How Safe is Your Investment?

The Property Rights and Responsibilities of an Episcopal Parish

By

The Reverend Theron R Walker

            Since 2003, St. Philip-in-the-Field has been wrestling with a difficult question: “Why build a building that the diocese might take from us?”  The question itself is a great example of the principle that the form of the question determines the answer.  So, rather than answering the question straight on, I’ll back up to describe the canonical, legal, relationship of parishes to the diocese. 

Parishes as a sub-set of the Diocese

Historically speaking, a parish is a geographical sub-jurisdiction of a larger geographical entity, a diocese.  We could think of it as a state within the nation.  Many arguments are built these days on which came first, the parish or diocese.  There may be exceptions here and there to the rule, the first thing one must grasp to begin this discussion at all is: a parish is a sub-set of a diocese. 

            According to Canon 13 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, a parish becomes a “parish” when accepted as such by a diocese.  The congregation may have owned its own property, may have been self-supporting, and self-governing, but when it became an Episcopal church, the diocese became sovereign.  So, while St. Philip’s began in the late 1860’s as a community church having some sort of relationship with the Methodist Church, in 1886 when the community church became an Episcopal church, it essentially signed over sovereignty from the local congregation to the Episcopal diocese.  The congregation became a vassal of the diocese. 

            This principle is written into the By-Laws of St. Philip’s:

Article II: Authority

"The National Church and the Diocese.  This Parish accedes to the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of American and promises conformity with the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Canons of the Diocese of Colorado, recognizes the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Bishop of Colorado and accepts the jurisdiction of the Annual Convention of the Diocese of Colorado."

Summary: A parish and the diocese are not separate, sovereign, or equal entities.  Parishes are, by definition, or at least by the canons our parish acceded to, a subset of a diocese, a vassal of the sovereign.

Rights and Responsibilities of Parishes

While the diocese is sovereign, parishes have numerous rights and responsibilities regarding their governance.  The Parish By-Laws are reflective of National and Diocesan Canon:

Article II: Authority/Local Affairs

"This Parish shall have control of its own local affairs, but shall not incur an indebtedness, which may alienate or encumber Church property without the prior written consent of the Diocesan Executive Council…"

Parishes are essentially self-governing and self-supporting within the parameters of National and Diocesan Canons.  Typically, the bishop and diocese get directly involved in a parish when a breakdown occurs in either governance or support.  The vestry or rector may call for diocesan intervention in serious conflict between the two.  Parishes report to the diocese on everything from finances to attendance, but the diocese only steps in when a parish cannot pay its bills.

The difference between a mission congregation and a parish congregation helps illustrate the point.  A mission is a congregation of the diocese that is not fully self-governing or self-supporting.  Typically, there are two key factors in a mission becoming a parish: Population (does the mission have enough people to govern and support itself?).  Income (does the mission have enough income to pay its bills?)  A parish is governed by the vestry, rector included, and holds title to its property.  A mission is governed by a Bishop's Committee, with the bishop's designee, that is, the vicar, and the diocese holds title to the property.

            Parishes own their property.  They hold title with the Secretary of State of Colorado.  But, they cannot sell the property (alienate) or put it into debt (encumber) without diocesan approval.  So, they own the property within the sovereignty of the diocese.  The diocese cannot seize and/or sell a parish because it does not hold the title to parish property, but the diocese has a controlling interest in the parish.

            During our building project, one of our major expenses has been to sort out all our land “issues.”  Some parts of the property were owned by St. Philip’s and some parts were owned by the diocese.  Then, there was how to divide the acreage from Rath Falk and Colorado Open Lands.  Getting all the pieces right, with the right owners, was a major undertaking involving surveyors, lawyers, negotiations with the cemetery, meetings with the diocese, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.  The land, instead of being a done deal, was a big, time consuming, expensive deal.  The last steps are still being completed.  Today, St. Philip’s holds title to all its land—clearly under the authority of the diocese (its in the deeds, just like its in our By-Laws).

            Let’s go back to the mission verses parish comparison.  Missions of the diocese are different than parishes in some important ways.  St. Philip’s was, for almost a century, a mission of the diocese.  Missions have rights within the sovereign rule of the diocese, but not as many as parishes.  A mission may elect its Bishop’s committee, but the chairman of the board is the bishop.  A mission may call a vicar, but the bishop is the rector, and the vicar serves at his pleasure.  A mission may operate on quite a piece of land in wonderful facilities, but the diocese holds the title.  Can the diocese lock the doors and sell the property of a mission without the permission of the congregation?  Yes it can. 

St. Philip’s once owned a rectory in the town of Sedalia.  Its rumored that in the 1920's or 1930's the diocese sold the rectory without our permission.  Unfortunately, I do not know all the details.  I do know that while a mission, St. Philip’s purchased and sold other pieces of property including a large tract of land, a “glebe,” on the north side of Pine Cliff Avenue.  (A glebe is an old English term for a tract of land for the priest to live on, and farm.)  The congregation and the diocese were involved in these purchases and sales.  As I said, I do not know the conditions under which the “rectory” (vicarage really—since missions don’t have rectors).  Regardless, while it was a mission, the diocese was fully within its legal rights to sell anything that “belonged” to St. Philip’s. 

Summary: Parishes hold title to their property, and the diocese cannot seize or sell the property, but the diocese does have controlling interest in the property.

Exceptions that Prove the Rule

            Invariably in this discussion, parishes come up where the diocese changed the locks and later sold the property.  What happened there—such as with St. Nicholas?  The answer goes back to the issue of sovereignty.  A parish has many rights, but secession is not one of them.  Like the Civil War, once a State is part of the Union, it cannot legally leave.  Once a congregation is part of an Episcopal diocese, “it” cannot legally leave.

            In the last decade, numerous congregations have left the diocese, effectively ending the life of a parish.  So, the rector, vestry, and every single parishioner of a parish could chose to leave the Episcopal Church, but the “parish” cannot.  This is not just semantics.  A parish is the people, but the people constituted as a legal entity within the Episcopal Church.  When a congregation chooses to leave TEC, they choose to alienate themselves from the diocese.  Since a parish doesn’t have the right to alienate the property without diocesan permission, it cannot cease to be an Episcopal parish without the permission of the diocese. 

Essentially, here’s how it is, “that building belongs to the Episcopal church of St. Swithan’s in-the-Swamp, and those people who voted to leave TEC are no longer Episcopalians, so, they are trespassing.”  The diocese wins this argument almost every time because the government views the Episcopal Church as a hierarchal type church, that is, a type of church in which parishes are sub-sets of a sovereign diocese. 

Summary: When a congregation chooses to leave the Episcopal Church, they cease to be Episcopalians.  When they cease to be Episcopalians, they effectively become trespassers in the Episcopal parish, building included. 

Conclusion

            Maybe the rules governing the relationship of a parish and diocese should be changed.  Maybe the relationship should be like the one between a husband and wife, and all the property would be community property.  Nevertheless, the relationship is like that of parent/child, lord/vassal. 

            That’s not to say a parish doesn’t have rights as members of the diocesan family.  It certainly does.  But secession is not among them.  Maybe parishes should have that right, but they don’t.  I believe that the Episcopal Church has changed its identity by changing doctrines.  I believe that the Episcopal Church has walked out of the stream of the via media, out of the church catholic, into a cal de sac of innovation and schism.  I believe, given the multitudes who have and continue to leave the denomination, leadership is morally obligated to consider a different path.  I believe that in this season of extreme change, the church should rethink the power relationships at all levels.  Power has been exercised, but influence has been lost.  We need “new wineskins for the new wine.”  But what I believe should be the case is not the same thing as what is the case.

            Therefore, there is one way a parish’s property can be taken over by the diocese; it can cease to be a functioning parish.  A parish can cease to be a functioning parish by shrinking in size and income to the point that it cannot govern or support itself, or by its people choosing to no longer be Episcopalians—making them trespassers.  In either case, its more of a forfeiture than a take-over, and that isn’t up to the diocese at all; that’s up to us.  

Comments

[James Duell]

Thanks for putting this so clearly, Fr Walker, there is so much confusion and bad info going around. I agree that perhaps the relationship between a parish and its diocese should be changed. I wish it had happened years ago. But right now, given the emotions and rhetoric all over the country, we can only hope there will be a calmer time sometime to think things through.

I hope that you and your congregation are living life fully, and if you're not doing Stations of the Cross I'll drive up there and kick your butt

[Melinda Lane]

In these difficult times, some would pay good money to see James kick your butt as an entertaining diversion. Have you thought of "not doing the Stations of the Cross" as a fundraiser?

Seriously, Fr. Theron, well thought out (as usual). Blessings to you.