Bishop changes locks; Sheriff orders him to surrender keys

[kconant]

Here is the notice I've sent to the press:

On Friday, November 7, 2008, at 2:36 pm, Kathryn Conant called 911 because W. Michie Klusmeyer, Episcopal bishop of West Virginia, had illegally had the locks changed at Saint Andrew's-on-the-Mount Church, Mountain Mission, 65 Mission Rd, Harpers Ferry, WV, and its Mountain Community Center at 58 Mission Rd. Klusmeyer was present in the basement of the Community Center with John Maxey, a community resident. Klusmeyer was ordered by Cpl. Sell of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and a deputy to change the locks back because he was not owner of record of the property. Klusmeyer turned over the keys to a trustee of Saint Andrew's-on-the-Mount, John E. Conant. It has been reported that Klusmeyer, of Charleston, WV, was accompanied on the church property by Melanie McCarley, rector of Zion Church, Charles Town, and another man.

[JiveTurkey]

And all this means what, exactly?

[Kensey]

It appears the Episcopal Bishop of West Virginia is trying to take possession of the St. Andrews on the Mount properties (including the MCC) even though neither he nor the Episcopal Church has any ownership or other right to the properties.

[JiveTurkey]

Yes, I have read it fifteen times now. All this name-dropping and "talking in code" is of no use to me.

[MountainMoon22]

Now, I asked this to someone (maybe Willis), if the church is deconsecrated, are the trustees free to reopen or will they be forced to sell? If technically, you're not part of the diocese since they're not supplying you with a reverend, doesn't it leave you at a horrible impasse?

So who owns the church and MCC, the trustees or the diocese?

[John]

County land records currently list the owner as the Trustees of Saint Andrews. As I understand it, this is likely to change soon. Episcopal Church rules provide for the title to revert back to the Diocese once the church has been closed.

There may be some grounds under which the trustees can challenge this, and if so they will probably pursue it.

The Bishop stated that he has no plans to deconsecrate the church and has no plans to sell the property. He is interested in making certain that the property continues to serve the community as it has since it was founded as a "Mountain Mission" over a hundred years ago.

This is also the goal of church members who opposed the closing. The division between church members and the Diocese is over the continuation of services at the church and not over future use of the property.

Both sides in this dispute seem sincerely interested in making certain that the community service mission of the property continues and is expanded.

The argument is unfortunate and could have been avoided if church attendance had been better over the last few years.

While I consider myself to be a spiritual person, I have never been exposed to organized religion in a way that encouraged attending church services. It has only been recently in my life that I have become aware of the huge benefit to our community provided by churches of all denominations. I had always imagined church membership to be a personal spiritual matter and never realized how important these social aspects are.

Now, I asked this to someone (maybe Willis), if the church is deconsecrated, are the trustees free to reopen or will they be forced to sell? If technically, you're not part of the diocese since they're not supplying you with a reverend, doesn't it leave you at a horrible impasse?

So who owns the church and MCC, the trustees or the diocese?

[Starbuck]

As an outsider looking in, and as an "elapsed Episcopalian" myself, this entire ordeal sickens me. If ever I was open to organized religious services, this has certainly slammed that door shut.

How DARE a religion, purporting itself to be all about the good of its parishoners, lock out a church the way the Episcopalian church has done with St. Andrews. A Bishop who will not deign to speak to parishoners, and other local ministers who WILL NOT minister to congregants? Seriously?

It's not like the church is hurting for money. Or even so, how about, in the interest of common decency, allowing another minister to serve these people, be they 2 or 20? The acts of the diocese in this matter are, in my opinion, quite shameful for a group that supposedly serves a higher master. Because the only master I see being served here is greed!

[JiveTurkey]

Because we are not getting the whole story.

[Starbuck]

I agree we're not getting the full story...but when the entity with nothing to lose is willing to lay their cards on the table, and the silent entity with everything to gain won't even come in the building, well, I can't help but see it any other way.

The whole thing is just sad

[Coglehowell]

I think that even if you have only 1 person there on Sunday Morning , it is still a place to worship God or whom ever you worship. As long as the bills are getting paid it shouldnt matter how many people are in the congregation. why shut down such a sacred building?

[Speedy Gonzales]

Has anyone considered that this was a very, very difficult decision for the Bishop to make? I am sure that closing churches is not what any clergy is called to do and makes them very sad. Maybe it was something as simple as Christ had left the building and the folks left there to worship were not keeping Him foremost in their thoughts and actions.

[Starbuck]

Have you worshipped with these people?

I attended services a couple of times with them, and there is a definite peace to the services. I really don't think this has anything to do with Christ not being "in the building." I'm actually extremely uncomfortable with making that judgment, aren't you?

[STR1KER]

I think it's sad that things are the way they are.
I also think it's sad that there's a power struggle.
I for one can say I agree w/ Speedy's statement.
It's def not like it used to be, that's for sure.
I just hope it's resolved quickly.

[AAT53]

If even one person goes to worship there then how has Christ left the building? It has always been my understanding that Christ will not leave as long as at least one faithful person remains (I learned that during my Catholic upbringing).

[Jenniffer]

Matthew 18:19-20 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain



20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

[Pfeifcat]

Sort of like Santa Claus.

He has the ability to be at millions of churches at the same time every Sunday. I suppose his schedule is too booked to allow for private one-on-one showings.



Just a joke - Please, no lightening bolts.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

It sounds like the Bishop is making sure that 'Christ leaves the building'.

[tamram]

This may be a joke, but it sure didn't make me feel like laughing.

[Pfeifcat]

This may be a joke, but it sure didn't make me feel like laughing.

OK, call it sarcasm.

But, sometimes the "absolute" truths that are taught from the Bible are wildly conflicting and at times downright silly. I think the purpose of the "2 or more" in attendance statement is to ensure "witness" to the teachings and prayers within the church. I don't know about the "Christ leaving" part, but solitude attendance is more prayer and basically no fellowship, which is a main purpose for the existence of churches.

[Wormdoc]

Seems to me that if you place your faith in an entity, be it Christ, the God and Goddess, Mother Earth, Allah, whomever.....that spirit is everywhere, in everything, and most especially, within you. Frankly, it seems odd to me that an edifice is required to be in touch with your diety and your spirituality.

I see my faith in all the beauty in nature each and every day...in a cardinal in the snow, a doe with a fawn, a bear in my backyard.