Skip to main content.
« Previous entry: The conservative evangelical ‘covenant’ | Main page | Next entry: Schism »

December 19th, 2006

How a chain of evangelistic carpet shops could help the Episcopal church

should we stay or should we go

This week’s other Anglican story has been the decision of two churches in Virginia to leave the Episcopal church and become part of the church in Nigeria. It is all a bit complicated, but here are some links to explain it: Ekklesia / Ruth / Simon (Note the first name terms there).

I have some things to say about this. First of all, I am dubious about the idea of letting the congregations vote to decide upon things. Imagine where this would lead if taken to its furthest conclusion. Sermons would be one of the first things to go, followed by the liturgy and most of the songs. No, this is not the way we do within the Anglican church. The Anglican way is to elect a PCC and have them make the decisions under the watchful eye of the Vicar. Until someone is committed enough to the life of the church that they are willing to sit through a lot of extensive and boring Tuesday evening meetings thay should not be allowed to make any decisions.

The other question which comes to mind is what will happen to the church property. The two congregations of the Truro church and the Falls church have voted to ‘take their property with them’, but I imagine the Diocese will not allow this. The prospect of a lengthy legal battle is not that appealing, so my proposal is that neither side has the church buildings but that instead each is turned into a carpet shop.

I can see many readers frowning and reaching for their ‘unsubscribe’ buttons, so I will elaborate on my proposals. They could be evangelistic carpet shops if you like. It would be be best if they had a coffee area at the side. People of all theological persuasions (and none) would be able to meet together and have a chat in the coffee area. This might help them to get to know each other and then they would recognise that they are all human beings just trying to do the right thing and that there is room for them all within the church.

There would be no pressure to buy a carpet.

Subscribe to this idea and in fact to this blog in general | What a load of utter nonsense

Updates to other Anglican stories:

19 Comments »



This is a single Cartoon Blog entry, posted by Dave on Tuesday, December 19th, 2006 at 12:13 pm.

If you enjoyed this post you might also enjoy these (possibly) related articles:

Know someone else who might enjoy this post? Click here to send this to a friend. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

The technologically advanced may like to trackback from another site, follow responses to this post via the RSS 2.0 feed, or bookmark this post on del.icio.us or digg.

19 Responses to “How a chain of evangelistic carpet shops could help the Episcopal church”


  1. joe says:

    That’s right, Dave. We don’t want people in the pews thinking for themselves. Oh no. Perish the thought.

    Anyway, as Tony Blair made clear the other day true democracy means that you give people an opportunity to have a free and fair election. Then you totally ignore it and demand another.

    December 19th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
  2. jody says:

    I had wondered about the ‘alien’ ‘human’ ‘netbot’ boxes on the Fulcrum response page! I was soooo tempted to check ‘alien’, but was unsure as to whether it was proper ‘cyberspeak’ for something else, that I wasn’t……so had to plump for the much more sedate ‘human’ instead.

    December 19th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
  3. Michelle says:

    I’m sorry, but I really must protest at this post………………………….PCC is on a Monday night.

    December 19th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
  4. John Bennett says:

    Amen to this.

    December 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
  5. John Bennett says:

    No, I meant to this:

    Until someone is committed enough to the life of the church that they are willing to sit through a lot of extensive and boring Tuesday evening meetings thay should not be allowed to make any decisions.

    (sorry, I haven’t got the hang of the tags)

    December 19th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
  6. Mary says:

    We have Tuesday evening PCC meetings too, but I would not be willing to trust the attendees to make a decision, given what goes on at these meetings ;)

    December 19th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
  7. Lyndon says:

    Indeed!

    The sad irony to all of this is how the “democratic process” of “the most votes win” is exactly what the schismatic congregations in Virginia (and elsewhere) find so appalling in how the Episcopal Church ended up with Gene Robinson. I am concerned when a majority vote automatically stipulates God’s will. Also, the appeals to authenticity (in belief or identity) and the challenge to authority (i.e. only liking authority that we agree with) place both sides of the current debate in one of those odd bed-fellows scenarios. You gotta love the church!

    December 19th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
  8. ash says:

    My PCCs were always on Mondays too. I think PCCs keep a watchful eye on the vicar, in most cases. Strikes me as an ideal system:
    vicar is theologically trained, compassionate and good at listening and knowing things like church law
    PCCs are good at checking against books to make sure he/she is correct and that he/she isn’t going on a mad crazy power trip.

    December 19th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
  9. Crescens says:

    The cartoon is right on – but not just because it represents “democracy”, but it points out that the problems the church is having are ALL clergy-based! Any congregation that likes and appreciates its vicar/rector will 90% of the time follow the lead of the that clergy person. Sadly, they will seldom have serious exposure to any other opinions or attitudes, and after a bit of time hearing only one party line from the pulpit, they will nod when asked to nod. The real culprit is the relative ignorance of the people concerning the wider issues and implications. “We know it is right because Father says so!”

    December 19th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
  10. DGus says:

    I think you really have to decide WHICH criticism you’re going to make, and then stick with it. You can say (like the cartoon):

    + The vicar is really a dictator, and these sheep in the pews are just blindly following his bidding–and that’s bad.

    OR you can say (like the comment):

    + Democracy has no place in church decisions, and the duly appointed leaders SHOULD be th eones to make the decisions.

    But you can’t make BOTH those criticisms simultaneously. Can you?

    In any event, if you are inclined to blame these churches for deciding to hold a congregational vote, you might want to know (a) that the Diocese published and “supported” a Protocol that called on them to take a congregational vote (and looked for a 70% supermajority, which was obvioualy satisfied), and (b) that Virginia Code sec. 57-9(b) provideds that “a majority of the members of such congregation … may decide the right, title, and control of all property.”

    December 19th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
  11. Paul (A.) says:

    DGus is misinformed or lies about Virginia law: Section 57-9(b) does not apply by its terms to Episcopal parishes: “If a division has heretofore occurred or shall hereafter occur in a congregation whose property is held by trustees which, in its organization and government, is a church or society entirely independent of any other church or general society, a majority of the members of such congregation, entitled to vote by its constitution as existing at the time of the division, or where it has no written constitution, entitled to vote by its ordinary practice or custom, may decide the right, title, and control of all property held in trust for such congregation. Their decision shall be reported to such court, and if approved by it, shall be so entered as aforesaid, and shall be final as to such right of property so held.” Episcopal parishes are not “entirely independent of any other church or general society” but are bound under the diocesan constitution to the diocese and to the constitution and canons of the diocese.

    Diocese of Virginia canon 15(1) fairly explicitly states: “All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Church or Mission within this Diocese is held in trust for The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia.”

    December 19th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
  12. Tired&Emotional says:

    Personally I think its time we had an inquisition. Let’s root out all these backsliding backsliders and get back to our true Christian roots.

    I’m not sure what these are but it sounds good….

    December 19th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
  13. George says:

    The Falls Church already bought the building housing the Roman Catholic uniform shop, the Halal Market, the Chinese restaurant, the Persian Bakery, and the Kurdish Refugee Restaurant. Then expelled them all.

    December 20th, 2006 at 12:29 am
  14. DGus says:

    Paul is right (in #11)–sort of. I cited the wrong subsection of 57-9. The correct subsection is (A), which reads: “If a division … shall hereafter occur in a church or religious society, to which any such congregation whose property is held by trustees is attached, the members of such congregation over 18 years of age may, by a vote of a majority of the whole number, determine to which branch of the church or society such congregation shall thereafter belong. Such determination … shall be conclusive as to the title to and control of any property held in trust for such congregation, and be respected and enforced accordingly in all of the courts of the Commonwealth.” I.e., same deal in a hierarchical church.

    Quite apart from the “division” statute, the Falls Chuch holds title to all its property. The Episcopal canons do indeed claim diocesan and denominational control of congregational property (i.e., ECUSA declared itself the owner of others’ property), but that’s not the same as when an owner declares a trust and gives, to another person, a beneficial interest in something he owns. Virginia law doesn’t care for such pseudo-trusts, and Virginia is unlikely to enforce religious rules of spiritual property principles against good old-fashioned you-can-look-it-up property law, pursuant to which you tell who owns the property by seeing whose name is on the deed.

    December 20th, 2006 at 2:51 am
  15. Chris Clark says:

    I fear the real problem is that people vote with their feet if they don’t like what is going on. This may just be a few individuals or in certain cases whole Anglican congregations. This has happened in the past and may well happen in the future. It seems almost to be a repeat of the house church movement of the 70s and 80s.

    I believe in the Episcopal system as the least worse on offer. It is far from perfect but I am convinced the splintering effect of individualism is far worse. In my view it is impossible to discern a system of governance purely from the NT and the early and painful birth pangs of the church should not be infinitely repeated. However we appear to be determined to do so :-(

    December 20th, 2006 at 8:26 am
  16. Michelle says:

    This reminds me of a scene from Victoria Woods’ ‘Dinnerladies’ where they’re talking about the old church building at the end of the road that became a carpet shop. But it was about to close to be taken over by fundamentalist Christians! The classic quote being something along the lines of*, “It’s all very well them singing** and making friends with Jesus, but we’ll have to go miles to get a carpet now!”
    *as close as I can (obsessively) remember it!
    **or is it praying…?

    December 20th, 2006 at 8:38 am
  17. ellen says:

    our pcc’s are always on Thursdays…perhaps we should decide which night is best for the most number of people before we decide what is on the agenda? Just a thought.

    December 20th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
  18. Tiffer says:

    I repent of my Tom Butler post.

    (But only cause I think he’s a dude)

    December 20th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
  19. Unordered says:

    Perhaps St Stephens Orthodox Trust could buy the church buildings;-)

    December 20th, 2006 at 10:43 pm