How many times over the last five years have we heard a pecusa bishop say that suing for parish buildings is about protecting properties for future generations? I know that I've heard it a number of times, and it sounds like a reasonable argument. The problem with this assertion is that it is generally not true. Take the properties in the DCNY. Three parishes have left pecusa in the DCNY and the diocese is not keeping any of those buildings for future generations of pecusa (and at the rate of pecusa decline, how many future generations can we expect?). All three church buildings are for sale.
In the Diocese of Virginia, the larger churches that are being sued by the diocese wouldn't have congregations large enough to sustain the buildings should the diocese win (and it appears unlikely at this point that the diocese will win). So, what would the diocese do if they won and kept The Falls Church and Truro Church? They'd likely sell them. So much for the future generations that Bishop Lee has spoken about.
It's not about future generations. pecusa is closing churches all over including on reservations in South Dakota. They aren't even sufficiently interested in serving this generation. No, this is about material assets and that is something that pecusa is intensely interested in. That line about future generations - that's just another pecusa lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment