose if they are in ACNA they have to co-ordinate with their dicoese, but church planting seems to be encouraged there).

[11] Posted by MichaelA on 6-3-2012 at 02:31 AM · [top]

tjmcmahon at #8, a very astute observation.  There are likely to be less large gifts made to TEC parishes and missions once the consequences of these judgments become known. 

But of course, smart parishioners can still loan items to the parish, returnable on demand, and have a brief letter or statement recording that fact.

[12] Posted by MichaelA on 6-3-2012 at 02:34 AM · [top]

Further details here.  Describing the actions of TEC Pittsburgh as being “repulsive and grotesque” is being kind…

[13] Posted by Nevin on 6-4-2012 at 09:29 AM · [top]

It should be obvious to everyone reading this blog that the leadership of TEC does not believe that God will condemn them to hell.  How else do you explain their ridiculous and downright mean behavior?

They might be in for a bit of surprize…

[14] Posted by B. Hunter on 6-13-2012 at 02:45 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.