tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post4827744889977856339..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: The Church, (P)ECUSA and the DFMSA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-2120974897846640862009-10-10T09:52:53.349-07:002009-10-10T09:52:53.349-07:00Father Weir, there are generally two forms of non-...Father Weir, there are generally two forms of non-profit corporations: those which have members, and those which do not, but which just have boards (directors or trustees). In the member type of corporation, members join by meeting some qualifications; they usually pay some sort of dues; and then they participate in elections of the officers and directors. In a religious corporation which does not have members, the officers are usually appointed/hired by the board, and the board is elected or appointed by some body with which the corporation is affiliated -- or the board selects its own successors.<br /><br />DFMS does <b>not</b> have any provision for "members" who participate in it in the way I have described. Instead, the Constitution, as I quoted it from Canon I.3 above, says only that DFMS "comprehends" (in some mysterious way) all those <i>who are members</i> of [a parish, mission or congregation in] the Church. It does not say that members of the Church are in any way "members" of DFMS, because to do so would mean that members would get to vote for the DFMS Board, to amend the DFMS Constitution, and on other such matters.<br /><br />Instead, the Directors of DFMS are the Executive Council, which is chosen by General Convention and the Synods of the nine Provinces, and the officers are mostly people who hold their position by virtue of another position they already have in General Convention or the Executive Council.<br /><br />In the sense you are using the word "Church" -- as a Church in the Anglican Communion -- most people would understand it as synonymous with "denomination." For instance, in the complaint it filed when it intervened in the Pittsburgh litigation, ECUSA alleged in the second paragraph: "The Episcopal Church is a hierarchical religious denomination . . .". To call it a "Church" is thus a terminology which I try to avoid when I am speaking of a church which has a place of worship where it holds regular services of worship, and where in particular the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, holy communion, etc.) are celebrated. ECUSA is a "Church" in that sense only when one is really speaking collectively of its 7,000 or so individual parishes, missions and congregations.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-69469587731456453412009-10-10T08:55:21.459-07:002009-10-10T08:55:21.459-07:00I thank Mr. Haley for a clear explanation of what ...I thank Mr. Haley for a clear explanation of what I knew about DFMS as well as things that I did not know. I do, however, have three comments, one somewhat picky and the other two more significant:<br />1. 'However, Canon I.3 does not use the word "member",' is correct, but I.3 uses, as Mr. Haley quoted it, "members." I seem to be unable to grasp the point that Mr. Haley is making here.<br />2. While Mr. Haley may be legally correct in stating that '. (P)ECUSA itself -- the voluntary association of Dioceses -- is not itself a church; it is a denomination.' in the Anglican Communion, it is a Church, one of the member Churches of the Communion.<br />3. I agree with Mr. Haley that the Episcopal Church is all of us in our congregations and dioceses - all of us as members of the DFMS. We are the members and the missionaries, but so are the members of the General Convention and the Executive Couincil. So are the Presiding Bishop and the officers of the DFMS. So are the members of the Church Center staff.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.com