In 2013, the bishop converted St. James from a parish to a mission church. This effectively stripped the congregation from hiring a rector, acting as stewards of their church, and electing a vestry to oversee the church’s temporal affairs. It's unclear where the bishop claims the authority to change a parish’s status from an autonomous independent religious corporation to mission of the diocese and subject to the bishop's direct control. The Title IV complaint raises this question. (See Claim 2 of Title IV complaint).
The Bishop’s Policy for Missions and Aided Parishes, defines two types of religious groups--mission churches and aided parishes. The distinctions between the two are minor when considering the effects the policy has on each and the wide implications for the congregation's ability to participate in their church's affairs.
Mission congregations or churches are unincorporated churches. Aided parishes are religious corporation organized under the NYS Religious Corporation Law and have elected to be treated as mission churches. A vestry may request to become an aided parish because of financial or other difficulties. In effect, under the bishop’s policy, mission churches and aided parishes are treated the same.
In the case of St. James, it's unclear if the church is a mission or an aided parish. Though the past 2 priest-in-charge and the bishop have declared St. James a mission church despite the church having been a religious corporation for over 225 years. (See Claim 2 of the Title IV complaint for discussion).
As a mission, the bishop acts as rector of the congregation and appoints a priest-in-charge. Priest-in-charge under the Bishop’s Policy for Missions and Aided Parishes exercise enormous authority over the congregation and the church. Under the policy:
All clergy serving Mission Congregations and Aided Parishes are appointed by the Bishop, are accountable to the Bishop, and serve at the Bishop’s pleasure. Although not required to do so, the Bishop may give congregations whatever voice in the appointment process the Bishop chooses.
At St. James’, the priest-in-charge chose to exercise his authority to fullest disregarding the opinion of the congregation or the effect his decisions had on the vitality of the church. For example, the current priest-in-charge canceled elections, removed Christ-focused and dedicated parishioners from office, canceled Sunday Schools, senior daycare, the choir, and other ministries. He has leased the church’s space to outside groups essentially outsourcing ministry and effectively preventing the church from developing its own mission.
In addition, he has shown an affinity towards a neighboring church, the Reformed Church of Newtown, by allowing their members to set up a ministry program in the church’s parish hall. While at the same time, ending all ministries at the church with the exception of Sunday services. Also, he nearly leased the church’s historic building, Old St. James, to the same church which would have allowed them to extend their religious programs. As a result of his actions, average Sunday attendance at St. James’ collapsed from about 80 to the mid-20 within one year of his appointment by the bishop.
The former warden filed a petition of reconciliation and a local Title IV complaint with the diocese seeking the removal of the priest-in-charge. After 548 days, the bishop ruled the complaints “…amounted to a typical disagreement between a parishioner and a priest. Your continues [sic] reference to it is further inappropriate.” (See Claim 5 of the Title IV complaint filed with the national church for further discussion).
The Title IV complaint, filed with the national church, challenges the bishop’s authority under New York State law and church canons. Also, the complaint points out that the bishop’s decision violates a NYS Supreme Court decision.
Overlooked in the complaint, but will no doubt be raised when the disciplinary action proceeds, is the bishop’s policy regarding missions and aided parishes.
Reviewing the policy (click here to read) one can quickly see that the bishop violated his own policy. The bishop reaffirms that the vestry must ask and vote in the affirmative to become an aided parish. The Title IV complaint against the bishop claims the bishop did not comply with these rules. The Diocesan Canons require:
“A parish may apply to the Bishop…provided the Parish is willing to meet the requirements set forth hereafter in this Canon.”
“Such application must be accompanied by a waiver from the Wardens and vestry of their right to elect a Rector…”
“An Aided Parish shall…transfer the title of all Real Estate and all Endowment and Trust Funds to the Trustees of the Estate…[to] be administered by the Bishop and the Trustees of the Estate.”
“Upon acceptance as an Aided Parish, the Wardens and Vestrymen shall tender their resignations…”
“If an Aided Parish reverses to its former status, it may petition the Trustees of the Estate for a conveyance of its Real Estate and the return of its Endowment and Trust Funds…”
Under the Diocesan Canons, the Parish must take an affirmative action to trigger the provisions of the Canon. Once triggered and accepted, the parish is subject to the authority of the Bishop and the Trustees of the Estate. The Vestry of St. James’ did not petition the bishop to become an aided parish. The Vestry did not vote to transfer its property to the Trustees of the Estate. Vestry members and officers did not voluntarily resign their positions. The Bishop and the Canon of the Ordinary literally attended a Vestry meeting to declare St. James’ a mission church and inform the Vestry they were now a Bishop’s Committee.