Report on Christ Church, Savannah, GA and its breakway from the Episcopal Church: a look at a Property Dispute, too
by Peter Menkin
Christ Church, Savannah. Poster circa 1920.
Worldwide, Anglicans who were upper class women of England mostly–100 years ago–are today on average an African Black woman of about 21, poor, with one child. It is a very different world for Anglicans than 100 years ago. (A Facebook posting.)
The Episcopal Church is a mainline Anglican Christian church found mainly in the United States, but also in Honduras, Taiwan, Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, the British Virgin Islands and parts of Europe. The Episcopal Church is the Province of the Anglican Communion in the United States and most other territories where it has a presence (excluding Europe). The Episcopal Church describes itself as being “Protestant, Yet Catholic”. In 2009, the Episcopal Church had a baptized membership of 2,175,616 both inside and outside the U.S. In the United States, it had a baptized membership of 2,006,343, making it the nation’s fifteenth largest denomination. (Episcopal Church Facebook.)
The Anglican Church in North America unites some 100,000 Anglicans in nearly 1,000 congregations across the United States and Canada. The Anglican Church is a Province-in-formation in the global Anglican Communion committed to reaching North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ. The Most Rev. Robert Duncan is the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America and Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. (Anglican Church in North America Facebook.)
In this article-interview that covers the property dispute between the Episcopal Church and Christ Church, Savannah regarding the breakaway Christ Church leaving that Communion and joining the Anglican Church in North America, this writer had the privilege of talking with a number of key people. Included in this group of people with whom the writer spoke was The Reverend Jim Elliott, an attorney who is Chancellor of the Diocese of Georgia (Episcopal Church). Reverend Jim is the lead attorney in the case before the State of Georgia Supreme Court asking for the Episcopal Church Communion’s property back. The breakaway Communion and the two Christ Church, Savannah claimants have a conflict of belief, so Christ Church, Savannah who holds the property says.
This email was sent to Reverend Jim Elliott in the course of our conversation by phone and conversation by email:
Dear Reverend Chancellor: Here from my notes of a conversation with Archbishop Duncan are a few of the theological arguments for Christ Church, Savannah leaving the Episcopal Church Communion. I spoke with him while he was in London just this week for about 15 minutes. During this appointment by phone, when he arrived in his office after a trip from another place in the city by underground, the conversation focused on theological matters. Because he had a meeting with the Primate of the Southeast Asia part of the Anglican Communion, we were unable to get to the property issue questions involved in the Georgia Supreme Court case. That was too bad, for it meets my needs and purposes for the article. Perhaps to your mind the last attribution to him in this list of notes and quotes is relevant to property issues.
Archbishop Robert Duncan, Anglican Communion in North America, called, "his Grace."
The theological issues in brief:
Quote: If you wanted to understand at the very root the theological issues are, they all surround the English reformation that the Holy Scriptures were the ultimate of the faith. The Bible is determinative of what the faith says, or what the order of the Church Christian morality would say. Everything really hangs on that affirmation of the Reformation. That was reiterated in the Chicago Quadrilateral.
From notes, not a quote: The Episcopal Church has in the areas of Christology: Jesus is what he says he is. Is Jesus the Son of God? Is there any other way to go? The answer is no. The Episcopal Church has increasingly answered those questions in a different way. Towards universalism or … a multifaith way towards salvation. That is at the heart of the Christological issue.
Again, a paraphrase from notes: The morality issues of marriage, chasteness, same sex (marriages)– The Episcopal Church is giving different answers (from us). You can see how this has all tied back to the scripture as understanding.
Notes on a statement by the Archbishop re Property Rights and Issues: In that case, it’s true for Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, [both Episcopal Diocese that left the Episcopal Church] we didn’t leave anything [that is, these Dioceses did not leave the Episcopl Church, but the Episcopal Church left the Dioceses]. The Episcopal Church is claiming when the Church changes the parishes or diocese have to change. The Saints did not change. We would claim you can’t change from the faith once delivered. We’re thankful for their courage.
Your comment to these individually or as a group is welcomed and hoped for, and if you want to frame it as a Property Issue, do so—even in the negative to say these are not relevant to the case before the Georgia Supreme Court, or that they do not bear witness to the dispute at hand either in a legal or any other sense. I encouraged this so I will have a clear statement for the published piece regarding the position of the Episcopal Church as seen both by you as attorney in the case and for The Diocese of Georgia.
With thanks for your consideration, and early response, I am yours sincerely, Peter
Peter Menkin
In a lengthy and complete reply, The Reverend Jim Elliott wrote an almost 900 word statement regarding the Diocese of Georgia arguments and position about the property dispute. In so doing, he reveals some of the attitudes and some of the bitterness in this legal fight for property. He does not believe that theology has much if anything to do with the issue of who owns the property, and who is the legitimate historic Christ Church of Savannah, Georgia.
The Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop said “No,” to making a remark or statement on this case of dispute through her spokeswoman. The Diocese of Georgia’s Bishop chose to make no remark or statement regarding the issue, so its spokesman said. They did make available a written commentary on the case, some of which is quoted in this article. It is expected that the Georgia Supreme Court will rule on the matter by the end of 2011. An inquiry to the Court indicated there was no statement on the case available at this time.
The New York Times reports in November, 2010, in an article titled, “A Church is Divided, and Headed for Court,” by Ellen Goodman, December 5, 2007:
In November, the Diocese of Georgia filed a lawsuit to keep control of Christ Church’s assets, which include a $3 million historic building and an endowment estimated at $2 million to $3 million. Its claim is based on a church law, adopted in the 1970s, called the Dennis Canon, which says that all parishes hold their property in trust for the diocese. But Christ Church, which was established in 1733, asserts that it has firm legal footing to keep control of its building and property because it existed before the Episcopal denomination, which was established in the United States in 1789. “That would make the case a pure property case rather than a religious liberty case,” Mr. Witte said. “They will have to argue that their church is closer to the values of the late 18th century” than the Episcopal Church is today. And that, he added, is “an argument that hasn’t been tested in federal courts.”
Churches of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia
A video showing the 70 churches, 3 chapels and convent in the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, which encompasses the lower two-thirds of the state.
Here is The Reverend Jim Elliott’s statement in its full text:
I am a Priest in The Episcopal Church and a practicing lawyer. I have practiced law in Georgia for twenty-six years and have been the Chancellor of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia since 2004. In our Diocese, the Chancellor is appointed by the Bishop and confirmed by our annual Diocesan Convention, which is the elected governing body of the Diocese.
I am counsel to the Diocese and Christ Church Episcopal in their suit against the former rector and former members of the vestry (the local church’s governing board) who left The Episcopal Church and who remain in possession of my clients’ property.
Christ Church Episcopal is the Mother Church of Georgia. Christ Church Episcopal remains a faithful Parish in The Episcopal Church and we want them restored to their rightful church home.
The suit that we filed on behalf of the Parish and the Diocese is to recover the property. The suit is not and indeed cannot be about theological disagreements. The United States Constitution prohibits our courts from adjudicating theological disagreements.
The group currently in possession of The Episcopal Church’s historic church building in Savannah is no longer part of The Episcopal Church. That group of individuals left The Episcopal Church and joined another church which is not nor has it ever been a part of The Episcopal Church. They have since apparently affiliated themselves with a different group which is not nor has it ever been a part of The Episcopal Church. They are not Episcopalians.
That group left The Episcopal Church and joined the Church of Uganda, taking our property with them in violation of the rules of the Church and Georgia law.
Their clergy and members of the church’s governing board all took an oath promising to uphold and follow the rules of The Episcopal Church but they have refused to do so.
We have had to resort to the courts to regain the property in which faithful Episcopalians have worshiped for generations.
The Chatham County Superior Court and the Georgia Court of Appeals have upheld longstanding legal precedent in our state and have confirmed that Christ Church Episcopal and the Diocese of Georgia are entitled to possession of the property that the departing group of individuals took with them when they decided to join a different church.
The law in Georgia has held for over 200 years that churches such as ours and many other non-congregational churches hold their property subject to the rules and mode of government of the church. That was the law when Christ Church became a parish in the Diocese of Georgia in 1823 and it is still the law today.
Churches such as The Episcopal Church (which has an elected representative form of government) and many other denominations require that the church’s property be held for the benefit of those who remain part of the denomination. Georgia law and the rules of such churches do not permit removal of property to another church or denomination.
The Georgia Court of Appeals’ ruling upholds the longstanding rule that churches such as ours have a Constitutional right to govern themselves as they choose without fear that their property will be taken away from those who wish to remain part of the church.
Congregational churches govern themselves differently and have local control over their property by virtue of the way they choose to govern themselves. The Court of Appeals’ ruling in our case does not change that.
However, the Court of Appeals has said that all of our property should be returned to us and that the group that left the Church has no right to it. The decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals has been appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
The individuals in possession of the Church’s property argue that our Supreme Court should cast aside longstanding Georgia law purportedly in the name of “religious liberty”. They ask the Court to ignore generations-old rules of the Church and the promises made by church members and clergy to uphold and follow those rules. They ask the Court to tell churches that they are no longer free to govern themselves as they choose. They ask the Court to rule that a group of local church members can deprive faithful Episcopalians and the Episcopal Church of their property. They ask the Court to deprive Christ Church Episcopal of its religious liberty because a group of people decided they wanted to join another church.
The individuals that left The Episcopal Church are certainly free leave and join another church but they may not take with them a church which was built as a Parish of The Episcopal Church and consecrated and set aside for divine worship in The Episcopal Church. They may not deprive faithful Episcopalians of property which may only be used for the mission and ministry of The Episcopal Church.
The Supreme Court of Georgia heard oral argument in May and we expect a decision before the end of 2011. Regardless of the outcome, we will remain what we as Episcopalians have always been. We will remain faithful witnesses in word and in deed to the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Diocese of Georgia says this is its theological premise:
Our Beliefs
We believe first and foremost that we can best come to know God, our creator, through a relationship with his son, Jesus Christ. The clearest statements of what we believe are to be found in The Apostle’s Creed and The Nicene Creed. These 2,000-year-old creeds (short statements of faith) are held to be true by billions of people around the world today. Beyond that, the best place to learn what Episcopalians believe is the Bible, which is the source of our theology, and the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). The BCP is not only the guide to our conduct of worship, but it is also articulates our theology.
Life of the breakaway Parish continues its appeal to friends and Parishioners to come to the aid of their cause, give money to the defense of their position as owners of the historic property. This YouTube shows their Rector Marc Robertson in that appeal.
Christ Church Savannah: Gospel Defense Fund
INTERVIEW WITH THE REVEREND MARC ROBERTSON
In its websites remarks of welcome, the Parish statement reads: Christ Church, the Mother Church of Georgia, has been an Anglican house of worship since 1733. We seek to know Christ by being a Bible-based congregation, we seek to grow in Christ by being a family-focused community of faith, and we seek to go in the name of Christ by being a mission-minded parish.
In a world of confusion and unbelief, Christ Church stands for the historic Christian faith. It is our joy and privilege to join God in His mission to expand His kingdom and raise up faithful servant-leaders to minister to the last, the least, and the lost of this world. We invite you to join us in this profound mission. If you live in Savannah, you are welcomed to be a part of this Christian family. If you are planning to visit Savannah, please join us for worship – we look forward to seeing you. – Marc Robertson, Rector
The Church website reports of the Rector:
Marc was born in Gadsden, Alabama, where he grew up in the Episcopal Church. He received his B.A. degree from the College of William and Mary, with theological studies at St. Mary’s Divinity School in St. Andrews, Scotland. He holds masters degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary and St. Luke’s School of Theology (Sewanee, TN), and a doctorate (D. Min.) from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. Marc has been rector at Christ Church since January of 1992. He and his wife Alice, and their two sons, Jon and Matt, live with a number of animals (mainly dogs) at his home south of the parish.
This interview held by phone has been both transcribed from that conversation between this writer, and The Reverend Marc Robertson. As well, Reverend Marc has made some written comments as additions. Some paraphrase to help with clarity was done by this writer. Made by phone to the Rector’s office at his Church in Savannah, this writer spoke from his home office north of San Francisco. No tape recording was done of the phone conversation. The date of the interview is August 22, 2011.
1. Please tell us something of the historic nature of Christ Church, Savannah and in what ways (the how, if you will) that this move from the Episcopal Church to the Anglican Church in North America is a theological statement of historic kind? Will you also say something of the theological areas that are of positive value you’ve found outside the Episcopal Church with the Anglican Church in North America?
The interesting thing historically of our move from the Episcopal Church was [it was] the Episcopal Church that moved, not Christ Church that moved. It was the Episcopal Church that failed to follow traditional values. They introduced a new understanding of marriage, and they introduced a new understanding of what it means to be a Bishop. In our view, we just wanted to remain where we were. We were not prepared to go with the Episcopal Church with its innovations. Having said that, we had to take deliberate actions to disaffiliate ourselves from the Episcopal Church.
Our decision was to stay; the decision of The Episcopal Church (TEC) was to move, to embrace innovations that went beyond the historic identity of Christian Faith and Practice. The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) affirms Jesus as “the way, the truth, and the life” and “no one comes to the Father except through Him” (John 14:6) in its opening Theological Statement.
In the ensuring seven affirmations, the ACNA clearly affirms its belief in the authority of Holy Scripture, the two “gospel sacraments” of Baptism and Eucharist, the historic creeds and Ecumenical Councils, the Book of Common Prayer (the 1662 Book being the standard), and the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion. All of these affirmations are clear and unwavering, and are either abandoned or significantly weakened in formal affirmations of TEC. (See http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/about-acna)
Of course, some of those actions included several years of study, engagement both with our members of our congregation, and with the Bishop and staff members of the Diocese. The issues for us had to do with the Episcopal Church’s move away from … Biblical creedal Christianity. One example for me is … the book, “Dirt, greed, and Sex,” by William Countryman.
As a paraphrase, one of the footnotes refers … [to] … the Church not having any concern with such things as bestiality…
… “Dirt, Greed, and Sex,” was published in the early 80s. It was copyright 1988. If you stop and think about that it was over 20 years. It’s been a generation of seminary students who have been engaged with this kind of ethical thinking.
Countryman’s work has served as an ethics textbook in several seminaries. I think matters of like this go quietly underneath the radar. I would be glad to have a charitable debate on this. But seminarians will take this at face value without any opportunities for critical analysis or comparison with traditional Christian ethics. That’s just one example, but rather pointed.
2. The Christ Church, Savannah congregation has been on a journey of change and prayerful decision making in its relationship with the Episcopal Church. In a phone conversation with you, some of your remarks went: They [the Vestry and congregation] did not want to drag the church and the congregation into unnecessary and serious considerations [of leaving the Episcopal Church]; [and they] very seriously weighed out all the possibilities to avoid the dynamics of walking out. [In the Parish’s decision to leave], there is an historic statement that is made, a weight of history of elements of their identity that few congregations …have [had] to weigh. Our obligations as stewards of the Gospel [were] to take this move. We’re obligated to be stewards of the mother church of Georgia in this area and in the world. We’re the home of the first hymnal in the US language, the oldest continuous running orphanage. We have also a member who was a founder of the Girl Scouts. We have a strong history of an identity that influences the Church well beyond our walls… Talk for a minute or more about this journey, (1) its difficulties, and (2) how it weighed on the congregation, and, (3) finally some of the theological concerns that led to the decision to leave the Episcopal Church?
The difficulties: I want to talk personally of the impact it had one me. I’ve been an Episcopalian all my life. I was baptized in the Episcopal Church in 1954. I’m like many people in today’s denomination. I remained faithful to the Episcopal Church my entire life…until the Episcopal Church began to express an expression of Christianity I could not recognize. In terms of our congregation, we were founded in 1733, which means we [not only] predate the founding of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, but the foundation of the Episcopal Church in the colonies. From my understanding our participation in the first meeting of the Episcopal Church was negligible. But in the early 1800s, we were one of the founding Churches of the Diocese. For some of us, the fifth and sixth generational members here, this [split and property dispute] is incredibly disruptive.
Clarification: It is my understanding that the Christ Church sent a representative to the General Convention, but that he was more or less a “bystander,” and did not take the lead in any matter of Convention. It is quite possible the representative did not stay for the entirety of the Convention (something not unusual in that day), but I cannot say that for certain. The point of this ambivalence is that Christ Church considered itself an independent parish from the founding of the Episcopal Church. It did not acquiesce to the formal structure and governance of The Episcopal Church right away, and has carried with it a sense of historic “independence” in many ways throughout.
The Reverend Marc Robertson was interviewed. He Rector of breakaway Christ Church, Savannah.
We have worshiping with us three generations or more of the same family: parents, grandchildren and children. That same family is buried [here], their parents and grandparents before them, [also]. So the prospects of being forcibly evicted from the building are enormous. Another aspect is a lot of folks are good friends with those locked up in the legal problem. That is just what happens.
I have parishioners who have college buddies they no longer have relationships with. We have married couples who are divided between husband and wife. They do everything to maintain their marriage, but it becomes very painful in their life.
At this time the words that Jesus said become alive: Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law… (Matthew 10:34-35). But this is just one verse in the Bible among scores of verses which were hypothetical for us, but now they’ve become very tangible.
I’m very well aware that distress falls on both sides here. We’re not the only ones who distress falls upon… Some of the other burdens of our journey are the embarrassing misrepresentations of us. We’ve been called prejudiced against homosexual persons, as bigots, or just plain stupid. I would be the first to say we fall short. We are sinners. But that doesn’t make it any less painful when we are misrepresented over the television or in the newspapers.
What I’m trying to say here is that I acknowledge the pain on both sides of this issue. There are those who feel they have been “dispossessed” by Christ Church, “run out” of their home congregation and forced to worship in a building not their own.
My reply would be: You are always welcomed at Christ Church. It was your decision to leave us. You may disagree with the duly-elected leadership and the direction taken by the church, but leaving and then turning around and bringing legal action against us is a bit like killing your parents and then pleading for mercy because you are an orphan.
With regards to misrepresentation in the press: This is a complex matter, and theological differences [between us] do not sell papers. Thus, it is understandable when I am interviewed that media representatives are looking for something “juicy,” “sensational,” or rife with conflict. It is my responsibility, however, to bring to the discussion the theological underpinnings of this decision. I have no desire to ridicule my opponents; I do, however, wish to refute their arguments with charity as well as clarity.
While the courts cannot legally give attention to such matters, I can do so in and through the media, when they allow me. There is some resemblance to Paul’s appeal to Caesar in the book of Acts. Paul waded through the secular law courts of Rome, and while he was being tried as a seditionist and a threat to the Roman state, his message was constantly about the bodily resurrection of Jesus and its implications for humanity.
3. The Times-Herald reporter writes on July 11, 2011 about one significant issue of theological kind that divides Christ Church, Savannah from The Episcopal Church and may have been one key reason the Church chose to leave the Communion and join the Anglican Church in North America. He says, The “Mother Church” of Episcopalianism in Georgia has sharp divisions that reflect national trends in that denomination — and have led to a protracted lawsuit.
The Times Herald Reporter talks about issues… among important theological ones…the ordaining of gay clergy… That they may not be married and that their relationships are blessed. That becomes the exotic issue that moves the press along. That is the tip of the iceberg. In order to get to that point where one can get to gay marriage or support the ordination of non-celibate persons, be they homosexual or heterosexual, they have to bypass or undermine five tenants of Christian faith: 1. Authority of Scripture; 2. Nature of marriage; 3. Our understanding of human nature itself as complimentary to the sexes; 4. The nature of Epistemology (the understanding of truth); 5. The historic Christian assertion that we live in a moral universe.
4. In what ways does the Anglican Church in North America welcome the Parish, Christ Church, and will you tell us something of how it speaks to your parish in ways important in liturgy, communion, and faith? You’re quoted as saying, This disagreement is not about real estate. It is about the basic tenets of the historic faith, proclaiming Jesus as the way, the truth and the life. And it is about freedom: freedom of religion, freedom to practice our religion as and where we have for over 275 years, freedom to choose to follow the Jesus Christ of Holy Scripture and not a culturally-manufactured Jesus.
First of all, and I would speak … personally… the leadership of ACNA has been very warm, cordial and receptive to me and to Christ Church. It has been refreshing for me to be a part of a community of faithful, dedicated individuals who seek to come together as a living Church with a common mission. Not that we are all cut out of the same cloth. By no means. Some of us are Anglo-Catholics, some are Evangelicals, and some are Charismatics. And there are other expressions of diversity in our ranks. But we are one in our affirmation in Christ, his Lord, of a Biblical and creedal Christianity, and of the classic Anglican tradition.
The ACNA …affirms the authority of scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the historic creeds, and other similar professions of historic Christianity. Now the ACNA has also stated in its constitution in writing (as well as our Diocese here in the South East), there is no interest in congregational property in any way, unless it is clearly stated by the congregation in a legally, recognized form. [This is different from the claim of the Episcopal Church.]
Also the ACNA affirms the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as the liturgical standard for us along with the majority of the Anglican Communion. In our two Sunday morning services here at Christ Church, one is the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the other at the main service (10:30 o’clock) is the modern form of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Both are affirmed by the ACNA.
Archbishop Robert Duncan,
Anglican Communion in North America
I think it is interesting to add that … Archbishop, Bob Duncan, has given me his personal cell phone number. My first bishop in ACNA, John Guernsey, called me on Christmas Eve (!) and prayed with me over the phone… that my sermons would be powerful and my pastoral ministry effective on that important day. I have known my current bishop, Neil Lebhar, for twenty-five years, and we are part of a support group that meets annually to review our ministries and encourage one another. I never had such offers of support, friendship, and mutual partnership in ministry in my 25 years as a priest in The Episcopal Church.
Thank you for your willingness to do this interview. It’s been good making your acquaintance in this way. If there is something you want to add or say, will you do so here for I may have missed a good issue or question. A major part of the confusion and complexity in this matter is the use of language. The Episcopal Church continues to use religious language, with words like “resurrection,” “the Bible as the Word of God,” or “Jesus is the Son of God.” But when you explore more deeply what such words or phrases mean, they diverge in to a hodge-podge of various personal opinions that can, in the final analysis, only be described as one’s own personal taste or preference…not the historic Faith handed down from generation to generation.
The leadership of The Episcopal Church, much like the leadership of much of mainline Protestantism in the U.S., has consciously or unconsciously embraced the post-modern skepticism as it pertains to language. It is the “Humpty-Dumpty” philosophy of language, when Humpty tells Alice, “When I use a word, it means precisely what I want it to mean; no more, no less.”
Alice retorts, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Humpty then replies with a telling rejoinder: “The question is which is to be master – that’s all.”
In a universe where no objective Truth or Morality exists, all that is left is power and control, and words can be twisted to meet those purposes. In The Episcopal Church (and more broadly, Western society), where a universe is posited that has no objective Truth or Morality, language is a means to an end, and that “end” is reduced to who has the power or control. So we have over fifty lawsuits in The Episcopal Church, almost all of which have been initiated by TEC, in an effort to gain power and control. Our appeal to Truth and Morality seems antiquated in today’s post-modern world, but it is an appeal we believe is true to the Christian Faith.
For readers who want to dig deeper into the legal arguments between the two Communions and specifically the two Christ Church, Savannah contenders over property and identity (who is the real Christ Church, Savannah), these links lead to the oral arguments made in May, 2011 before the Georgia Supreme Court. These the oral statements in video as available on The Daily Report website. This is an earlier story from the Savannah Morning News (January 15, 2011), here. A reader can see that the property issue is no small matter either to the two Christ Church parishes in contention, or to other denominations that have a similar structure.
In a comment to the Savannah Morning News report published in January, 2011, someone who calls himself, “Old Verger,” writes:
Old Verger
… The Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church. It is governed at the national level, with about 100 subordinate units called dioceses. Each diocese has subordinate units that are generally called parishes or missions. Most parishes are organized as individual corporations. But according to Church law, they must hold their property in trust for the next highest organizational unit (the diocese). And church law also prohibits “alienating” property without approval of the next highest organizational unit (the diocese). Christ Church agreed to all of this when the Diocese of Georgia was formed, which is how it was allowed to become an Episcopal Church in the first place. Christ Church is still a Parish in the Episcopal Church. Unfortunately, its congregation is being deprived of its own meeting place at the present time. What this legal matter is really about is the right of the continuing congregation of Christ Church, Episcopal, to occupy and enjoy its own property. Secular courts are required to recognize the authority of Church law in these matters, and the Georgia courts have done that. That is what the original trail court did and what the court of appeals upheld. Of course, individuals are free to leave the Episcopal Church at any time, and some do. However, they may not take the Episcopal Church’s real property, bank accounts and altar silver when they go.
The conservative editor of the news service Virtue talked with this writer by phone and made remarks about the litigation that has gone on between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion of North America about previous property disputes that went to court.
Editor David Virtue does not paint a positive picture for the outcome for the Episcopal Church if they win the Georgia Supreme Court case. He says there are, “millions of dollars” in property, and that, “The property has tremendous historic value. The Diocese will claim their history. The Parish will say we lost the building and we will take the theology of Wesley with us. The Diocese will have a pyrrhic victory. They will have to sell the building, if they can’t sustain it with the remaining of the congregation.”
He reports with opinion that his remarks reflect, “What’s happening in Virginia, Pittsburg… the bishop’s cut deals. You can have the building at cost, but you cannot join an Anglican Jurisdiction in five years.” The reason deals are being made, he explains, “It’s not just worth the litigation costs anymore.”
Editor of the online Virtue news service indicates his prophetic opinion regarding an outcome in Georgia for Episcopal Church: “Even if they win the property, they aren’t going to win the people. The judge in Diocese of Fort Worth case remarked, I don’t want to see any more empty churches. The Dioceses think they are winning, but they are losing.” To support this remark, Editor Virtue points out, “The average Episcopalian is now in his 60s and the average parish is 68.” He foresees this result for the Episcopal Church and arguing about Gay Marriage and other issues of sexual acceptance by the Episcopal Church sees, “The juncturing or merging of Diocese.” He pointedly remarks, “Sexual sin never wins; they’ll empty the Church doing so [the Episcopal Church will]. They are not winning the hearts of the people. The Episcopal Church is slowly going downhill…Those that are Gospel driven are growing.” He claims about his news service, Virtue Online, “We’re the largest orthodox Anglican news service online.”
Christ Church Episcopal, in a press statement says, with this remark by their Rector:
Father White … “We know that if the Court upholds the two previous favorable rulings, we will return to our church home on Johnson Square and maintain our abiding commitment to Christian grace, joy, humility, and forgiveness.”
Rector Michael S. White, Christ Church Episcopal, Savannah
“The case involves a dispute over the control of the real and personal property of Christ Church,” said Mimi Jones, the junior warden for Christ Church Episcopal. “It is not about religious faith or depriving someone from practicing their faith; however, such individuals should not do so from the Christ Church building which does not belong to them.”
Father White also noted, “Each day, we seek to be faithful stewards of Christ’s Word and Sacraments. We are a people grounded in the worship of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our congregation continues to be inspired by the strong support and encouragement from the Savannah community and from so many religious organizations in the U.S.”
An important question for Episcopalians is this: What of the validity of the movement, Rediscovering Christian Orthodoxy in the Anglican Tradition. The 111 page paper in PDF by George F. Woodliff III is a kind of favored work by Orthodox Christian Episcopalians. Or so I understand from the Rector of Christ Church, Georgia (ACNA) who recommends it.
A significant premise of the paper is apparent from the preface, written by The Rt. Reverend C. Fitzimons Allison:
George Woodliff’s careful work exposes the impotence of human conjecture to give rational solid ground to the very structures of civilized society. He shows, step by step, how the Episcopal Church has embraced a view of sexuality that is not scientific, biblical, or part of the historic faith. This loss of Christian heritage is not only a problem in the Episcopal Church; it is a dividing issue in virtually every denomination and tradition in the West.
The infiltration of secularism in Christian churches, and its rapid replacement of Christianity in industrial nations, has been spearheaded by the issue of homosexuality. It is conceded on all sides that same-sex behavior has gained unprecedented approval in the media, entertainment, and academic worlds in an astonishingly short time. Michel Foucault observed that “the sodomite has been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species [The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, An Introduction, Tr. Robert Hurley (NY 1980), p. 43].”
Jerry Z. Muller, Professor at Notre Dame, noting the rapidity of this transition attributes it “in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance [by which] homosexual ideology has achieved an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American life.” (First Things, Aug. / Sept. 1993). George Woodliff’s book is a masterful and articulate exposure of the groundless claims of recent sexual ideology.
The Rt. Reverend Allison, author of the Preface, is a former Episcopal Bishop, now part of the breakaway Communion, Anglican Communion in North America.
It is clear that the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia sees the dispute as legal, not at all theologically based. They want the property returned. In May, 5 2011 in Savannah Georgia they say in a press statement:
Several Christian denominations representing a broad spectrum of religious faiths have filed with the Georgia Supreme Court “amicus curiae” or “friend-of-the-court” briefs supporting The Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia and Christ Church Episcopal in a case involving the ownership of the historic church building located on Johnson Square and other Church properties and assets.
Those filing briefs supporting the Episcopalians include the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the United Methodist Church and the Church of God.
“These denominations have similar structures to that of the Episcopal Church, so their positions are very relevant. We are indebted to our Christian brothers and sisters for supporting our effort,” said Bishop Scott Anson Benhase. He added, “We remain steadfast and confident in our cause and are humbled and gratified by the overwhelming support we have received not only from our community but also from the world-wide Anglican Communion and a broad spectrum of other Christian denominations.”
The friend-of-the-court briefs ask the Georgia Supreme Court, which will hear the case on May 9, to affirm the Georgia Court of Appeals’ July 2010 ruling in favor of the Episcopalians. That ruling upheld Superior Court Judge Michael L. Karpf’s October 27, 2009 judgment that that the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia is entitled to legal possession of the historic Christ Church building and other Church assets for the benefit of those who remain faithful to the Diocese and The Episcopal Church.
In affirming
In the meantime, over the four or so years of dispute, life at the Parish Church of the Anglican Communion in North America continues its work and activities. If that Parish that is breakaway from the Episcopal Church feels stunned to the point of inactivity or depressed faith over the split, it doesn’t appear so in this YouTube offered below of a beautiful Compline.
There is another Communion of Anglicans in the United States, for the reader’s information. Called Convocation of Anglicans in North America, they say of themselves:
Definition of CANA:
CANA is the “Convocation of Anglicans in North America” which is a missionary district sponsored by the largest and most vibrant province of the Anglican Communion, the Church of Nigeria which at c.19 million members accounts for about 25% of the membership of the entire Anglican Communion. CANA’s members, who reflect a wide scope of ethnic and racial identities, embody a healthy balance of the catholic, evangelical, and charismatic streams of Anglican Christianity.
Mission of CANA:
The mission of CANA is to provide orthodox clergy and congregations in North America with (a) an episcopate based in North America that has an authentic connection to the Anglican Communion, and (b) an ecclesiastical structure with representative leadership by member clergy and congregations.
Vision of CANA:
The vision of CANA is to be a building block and an incubator that works to build up the Anglican Church in North America as the provincial structure for orthodox Anglicanism in North America within the next several years.
Distinctives of CANA:
CANA’s clergy and congregations are authentically in the Anglican Communion through the sponsorship of the Church of Nigeria.
CANA’s clergy and congregations are full-fledged members of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), by virtue of CANA being a founder of the ACNA.
CANA’s episcopate and ecclesiastical structure is based in North America.
CANA’s structure maintains the Anglican tradition of the “councils of the church” with representative leadership by CANA clergy and lay delegates from CANA congregations.
CANA offers a comprehensive competitively priced national healthcare insurance policy, 403b retirement fund, and other insurance plans for clergy and congregational employees.
CANA’s episcopate and clergy are a blessed reflection of the diversity of the American populace, with significant numbers of immigrants and minorities.
CANA is committed to modeling for American Anglicans the possibility of respecting both integrities regarding the ordination of women within one ecclesial body.
CANA is a gift to American Anglicanism with no strings attached—with an American financial structure, there are no requirements to provide financial support to its founding province.
CANA has built mission partnerships with Anglican provinces in the majority world based on decades-long relationships.
CANA was established after TEC had rejected the Anglican Communion’s unanimous recommendations in “The Windsor Report.”
CANA’s episcopate is led by Bishop Martyn Minns, with Suffragan Bishops Roger Ames, David Anderson, David Bena, Amos Fagbamiye; supported by two CANA archdeacons and Canon Missioner Julian Dobbs.
CANA’s Chaplains Deanery is led by Lt. Col. Derek Jones (USAF ret.) and is an endorsing agent with the Department of Defense.
ADDENDUM II
Note written during the writing process of this article-interview posted to this writer’s Facebook page:
More notes on the writing of the piece about the breakaway Christ Church, Savannah property dispute w/Episcopal Church
by Peter Menkin on Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 9:04am
Still doing some work intermittently on the piece about the breakaway Christ Church, Savannah. It occurs to me that it is still an awkward manuscript. Compiled by piecing together related material. Now at 4,408 words it needs help, including the piece that is the interview with Rector Marc Robertson. This is an important part of the article, certainly. Sometimes one reaches an impasse with this kind of process and must take a break; also one must look for more relevant material that will move the piece along and aid the reader with worthwhile material that if it doesn’t illuminate, will inform. Now I’m thinking of how to end the piece, and so far have thought of creating an Addendum. The piece is important because it is supposed to be fair and equitable, give the Christ Church, Savannah side while keeping the Episcopal Church represented well. Some people may be less interested in this dispute, as one press officer of the Episcopal Church told me, “As to the piece about a breakaway church in Georgia, I really have no interest in that as a topic. We’ve moved on.” Seems touchy, touchy, touchy in response to me. The Georgia Supreme Court rules on the property dispute at the end of the year (2011), so it is a very much a live issue. I would say others of the Episcopal Church also don’t want to hear about the subject published, as when talking to New York’s Episcopal Church national press officer, her curt and touchy, touchy, touchy response showed a similar impatience of recognizing even the existence of the breakaway Communion with one word on getting a quote or comment from the Presiding Bishop or national Church: “No.”
Bishop of the Episcopal Church Diocese of Georgia
who had no current comment, either.
AThe Reverend Jim Elliott of Diocese of Georgia,
Chancellor and attorney
for the Episcopal Church Diocese gave a detailed statement for attribution.
ADDENDUM III
In another property dispute with the Episcopal Church over a breakaway Parish in California, George Conger of The Church of England Newspaper, London wrote in part:
First published in The Church of England Newspaper. This version from The Reverend Canon George Conger’s blog, here.
Civil courts may not adjudicate ecclesiastical disputes, the California Court of Appeals has ruled. On Nov 18 the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno overturned a lower court order that had given trusteeship of the property of the Diocese of San Joaquin to a faction loyal to the national Episcopal Church.
In its 11 page decision the Fifth Court of Appeal held that while civil courts would accept the determination of the Episcopal Church as to whom it recognized as one of its bishops or dioceses, the court would not extend that power to the disposition of property. Church property disputes in California would be governed by “neutral principals of law” where the court would look to title deeds and trusts, and not to canon law or church polity, in determining ownership.
The “First Amendment rights of individuals and corporations” along with “general California statutory and common law principles governing transfer of title by the legal title holder, the law of trusts, … and general principles of corporate governance” control the disposition of church property in California.
The court held the dispute “whether Schofield or Lamb is the incumbent Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, is quintessentially ecclesiastical. Accordingly, the trial court erred in adjudicating that cause of action and, upon proper motion, must dismiss that cause of action.”
Both sides in the San Joaquin case have hailed the court’s decision as a victory. However, the ruling is likely to undercut the church’s national legal campaign. Its “strategy of claiming the property of a departing diocese because it is somehow ‘hierarchical’ today went down to defeat in Fresno,” canon lawyer Allan Haley said…
…Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori responded by deposing Bishop Schofield and calling a special meeting of synod, which elected the retired Bishop of Northern California as the diocese’s acting bishop. Bishop Lamb and the minority faction then deposed the clergy who supported the secession, and initiated a lawsuit seeking control over the diocese’s property.
On July 21, 2009 the trial court granted a motion in summary judgment on the first count of the complaint brought by Bishop Lamb, which asked for a “judicial declaration that the amendments finally adopted by the Diocese in December 2007 were illegal and void under the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA, and that as a consequence Bishop Lamb had succeeded to the position as bishop of the Diocese, incumbent of its corporation sole, and president/trustee of its associated property-holding entities.”
Bishop Schofield and the now Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin appealed the motion, which effectively gave the minority faction absolute control of the property. However, in its ruling the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in determining who the proper bishop of San Joaquin was.
The trial court was instructed to determine who the lawful owner of the property was by way of a review of the property transfers made by Bishop Schofield and to determine if these transfers were valid under civil law.
In a statement released after the verdict, attorneys for Bishop Lamb accounted the decision as a victor. San Joaquin Chancellor Michael Glass claimed the decision means “the defendants can no longer assert in court that a Diocese has the right to unilaterally secede from The Episcopal Church, or that Bishop Lamb is somehow not the Bishop of the Diocese.”
Episcopal Church Katherine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop,
shown with Bishop Jerry Lamb. Bishop Lamb came out of retirement
to lead a California Diocese that was reformed after
the original Diocese broke away from Episcopal Church
ADDENDUM IV
In this case regarding a property dispute, web site, Thinking Anglicans comments and reports this on their web page, quoted in part; but for the full text, look here:
Wednesday, 2 February 2011 Appeals Court upholds Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh Updated again Saturday morning
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports: Court upholds Episcopal Diocese’s claim to assets.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has upheld an Allegheny Common Pleas decision awarding centrally held property of the Episcopal diocese that split in 2008 to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh rather than to the rival Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.
About $20 million in endowment funds and other assets is at stake. The ruling has no direct impact on ownership of parish property, other than indicating that Anglican parishes must apply to the Episcopal diocese to negotiate for their property, rather than vice versa.
The Anglican diocese has not decided whether to pursue a further appeal.
Lionel Deimel has further details of this, see Details of Commonwealth Court Ruling.
The full text of the judgment can be read from a PDF file here.
There is now a fuller story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Episcopal diocese wins a legal round.
Episcopal Bishop Kenneth Price Jr. welcomed the decision, which arrived the day his diocese reached the first settlement with an Anglican parish. It required that parish to cut ties with the Anglican diocese for five years.
“We are pleased with the court’s findings and hope this will be the final legal challenge concerning this issue,” he said…
…The Episcopal Diocese has issued this press release: Appeals Court Upholds Diocese in Assets Case
ADDENDUM V
Litigation History and Background
Historical Matters
Christ Church was the first church in the Colony of Georgia, and in 1758 an act of the Royal Council granted it ownership of the church building and cemetery (now known as the “Colonial Cemetery”, on Abercorn Street). Subsequent to the Revolution the Georgia legislature granted a charter of incorporation to Christ Church, giving the corporate entity the name The Church Wardens and Vestry Men of the episcopal church in Savannah, called Christ church [sic], and confirmed the corporation’s ownership of all property then held by it or afterwards coming into its possession. (Note that the name of the corporation subsequently was changed to The Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah, which it remains to this day.) The Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah (herein generally called “Christ Church”) has not conveyed title to its real property to any other party, nor has it assigned any ownership interest in its personal property other than as security for the repayment of certain loans from time to time.
In 1823, three churches in Georgia, namely Christ Church, St. Paul’s, Augusta, and Christ Church, Frederica, created the Diocese of Georgia and contributed funds for its operations and mission. Christ Church has contributed to the financial support of the diocese ever since. The diocese has never given any financial support to Christ Church.
In 1918 the corporate charter of Christ Church was amended, for reasons that are somewhat unclear, to provide that Christ Church “does hereby acknowledge and accede to the doctrine, discipline and worship and the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America [the national Episcopal organization, now called “The Episcopal Church”], and the Constitution and Canons of the same church in the Diocese of Georgia.” The Constitution and Canons of the national church and the Diocese of Georgia at that time did not include the Dennis Canon.
In 1979 the General Convention of The Episcopal Church (”TEC”) purportedly adopted Canon I.7, Sec. 4, the so-called “Dennis Canon”, (see a copy at the link below) in response to certain judicial developments arising out of controversies in the Presbyterian Church in the 1970s.
On March 30, 2006, the corporate charter of Christ Church was revised so as to repeal all amendments thereto since the original act of incorporation in 1789, and to add appropriate modern provisions required by the internal revenue code of 1986 and the Georgia Non-profit Corporation Code. One result of these revisions was the repeal of the 1918 charter amendment described above, and the addition of a provision that Christ Church “shall be in full communion with all Anglican Churches, Dioceses and Provinces that hold and maintain the Historic Faith, Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as the Lord has commanded in His Holy Word and as the same are received and taught in the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal of 1662, and in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.”
Lawsuit
On October 14, 2007, the congregation of Christ Church voted to recognize that TEC and the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia had abandoned the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer and the historic Christian Faith as received, and in so doing had abandoned the communion previously existing between themselves and Christ Church. (See a copy of the resolution at the link below.) On November 14, 2007, the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, Inc., (hereinafter called the “Bishop” or the “Diocese”) filed suit in the Superior Court of Chatham County against Christ Church, Fr. Marc Robertson, and the individual members of the vestry (including the clerk) (Civil Action No. CV 07-2039KA). The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court that all “real and personal property of Christ Church is held in trust for The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Georgia”, and a temporary and permanent injunction ordering Christ Church (i) to stop using such property except for “the mission of The Episcopal Church” and (ii) to relinquish control of such property. It also seeks a judgment against Fr. Marc for all “pecuniary benefits” (salary, etc.,) paid by Christ Church since March 30, 2006, a judgment against the individual vestry members for funds of Christ Church used for purposes other than the “mission and ministry of The Episcopal Church”, and for “such further relief as may be necessary and proper.”
On January 10, 2008, the parties met for formal mediation in an attempt to reach some resolution without litigation. In preliminary discussions prior to the mediation certain ground rules had been laid down regarding what matters were open for discussion and so forth. However, when the parties met for the mediation it became apparent immediately that the Bishop did not intend to follow the agreed protocol. Among other things, the Bishop attempted to bring to the table certain former members of Christ Church, not parties to the lawsuit, and allow them to participate equally in the mediation.
On January 11, 2008, TEC filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, that is, to be allowed to participate in the lawsuit as a plaintiff. Both Christ Church and the Bishop consented to such intervention.
On May 27, 2008, a group calling itself the “Wardens and Vestry of Christ Church Episcopal” (hereinafter called “CCE”) filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit as a party plaintiff. Christ Church opposed this motion on the bases that (i) there was no showing that CCE was a legal entity with capacity to sue, and (ii) CCE’s intervention would improperly introduce new issues into the lawsuit. A hearing was held on the matter, and CCE amended its motion to allege that it was an unincorporated association with legal capacity. The court then granted the motion and CCE joined the lawsuit as a party plaintiff on September 9, 2008.
Legal Matters
The primary basis for the claims of the Bishop, TEC, and CCE is the Dennis Canon. The Dennis Canon purports to create a trust for the benefit of TEC and for the local diocese over any property held by or for a parish. The main issues are (i) whether the Dennis Canon was effective to create a trust, and (ii) if so, what effect that has on the authority of the vestry of Christ Church to deal with the church’s assets.
Several questions have been raised as to whether the Dennis Canon was properly adopted, i.e., whether the procedures required by TEC’s own Constitution and Canons were followed. Strangely, critical portions of the official records kept at the time of the 1979 General Convention dealing with the Dennis Canon have disappeared from the custody of TEC. Even if the Dennis Canon was validly adopted in accordance with TEC’s rules, its legal effectiveness to create a trust has been called in question in several court cases and never directly decided in a final judgment. Cases presently are pending in the Supreme Court of California in which it is anticipated the court will decide whether the Dennis Canon is legally effective under California law. The court is expected to rule sometime no later than January, 2009.
Note that the legal effectiveness of the Dennis Canon to create a trust in favor of TEC and the local Bishop is a matter of state law, which governs the creation and operation of trusts. Thus, whether and to what extent a court decision from another state bears on Christ Church’s case depends on the precise rationale of the decision, the degree of similarity between the trust laws of Georgia and the other state, and related matters.
A “trust” is defined generally as a fiduciary relationship with respect to property, arising from a manifestation of intent to create that relationship, and subjecting the person who holds title to the property to certain duties to deal with it for the benefit of one or more other parties. It is useful to think of the ownership of property as consisting of two essential aspects: the right to control and manage the property, and the right to benefit from the property. Most of the time these two aspects of ownership are held by the same person, but where a trust exists they are separated. The right of control is held by one or more parties called the “trustee(s)” and the right to the benefits of the property (e.g., its income) are held by one or more other parties, each of whom is called a “beneficiary”. Where a trust exists the trustee has full control over the management of the property but must exercise this authority for the sole benefit of the beneficiary of the trust. The beneficiary generally has little or no power to control the management of the trust assets so long as the trustee is not abusing its power in some way. It is axiomatic that the person creating the trust (termed the “settler” or “grantor”) must own the property over which the trust is imposed at the time the trust is created. This is the great issue with the Dennis Canon, aside from the question of whether it was validly adopted in the first place.
This report appeared originally in Church of England Newspaper, London, September, 2011 by Peter Menkin.
Review: The movie Courageous with book excerpts, produced by Sherwood Baptist Church--film with a statement on fatherhood...
Peter Menkin
Kendrick Brothers: Collaborating writers, film makers,
Southern Baptist pastors
For
a Church gathering, there are many areas of discussion, thought, and even
Christian conversation the movie Courageous plays to and is
good play as a movie to see. One of these areas comes to the science-vs.-faith
discussion, for its worldview is Christian, and its means of portraying
character and ways to live is based on religious moral tenants, mostly derived
from the Old and New Testament. One area of worldview is the Christian demand
that Christians see the world as it is, for its reality and for what is going on
in their lives and life.
To
this end the question of sociology and its science, the area of economic and
other areas of modern ways of worldview, for how they form human lives plays a
part. Is the cause of the fall of fatherhood, the rise of family disintegration
and the declining if disappearing middle class the result of a poor economy? Is
it the result of societal pressures, and norms, reacting to changes in the
culture and society? This writer wants to explore the film’s worldview and
emphasize the area of cultural and social sensibility portrayed in the religious
community of this movie Courageous. Let us also look briefly at
what kind of courage it takes for an individual, and a community, let alone a
nation, to deal with decaying situations that are not only material, but moral,
spiritual, and even value driven. Certainly, these are areas of the human heart,
as is courage of men an area of the male heart. So the film says.
Finally, as a note in this introduction,
let us if only briefly consider that many of the people and their values, though
Biblically and religiously motivated, are colored by the class values of the
American middle class. For this is a movie that the middle class, those who were
middle class, and those who want to be or live its way of life in value see the
world.
Cookout
In
the film “Courageous,” released September 2011, there are
artistic artifices that caught this writer’s attention. The primary one
portrayed by cultural and social sensibility, of even religious community, was
reliance on the myth of the American middle class. Is there much of a middle
class in America anymore, and significantly does story of the film in its
fiction really make for a way of life that is both desirous to emulate as shown
in the film; and is it even something relevant to the way American’s live today
in the present economic and social realities? For this writer, the movies
dramatic framework is a picture of the last phenomenon of the missing, not
shrinking so much, middle class and its portrayal of a good life. Shall we call
this an economic matter, rather than glance at the artistic vision that shows a
1950s way of wanting life to be in its post-World War II affluence.
The
magazine, The Atlantic, explores this issue of the existence of
an American middle class in their September 2011 issue, “Can the Middle Class be
Saved?” by Don Peck. Maybe the film Courageous, an action
adventure movie produced by the work of a Southern Baptist Church in Albany,
Georgia (filmed in Albany, Georgia, too), with the help of friends and
benefactors. They are responsible in great part for financing the million dollar
production, could also hold a similar cry, “Can the Middle Class be Saved?” In
this support by this large group of Churches, businesses, and people, we see an
American dream. Nay, an American promise.
But
more so, the movie about the father’s role in a family, and the promise to be a
good father within the sight of God as part of a religious community, speaks to
the moral shortcomings of American society today. After all, though a cultural
property with a social statement, the film is really one founded in religious,
Christian sensibility. The film wants and plans to emulate American cultural
promise, not counter-cultural statement. The film admires and says the religious
life is the middle class life, both in material style and in value sense. The
middle class is here and now for this movie about American men and fatherhood.
In short, the middle class exists and its American Christianity, for which it
fights to engage and make model of its religious and Church community world, is
attainable.
But
for The Atlantic piece, it says America is more Plutocracy
today (21st Century), than anything else. It is akin in the present
national sense of eras, in the real America of today in the here and now America
to two eras of the American past: The Gilded Age, and the Roaring Twenties.
What has this to do with the movie? It
shows a kind of disconnect between what is in America today, and what has been
and continues to be a cultural and economic American dream of a real middle
class. It more than hints a middle class life is necessary to relationship with
God, or at least the desired means of relationship.
Nonetheless, this movie is not a true
propaganda film, nor does it spellbind the viewer to succumb to a sense that
this is a Christian education film. The movie is a true moral story. That is a
great strength; Courageous speaks to America today in these
ways best.
The
film speaks to the serious and real moral failings of the society today,
portraying a positive sense of possibility, and offering male sensibilities of
how to live one’s life in the family, and in society. Even the title speaks this
message: Courage.
Though the film depicts physical courage by
men in action it does not solely rely on this as the measure of manhood and
courage. Testosterone alone is not what courage and bravery are about. An
example of courage, military in kind albeit, is demonstrated by a recent winner
of the Medal of Honor. For this is an honor given for bravery, honor, and a
moral strength of courage in the face of fear and death in sacrifice for others.
That’s the idea.
Here is The Los Angeles
Times reporting on the American winner of a recent, and rarely received
Medal of Honor:
Dakota Meyer
A Marine sergeant will receive the Medal of Honor for bravery in
Afghanistan from President Obama on Sept. 15, the White House announced
Friday. Dakota Meyer, 23, a scout-sniper from Columbia, Ky., fought through fire
from enemy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades to help rescue and
evacuate more than 15 wounded Afghan soldiers and recover the bodies of four
American service personnel. The incident occurred Sept. 8, 2009, in a remote
mountainous village during an hours-long firefight with Taliban
fighters. Meyer’s heroism is detailed in the book “The Wrong War” by Bing West,
former Marine and former assistant secretary of Defense. West said that Meyer
dominated the battlefield by fearlessly pumping rifle and machine-gun rounds
into enemy positions during the rescue attempt. At the time, Meyer was a
corporal, the most junior advisor in the firefight. Meyer is now part of the
inactive ready reserve of the Marine Corps Reserve.
From Military Times by
John Hayward:
Cpl. Meyer was
amazing: Meyer, then 21, went into the kill zone on
foot after helicopter pilots called on to respond said they could not help
retrieve the four missing service members because the fighting on the ground was
too fierce, according to a witness statement he provided the military. He found
his buddies in a trench where pilots had spotted them. “I checked them all for a pulse. There
[sic] bodies were already stiff,” Meyer said in a sworn statement he was asked
to provide military investigators. “I found SSgt Kenefick facedown in the trench
w/ his GPS in his hand. His face appeared as if he were screaming. He had been
shot in the head.” Meyer was already suffering from shrapnel
wounds at the time. He nevertheless assisted in the retrieval of the bodies. All
four of the fallen soldiers were subsequently honored with Bronze
Stars.
And
from another The Los Angeles Times report:
Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, 25, will
receive the nation’s highest award for valor for rushing directly into enemy
fire during a Taliban ambush in Afghanistan on Oct. 25, 2007, and pulling three
wounded soldiers to safety, according to a Pentagon account. Giunta had been
knocked down by a bullet that slammed into a thick plate of his body armor, but
recovered in time to fire his automatic rifle and hurl a grenade at the
attackers. …Giunta first rescued two soldiers who had
been wounded during the ambush along a wooded ridgeline in the rugged Korengal
Valley in Kunar province, according to the Pentagon account. He then spotted two
insurgents attempting to haul off a wounded American paratrooper and opened
fire, forcing them to abandon the soldier and retreat…
This man Giunta exhibited extraordinary
courage to the point of real gallantry. But so did, and as well, the recent
courageous man, Dakota Meyer. There’s the operative word: gallantry.
America does not lack courage. No. But it
does have to face the male challenge of fatherhood, its responsibilities,
whether one agrees with the spiritual and religious message of the film or not.
This editorial commentary is made in the face of a changed condition of economic
promise and vanishing of the middle class for the new reality of the existence
of what has become for the society: Plutocracy.
From The Atlantic article
by Don Peck:
One of the most salient features of severe
downturn is that they tend to accelerate deep economic shifts that are already
under way. Declining industries and companies fail, spurring workers and capital
toward rising sectors declining cities shrink faster, leaving blight, workers
whose roles have been partly usurped by technology are pushed out en masse and
never asked to return. Some economists have argued that in one sense, periods
like these do nations a service by clearing a way for new innovation, more
efficient production, and faster growth. Whether or not that’s true, they
typically allow us to see, with rare and brutal clarity, where society is
heading—and what sorts of people and places it is leaving
behind.
Let
us engage in the movie Courageous, and as in movie viewing
indulge our imaginations and surrender to the artifice of the artists, who are
many actors of professional kind, and some members of the Southern Baptist
Church responsible for the making of as well as creation of this filmic work
that does hold the viewer’s attention, and also entertains with its acting,
scenes, and dialogue. Remember, the movie about courage requires a moral compass
and standpoint, as we believe true courage offers in its
value.
Time magazine says of the
films produced so far by the Church group of its economically successful history
in an article by Richard CorlissMonday, Oct. 06,
2008: Here we learn about the Kendrick brothers,
both ordained Southern Baptist Ministers.
Alex, 38, and Stephen, 35, grew up in
metro Atlanta, the second and third sons of a minister. (Their older brother
works at IBM). Both earned communication degrees at Georgia’s Kennesaw State
University, attended seminary and got ministerial jobs at Sherwood. After
reading a study about the influence of movies on culture and the relative lack
of influence of the church, the brothers decided to return to what had been an
adolescent hobby, playing with a video camera. In 2003, they asked their church
for $20,000 to form a production company, Sherwood Pictures, and make a movie,
Flywheel, about a dishonest used car salesman who sees the light. Flywheel got a
local theatrical release and a pickup by Blockbuster Video, and went on to sell
more than 200,000 DVDs. But it was Sherwood Pictures’ second film,Facing the Giants, a 2006 parable of football and faith, that
earned the Kendricks notice in Hollywood. Produced for $100,000, the movie was
dismissed by mainstream critics as too earnest and heavy-handed. But due to the
recommendations of pastors and Christian publications, the film went on to earn
more than $10 million at the box office, and it sold 1.6 million DVDs.
The
movie Courageous speaks, that is it plays well and entertains,
more than holding the audience’s interest and attention. In its way, it edifies
with an author’s message. But there is a review of the film in this
article-interview, and there is an interview with one of the writers, Alex
Kendrick (a Southern Baptist pastor).
What sticks out in the movie, like the
thumb of a hand, are these bulleted points. They caught this writer’s attention,
and were good fuel for discussing the merits of the writing and the values
entertained in the movie. It is because the film, though not of artistic and
dramatic merit like many Hollywood films, raises interesting and important
subjects of religious living in relationship to family and God, and offers a way
of living life in family (especially and specifically the role of fathers as
men) that these points surface:
·Is this
really how life is lived, or is life messy?
·Was Jesus so
good and nice as a man? Is it important to God that we be good and nice men and
boys and girls, or real?
·Has the
American family lost its way–so badly?
Time magazine
says about the group’s previous film: Fireproof
is a family drama, made in rural Georgia by two brothers who are evangelist
ministers; it teaches that God is the best marriage counselor, and
is made
for Christian moviegoers.
Based on the enthusiasm seen so far for
the film, Kendrick said he would anticipate a very positive reception. “There is
already a ton of momentum on our website, and we’ve got churches across the
nation praying for us,” he said. So writes,
Jennifer Maddox Parks, staff writer in the
Albany Herald (jennifer.parks@albanyherald.com
).
Sherwood Church, at its Sunday evening
service November 15, 2009, announced the theme and title for Sherwood Pictures’
fourth movie. Senior Pastor Michael Catt, Executive Pastor Jim McBride, and
ministers Stephen and Alex Kendrick—collectively the leadership team of Sherwood
Pictures—made the announcement.
o“The movie
is about fatherhood and the title is one word: COURAGEOUS,”
Alex Kendrick said, briefly outlining the plot. “Four fathers who are all in
law enforcement—who protect and serve together—go through a terrible tragedy,”
he said. “They begin looking at their role as fathers . . . and they begin
challenging one another to fulfill God’s intention for fathers.”
oThat
single-word title, Pastor Catt said, echoes God’s call for men to “rise with
courage” in their homes and as leaders. This at a time when 4 of 10 marriages
end in divorce* and more than a third of all children live away from their
biological fathers.
o“The
statistics on fatherless children are devastating,” McBride said. “And because
the family is the building block of society, one important place to rebuild
families is through fathers who stay and lead and love.”
o“God led
us,” co-writer and producer Stephen Kendrick said to the audience of church
members, many of them volunteer crew, cast, or catering in earlier Sherwood
movies. “We believe God is calling men to rise up with strength and with
leadership in their homes, with their families and with their
children.”
o“For more
than a year we’ve prayed to be sure that we’re pursuing God’s idea and not our
own,” Catt said. “With action, drama, and humor, this film will embrace God’s
promise in the Bible to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the
hearts of children to their fathers.”
Sherwood Church,
through its Sherwood Pictures, has a mission for the movies they make.
Courageous is distributed by Trystar and Sony Pictures is
involved. So this is a big-time reality of movie making and its world. Sherwood
describes their film model this way:Sherwood
films are good stories, well-told, in which audiences recognize their own
lives.The filmmakers weave in important spiritual truths, hoping movie watchers
will leave theaters thinking about their own lives and relationships—with God
and with others.
Prayer is foundational to Sherwood’s films and precedes each
phase of development, production, and marketing. Cast and crew are made up
largely of volunteers who become ambassadors to the message once the movie is
complete.
Some biographical information from the
producers about Alex Kendrick, who was interviewed by this writer by phone are
below. The Reverend Alex talked in answer to written questions prepared prior to
the interview (the usual fashion of this writer’s preparing questions), and
later spent a weekend looking over the typed transcript, and made some changes.
Note that The Reverend Alex was a religious DJ, as it were. There is a broadcast
tone to the responses in the interview.
Before joining the Sherwood staff, Alex was
a college minister at Roswell Street Baptist in Marietta GA. He also announced
on Christian radio for five years in Atlanta. He’s spoken at events such as the
National Religious Broadcasters Conference, the International Christian Visual
Media Conference, and Georgia’s Youth Evangelism Conference.
EDUCATION: Alex graduated from Kennesaw State University
with a Bachelor of Science degree in communications. He also attended Bryan
College, in Dayton TN, and the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
FAMILY: Alex and his wife, Christina, married for 17 years,
live in Albany and have six children.
What or who is Sherwood Baptist Church.
They describe themselves this way:
Sherwood Church operates more than 20 ministry programs from Albany GA’s
northwest section. Though internationally known for its film ministry, Sherwood
Pictures, the church is many things locally, with a range of services for
children of all ages; college, career and singles groups; missionary outreach to
other cities; church planting; adult worship and teaching programs. Sherwood
sponsors annual community events such as Freedom Fest (Fourth of July) and
October’s Candy Fest—and operates a Crisis Pregnancy Center and biblical
counseling center for the Southwest Georgia region. Sherwood currently is
completing an 82-acre sports park with a family-friendly, Christ-centered
atmosphere for the people of Southwest Georgia. Sherwood supports local
ministries helping people in need of food and/or help with drug and
alcohol-related issues. Dr. Michael Catt, senior pastor, 1989-present.
The Sherwood Church has 3,000-plus members. A typical Sunday morning
reaches thousands of viewers in Albany and beyond through on-campus worship
and in classes, TV and radio broadcasts, film, and targeted outreach
programs.
The writers talk to us about their film “Courageous”
INTERVIEW
1.Let’s
talk writing a film, the story, and the theological content. Let’s talk a little
also about writing the film by looking at the work it takes, the time involved,
and significantly, something about the book derived from the screenplay: (When
you conceived the film with your brother as co-pastor of your Church, what was
it about the genre, the characters in this work, too, that caught your attention
and inspired you? How did you find the story playing out in your own mind as you
developed the filmic version, and the transformation the characters went
through? Will you speak to something of the Gospel and theological dimension of
fatherhood, and how it is of meaning to your audience and to your own faith and
life?
Writing is not an easy thing. As they say,
“story is king”, so the plot has to engage the audience in a significant way to
work. For us, that means touching their hearts. Since we are a ministry before
anything else, we start with a season of prayer, which is sometimes a year long.
This is where we ask God for guidance and for the theme and story direction.
Once we have that direction, my brother Stephen and I begin researching and
writing. It usually takes three to four months to finish a script, which is then
tested through trusted friends and fellow ministers. We get a lot of counsel
before finalizing the story. For Courageous, our desire is to show the
importance of fathers in a child’s life. We’ve found that a person’s view of God
is in many ways similar to their view of their father. In other words, if their
dad was a loving, nurturing presence in their life, then it is easier to believe
that God loves them and wants a relationship with them. If their father was gone
or emotionally disengaged, then they struggle to believe that God cares for
them. So being a father automatically has emotional and spiritual implications
early on. In the movie, we follow four officers who fight crime on the streets,
but struggle in their role as dad at home. Each father is tested in his own way,
and we see how courage is needed in a number of scenarios to be a strong,
healthy father. It’s very inspiring.
2.It is so
large a project to produce a film, and to have the kind of success with a faith
movie (a Christian faith movie) as your company has had. Do you attribute this
to the message and the Gospel values that are put forth in the dramatic
constructs that the film represents? In what way does the Gospel, that is God’s
message in Christ, lead these men and the film forward to a conclusion? Are the
scenes and conflicts of the film of a kind that are human in a way that speaks
of Biblical kinds of human situations and values?
We center our focus in the movie on Joshua
24:15, where Joshua is calling the men of Israel to make a decision. He tells
them to choose today whom they will serve. He goes on to say, “As for me and my
house, we will serve the Lord”. We say that at the end of the movie. Joshua was
telling the men not to sit on the fence. Your children need you to make a
decision. He makes a resolution in front of the whole nation to challenge men to
think in those terms. Stop being wishy washy. Be a man! Just as Joshua did
thousands of years ago, we are saying the same thing today. We’re losing the
next generation because we’re not standing firm. We are reminding them that this
is needed more than ever today. Either Jesus Christ is worth following and
trusting, or he is not. But you can’t have it both ways. We use realistic
situations in Courageous that most people will identify with, and then show them
the results of living out your faith, or compromising and living hypocritically.
3.Would you
call your films kind of a movie version of a television drama, rather than a
movie of filmic kind. In other words, how do you categorize the style of the
work and its place in the movie world from a writer and movie person’s
viewpoint? Tell us something of the actors? Who are they, and where do they come
from? And because of who they are, do you think as a writer and director that
they fulfill their roles in a way with more meaning and genuineness because they
are Church going believers. Or is it that these human stories have an appeal
outside the Christian sensibility alone, and a kind of universal dynamic of
mankind in the modern world?
Cinematically, Courageous is by far our
largest film, both in scale and budget. We’ve taken lessons learned from our
first three films and applied them to this one, and I think it shows. The actors
share our passion for this theme. They’re comprised of Christian professionals
that we pulled from all over the nation, to a few church volunteers that had
experience from previous films. In both cases, we spent hours working with them
and praying over their roles. And when an actor really believes in the project
he or she is working on, it shows. There is something intangible about the way
it comes across on screen. Audiences that have seen the pre-screenings have
noted how real the scenarios were to their own lives, and how realistic the
actors reflected their emotions. Although artistic in its presentation, we show
the grittiness of tension, grief, humor, and redemption. There’s no
sugar-coating in Courageous, and I think the audience appreciates that, no
matter their religious affiliation.
4.What part
of the film script is most important or prominent in the book based on the
script? Can you tell us where to find it in the book, and will you give this
writer an excerpt of it from the book itself, and also from the screenplay so
people may see the similarities and differences? Tell us the difference between
these two forms the difficulty in moving from one to the other? Do you think
someone who enjoys the movie Courageous will want the book,
too? Why? Or does the book have a life of its own outside the
movie?
First, there are two books directly related
to the movie. One is the story in novel form, written from our screenplay by
Randy Alcorn. He takes the two hour script and greatly expands it to include
numerous subplots and additional themes. It’s a totally different experience
than just watching the movie. Because a book is not as limited in length, you
can explore backstories and characters in much greater detail. For many people,
the movie can never compete with a good novel. The other book is non-fiction,
and is called The Resolution for Men. My brother Stephen and I wrote this one,
and it was the most challenging thing we’ve ever written. We take everything the
scriptures say about fatherhood and present it as God’s design and purpose for
men in today’s culture. After working on it, we had to raise our own standards
of how strategic our time is with our children. God calls fathers to mentor and
be the primary influence in the lives of their children. When we compared where
we were with what scripture says, we realized we weren’t as good as we thought.
The Resolution for Men is definitely a game-changer! After men see the movie,
they will want to read this book as the next step in their own journey of
growing as a man and as a father.
5.I’m
certain I’ve missed much that you want to tell us about the script and your work
as a writer, in collaboration with your brother. But it seems that the script
and movie is collaboration. Speak to us about the collaborative screen process,
and if you had any conversations on the Bible between you two in its writing?
Did you speak of the modern, 21st century family dynamics and needs
between the two of you? Tell us about some of those needs that are developed in
the film? What needs did you miss? I’m sure you can’t say everything in one
film.
Since we are both ministers at Sherwood
Church in Albany, Georgia, we interact and see families every week. Stephen and
I also have different strengths. After writing the script together, I direct the
movie while he produces. It’s rare that we disagree on the direction the movie
needs to go. But we do challenge everything along the way. If the story plots
and themes are solid, then they will stand, but if not, we cut them out. Nothing
is assumed. As far as the dynamics of the biblical themes, we have found that
God’s truths are as applicable today as when they were first written. Culture
changes, and values sway with the wind, but truth is truth, no matter who
challenges it. God appointed the father to be the primary leader in the life of
a child. Although the mother is vitally important, she cannot adequately
represent both roles as effectively. Every child needs a masculine presence in
their lives that demonstrates truth, love, justice, integrity, and protection.
When those things are not represented well, or are not there from a father, then
the child struggles with them throughout life.
6.Thank you
for the opportunity to make your acquaintance in this interview. If you have
anything you want to add, or say, will you tell us now?
Courageous will shake men
up a bit. It is an entertaining film, but it will also touch a deep part of
every man who watches it. Women will find both comfort and concern when they see
it, but will gain a greater reason to cheer their husbands or fathers along.
The movie comes out in theaters September 30th in the US and Canada,
and follows in theaters a few months later in Mexico, South Africa, and Nigeria.
The website is www.courageousthemovie.com, and
visitors can view the trailer, clips, and read about the story. The Courageous
novel and the book The Resolution for Men is available now in bookstores
everywhere.
When discussing the film with his
assistant, Linda Shirado, this writer was asked by her, Where does the money
go? This interview with Sherwood Church’s Senior Pastor, Dr. Michael Catt,
tells us something of Where does the money go?
Q. What missions does Sherwood
Church support with movie funds?
A.
Through the North American Mission Board, Sherwood has helped three
start-up churches in the US: two in Baltimore (one urban, one suburban), one in
San Francisco (near the financial district). Through the International Mission
Board, Sherwood supports missions worldwide. At home, Sherwood funds local
outreaches such as The Lord’s Pantry (food pantry), a crisis pregnancy program,
and a drug-and-alcohol treatment center. Giving may change, of course, as needs
and opportunities change.
Q. How did Sherwood Church arrive at
how it would allocate Sherwood Pictures’ revenue?
A. Well before FIREPROOF was a DVD,
a team of former deacon chairmen began praying with Pastor Catt to help the
church project to the year 2020. Their prayers: how do we continue to reach
the world from Albany, Georgia—and not just through movies? In what other
ministries should we invest in and participate?What impact
might we make? All decision making related to money is prayerful and
deliberate.
Q. The operative word is prayer?
A.
A visiting pastor said of the Sherwood Church prayer tower: I’ve
preached across the world and this country, and this is the only church that
proclaims atits front door: We are committed to prayer.
We are! Prayer buoys our unity, vision, purpose, missions, and giving. We’d
rather be known as a people of prayer than the folks who made the
movies.
Besides monthly finance meetings, Executive
Pastor Jim McBride meets weekly to pray with members of the finance
committee—covering church members’ giving, illnesses, lost jobs (many examples
of answered prayer!) the church budget . . . and good stewardship.
Every week, 200 men pray for Pastor Michael
Catt’s Sunday sermon. In building the sports park, church members walked and
prayed over every single acre. At the base of the large cross central to the
park, church leaders buried a capsule of prayer cards from the last five
years.
REVIEW
Trailer for the film
Matters of
the Male Heart and the way of Fatherhood: a Review of
Courageous
The
entertaining and thought provoking movie, Courageous starts
with a thrilling car robbery. Sony Pictures is involved with worldwide
acquisitions, and surprisingly the work was shot in Albany, Georgia. The
producers of the film describe the storyline this way, and it is an accurate
statement:
“The movie is about fatherhood and the title is one word:
COURAGEOUS,” co-writer of the screenplay and pastor Alex
Kendrick says, briefly outlining the plot. “Four fathers who are all in law
enforcement—who protect and serve together—go through a terrible tragedy,” he
said. “They begin looking at their role as fathers . . . and they begin
challenging one another to fulfill God’s intention for fathers.”
The
author’s message and the basic premise of the film is introduced in an early
scene by the Sheriff himself who speaks to the problems of young people and the
need for fathering in their community. It shows how the film plays for the
actors with the challenge of portraying male bonding and the relational actions,
some real action packed moments and other conversations between the men when off
duty together. There is the tension and drama of police work, but the thrust of
the film is written to focus on these sheriff officers as people, and especially
as fathers.
Among the storyline concerns is the
contemporary one of gangs and gang members in their conflicts, and even in the
violence of their relationships and criminality. These are not all white
officers, but fathers from different ethnic areas: White, African-American, and
Hispanic. Set in the South, there is a true friendship between these men and
even a kind of fatherhood of the group that shares their lives
together.
This writer calls this movie, designed for
Christian audiences, but attractive to the general viewer, one that adapts the
Biblical message of Joshua 24:15, where Joshua is calling the men of
Israel to make a decision. He tells them to choose today whom they will serve.
He goes on to say, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”. We say that
at the end of the movie. Joshua was telling the men not to sit on the fence.
Your children need you to make a decision. He makes a resolution in front of the
whole nation to challenge men to think in those terms. (So says the
co-writer The Reverend Alex Kendrick in an interview with this
writer.)
The producers use as a model for the community where the movie plays out its
life, their own community, Albany, Georgia which they report these
demographics:Males: 34,914 Females: 40,917
Percentages: 64.80 African American, 33.21 White
Military population: approximately 18,000 Albany residents active or retired
military and military support personnel.
The
result of the movie-making ministry of Sherwood Church (Southern Baptist) in
Albany, Georgia, their religious, Christian film with references to God and
intentional faith in human everyday life and predicaments has a refreshing
quality. The result of their candor and willingness to portray people in various
scenes of living who are part of a Church Community is one strong attraction for
audiences. Most of the Christian references are to “God,” rather than “Christ,”
though it is clear that this is a film by and for Christians, for not only is
“Christ” mentioned by name, but the ending is a kind-of preaching statement that
talks in an attractive and engaging way of the trials and tribulations of living
this kind of Christian life dramatized in the film in the popular American genre
of action-packed Americana. There is even a kind of innocence to the film, so
characteristic of the American personality. This comes out as both a worthwhile
earnestness and a genuine honesty to be more in relationship to God in Christ in
a Church community.
From this writer’s notes when screening the
film, is this: Some would call this a salvation film. This is a “very Christian”
film. Is it for a general audience? It is a film about Christians and
Christianity in a Christian community.
One
emotion the film lacks is a sense of bitterness about contemporary American
life. Often it is too dear. This writer thinks it is tuned to an audience, and
so must Sony in many ways for they are involved with the movie, one that stands
on its own feet and plays well to probably most audiences… Enough so to get good
exposure and sell tickets.
In
this film there is some unusual activity, not seen in the average Hollywood
film, or the general release. People pray in this film and share their prayers
with others. For this writer, this works. But it is not high drama, not as the
drama plays out in the movie. This is a failing of the movie. One’s relationship
with God has areas of tension, argument, and is in fact not as bland in meaning
and story as to be without more drama. Is not the work of God, prayer, high
drama in itself?
Essentially, there is a kind of redundancy
in the message that works well, and convincingly. It engages the viewer with
its: Christian message, Christian message, Christian message…given over and
over. But not so it puts off even this critical member of the screening
audience.
It
is clear that the co-writers, who are Southern Baptist pastors, offer a pastor’s
view of life and fatherhood: Successfully dealing with matters of the male
heart; the Bible film displays these values in its cinema methods professionally
done to the 21st Century modern world of American values. It does
tell a story of family life well.
ADDENDUM I
This excerpt from the book
Courageous is reprinted by permission of the producers of the
film, Courageous.
Randy dedicates this book
to:
My precious wife, Nanci,
my wonderful daughters, Karina and
Angela,
my excellent sons-in-law, Dan Franklin and
Dan Stump,
and my beloved grandsons, Jake, Matt,
Tyler, and Jack.
For each of you, my family, no man could
be more grateful to God than I am.
Alex and Stephen dedicate this
book to:
Our wives, Christina and Jill—your love
and support have added momentum to our pursuit of God’s calling on our lives.
You are an incredible treasure! May God continue blessing, teaching, and drawing
us closer together and closer to Him. We love and need you
desperately.
Sherwood Baptist Church—may the love you have for
Christ and each other continue to shine brighter with each passing year. Keep
praying, serving, giving, and growing. It has already been worth it, but your
greatest reward is still to come! May the world know that Jesus Christ is your
Lord! To Him be the glory!
C h a p t e r O n
e
A ROYAL-RED Ford F-150 SuperCrew
rolled through the streets of Albany, Georgia. The pickup’s driver brimmed with
optimism, so much that he couldn’t possibly foresee the battles about to hit his
hometown.
Life here is going to be good,
thirty-seven-year-old Nathan Hayes told himself. After eight years in
Atlanta, Nathan had come home to Albany, three hours south, with his wife and
three children. New job. New house. New start. Even a new truck.
Sleeves rolled up and windows rolled down,
Nathan enjoyed the south Georgia sunshine. He pulled into a service station in
west Albany, a remodeled version of the very one he’d stopped at twenty years
earlier after getting his driver’s license. He’d been nervous. Wasn’t his part
of town—mostly white folks, and in those days he didn’t know many. But gas had
been cheap and the drive beautiful.
Nathan allowed himself a long, lazy stretch.
He inserted his credit card and pumped gas, humming contentedly. Albany was the
birthplace of Ray Charles, “Georgia on My Mind,” and some of the best home
cookin’ in the galaxy. One-third white, two-thirds black, a quarter of the
population below the poverty level, Albany had survived several Flint River
floods and a history of racial tension. But with all its beauties and flaws,
Albany was home.
Nathan topped off his tank, got into his
pickup, and turned the key before he remembered the carnage. A half-dozen big,
clumsy june bugs had given their all to make an impression on his
windshield.
He got out and plunged a squeegee into a wash
bucket only to find it bone-dry.
As he searched for another bucket, Nathan
noticed the mix of people at the station: an overly cautious senior citizen
creeping his Buick onto Newton Road, a middle-aged woman texting in the driver’s
seat, a guy in a do-rag leaning against a spotless silver Denali.
Nathan left his truck running and door open;
he turned away only seconds—or so it seemed. When the door slammed, he swung
around as his truck pulled away from the pump!
Adrenaline surged. He ran toward the driver’s
side while his pickup squealed toward the street.
“Hey! Stop! No!” Nathan’s skills from
Dougherty High football kicked in. He lunged, thrust his right arm through the
open window, and grabbed the steering wheel, running next to the moving
pickup.
“Stop the car!” Nathan yelled. “Stop the
car!”
The carjacker, TJ, was twenty-eight years old
and tougher than boot leather—the undisputed leader of the Gangster Nation, one
of Albany’s biggest gangs.
“What’s wrong wichu, man?” TJ could
bench-press 410 and outweighed this dude by sixty pounds. He had no intention of
giving back this ride.
He accelerated onto the main road, but Nathan
wouldn’t let
go. TJ repeatedly smacked Nathan’s face with a
vicious right jab, then pounded his fingers to break their grip. “You gonna die,
man; you gonna die.”
Nathan’s toes screamed at him, his Mizuno
running shoes no match for the asphalt. Occasionally his right foot found the
narrow running board for a little relief, only to lose it again when his head
took another blow. While one hand gripped the wheel, Nathan clawed at the thief.
The pickup veered right and left. Leaning back to avoid the punches, Nathan saw
the oncoming traffic.
TJ saw too, and he angled into it, hoping the
cars would peel this fool off.
First a silver Toyota whizzed by, then a white
Chevy; each veered off to avoid the swerving truck. Nathan Hayes dangled like a
Hollywood stuntman.
“Let go, fool!”
Finally Nathan got a good toehold on the
running board and used every remaining ounce of strength to yank the steering
wheel. The truck lost control and careened off the road. Nathan rolled onto
gravel and rough grass.
TJ smashed into a tree, and the air bag
exploded into his face, leaving it red with blood. The gangbanger stumbled out
of the truck, dazed and bleeding, trying to find his legs. TJ wanted some
get-back on this dude who’d dared to challenge him, but he could barely
negotiate a few steps without faltering.
The silver Denali from the gas station
screeched to a halt just a few feet from TJ. “Hurry up, man,” the driver yelled.
“It ain’t worth it, dawg. Get in. Let’s go!”
TJ staggered into the Denali, which sped
away.
Stunned, Nathan pulled himself toward his
vehicle. His face was red and scratched, his blue tattersall shirt stained. His
jeans were ripped, his right shoe torn open, sock bloody.
Located in Carol
Stream, Illinois, Tyndale
House Publishers was founded in 1962 by Dr. Kenneth N.
Taylor as a means of publishing The Living Bible. Tyndale publishes Christian
fiction, nonfiction, children’s books, and other resources, including Bibles in
the New Living Translation (NLT). Tyndale products include many New York Times
best sellers, including the popular Left Behind fiction series by Tim LaHaye and
Jerry B. Jenkins, novels by Karen Kingsbury and Joel C. Rosenberg, plus numerous
nonfiction works. Tyndale House Publishers is substantially owned by Tyndale
House Foundation. As a result, the company’s profits help underwrite the
foundation’s mission, which is to spread the Good News of Christ around the
world.
Note about the
publisher Tyndale House by Hoovers,
a D & B Company: Christian-focused publisher Tyndale
House Publishers publishes fiction, non-fiction, and children’s books, as well
as bibles. One of its best-selling titles is the novel Left Behind, a
fictional account of the apocalypse written by Jerry B. Jenkins. The titles
success inspired the Left Behind series of novels, which has sole some
63 million copies, as well as Left Behind comic books, music, and three
movies. Tyndale House was founded in 1962 by Kenneth N. Taylor, who wrote
The Living Bible in order to translate the old English in the King
James Version of the Bible into a more accessible language for his children.
Taylor, who died in 2005, named the company after 16th Century English
translator William Tyndale.
From the creators of Fireproof
comes an inspiring new story about everyday heroes who long to be the kinds of
dads that make a lifelong impact on their children. As law enforcement officers,
Adam Mitchell, Nathan Hayes, and their partners willingly stand up to the worst
the world can offer. Yet at the end of the day, they face a challenge that none
of them are truly prepared to tackle: fatherhood. While they consistently give
their best on the job, good enough seems to be all they can muster as dads. But
they’re quickly discovering that their standard is missing the
mark.
They know that God desires to turn the hearts of fathers to their children,
but their children are beginning to drift farther and farther away from them.
Will they be able to find a way to serve and protect those who are most dear to
them? When tragedy hits home, these men are left wrestling with their hopes,
their fears, their faith, and their fathering. Can a newfound urgency help these
dads draw closer to God . . . and to their children?
Randy Alcorn
Randy Alcorn is the founder of Eternal
Perspective Ministries (EPM). Prior to starting EPM, he served as a pastor for
fourteen years. He has spoken around the world and taught on the adjunct
faculties of Multnomah University and Western Seminary in Portland,
Oregon.
Randy is the best-selling author of over 40
books. His seven fiction books include the Gold Medallion winner Safely Home.
His nonfiction works include The Treasure Principle; Heaven; and If God is Good.
Randy has written for many magazines and has been a guest on hundreds of radio
and television programs.
The
father of two married daughters, Randy lives in Oregon, with his wife and best
friend, Nanci. They are the proud grandparents of four grandsons. Randy enjoys
hanging out with his family, biking, tennis, research and
reading.
Excerpt of credits
Courageous : a novelization / by Randy
Alcorn ; based on the screenplay by Alex Kendrick and Stephen
Kendrick.
To learn more about
Courageous, visit CourageoustheMovie.com.
Designed by Dean H. Renninger
Edited by Caleb Sjogren
ADDENDUM II
This excerpt of the book The
Resolution for Men is reprinted
here by permission of the producers of the film,
Courageous.
The work is written by Stephen & Alex
Kendrick with Randy Alcorn—edited by Lawrence
Kimbrough.
Excerpt
The Resolution for Men
Weak men will not be able to
handle the contents of this book.
The Resolution is not for the
faint of heart, and those who commit to it will be more accountable in the
future.
You will be challenged to get out
of your comfort zone, work through hidden issues from your past, and make
strategic sacrifices for the sake of your family and your faith.
But those who step up to the
challenge will find that living out the Resolution will radically impact their
priorities and assist them in becoming strong men who are found faithful.
It will take courage. But it will
be worth it all.
You’ve been warned.
Excerpt
This vivid story illustrates where
countless men are today. Disengaged and drifting. They have been given the
position of leadership over their families and have been placed in the driver’s
seat. But over time, they have been lulled into a dream by their own passivity
and the allures of a dark, seductive culture.
In
this dream world, men often feel permission to be irresponsible, immature, and
carelessly negligent in their roles as husbands and fathers. In the meantime,
they have placed their families in moral and spiritual danger, threatening their
marriages, their children, and their faith. They don’t realize that they can’t
have it both ways.
As
a result, the mothers of their children become the ones who (by default and
necessity) are carrying the weight of the family on their shoulders in order to
survive. These women are stressed out and longing for the man in their lives to
wake up, rescue them, and grab the wheel again.
That’s why before it’s too late, we are
sounding the call and asking men if they are awake at the wheel. Or more
importantly, to see if they even realize they are in the driver’s seat at all.
God’s Word commands husbands and fathers to
lovingly lead their homes. As men, we are to walk in honor and integrity and
fully embrace our responsibilities as shepherds over our families. We are called
to model a loving, Christlike example for our wives and children.
Therefore—because this is God’s
calling—it’s no mystery that a godless culture would mock and constantly
undermine fatherhood, attacking and inverting what God designs and values. Men
are being told they don’t have the permission or responsibility to lead. But the
culture is not your authority. God is.
You
need to be willing to ask yourself some revealing questions:
•
Is your wife weary, worn out, and always feeling like she is carrying too much
on her shoulders?
•
Does your marriage lack clear direction, romance, and true intimacy?
•
Are your children, whether young or grown, emotionally distant from you and
spiritually apathetic toward God?
• Is your own faith and spiritual condition
weak or mediocre at best?
If
your wife has been calling all the shots in the family and has her hands on the
wheel, then very likely it’s because you have not. Regardless of what she does,
God has intentionally placed you in the driver’s seat and wants you
to lead. You need her deeply; but leading is your God-ordained
responsibility, not hers.
Also used: The New Living Translation (nlt),
copyright 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.
The producers of the movie
Courageous provided this Fact Sheet on fatherhood in the United
States. Their rationale for making a film statement on fathers and fatherhood,
the need for same, is convincing. This writer found it interesting and
worthwhile on its own merits, so with the risk of belaboring the Addendum of
this interview-article, here it is in full, as offered by the producers,
Sherwood Pictures:
THE FACTS ABOUT FATHERHOOD
He’s not here. Some 24.7
million American children (36.3 percent) live without their biological fathers.
Only 60 percent of these children have seen their fathers in the past
year.
Side effects. Children
living without their biological fathers, on average, are more likely to be poor
and to have educational, health, emotional, and psychological problems, to
suffer child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior, than peers living with
their married, biological mother and father.
Fatherless homes
produce:
·63 percent of youth suicides (Bureau of the Census)
·90 percent of all homeless and runaway children
(CDC)
·85 percent of all children with behavioral disorders
(CDC)
·85 percent of all youths in prisons (Fulton Co.
Georgia jail populations, TX Dept. of Corrections 1992)
No substitute. As a male
parent, a father brings unique contributions to the job of parenting that a
mother cannot. There is no substitute for a father’s love, involvement and
presence in the life of his children. As noted sociologist David Popenoe
explains, “Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home. Involved
fathers—especially biological fathers—bring positive benefits to their children
that no other person is as likely to bring.” – Why Children Need Father Love and
Mother Love and How Fathers Matter for Healthy Child Development, both by Glen
P. Stanton, Focus on the Family. (Original Source: David Popenoe, Life Without
Father New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 163.
American problem. In a recent
survey 7 out of 10 participants agreed that the physical absence of fathers from
the home is the most significant family or social problem facing America.
(FocusFamilyINSIGHT Global Strategic Development – Family Research, Glenn T.
Stanton, June 19, 2009 – full sourcing included below)
Mothers only. “Nearly
one-fourth of America’s children live in mother-only families.” (Arlene
F. Saluter, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March
1994)
Prime time TV. A National
Fatherhood Initiative analysis found that of the 102 prime-time networks TV
shows in 1998, only 15 featured a father as a central character. Of these, the
majority portrayed him as uninvolved, incompetent or both. (From National
Center for Public Policy Research. Specific source from NCPPR website: “NFI
Issues Report on Fatherhood and TV,” Fatherhood Today, Spring 1999, National
Fatherhood Initiative, Gaithersburg, Maryland.)
Poverty predictor. “The
likelihood that a family would fall below the poverty line doubled during the
first four month period of the father’s absence, increasing from 18.5 percent to
37.6 percent.” (Duncan, Wayne Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology, 1994
Health)
Five Things You Didn’t Know Fathers
Do
1.Fathers Teach Empathy—A 26-year study published by the
American Psychological Association found that children with actively involved
fathers in their lives are more likely to be sensitive to the needs of others in
adulthood compared to those who do not have involved fathers.
2. Fathers Give Confidence—Fathers are more
likely to challenge their children to try difficult things by taking safe and
measured risks. Fathers’ more physical and active play style and slower response
to help their children through frustrating situations creates greater
problem-solving capacity and confidence in both boys and girls.
3. Fathers Increase Vocabulary—Children who
spend extended time with their dads during their childhoods are more likely to
have larger and more complex vocabularies. A mother, being more attentive to the
needs of her children, tends to talk more on the level of the child. Dads’
directions to their children tend to be longer than moms’, providing children
with the opportunity to hear more words and then learn how they fit together to
convey a thought.
4. Fathers Protect Against Crime and
Violence—Fathers are more likely to keep their sons out of gangs, but more
importantly, fathers give boys the things that can make gang life attractive.
Boys learn from their dads that they matter, and don’t feel they have to force
their way into manhood. Likewise, girls with good fathers are not as likely to
fall to the pressure of sexually enterprising young boys, because well-fathered
girls are more confident, having already gained the love of a good
man.
5. Fathers Promote Better Treatment of
Women—A good father demonstrates to both sons and daughters how a good man
should treat women. This is shown by a father’s role modeling, as well as his
less-than-good behavior. Research from the University of California looked at 90
different cultures to study how men’s participation in child care related to the
status of women in these cultures. They found a very close connection,
explaining, “Societies with significant paternal involvement in routine child
care are more likely than father-absent societies to include women in public
decisions and to allow women access to positions of authority.”
President George Bush. Over
the past four decades, fatherlessness has emerged as one of our greatest social
problems. We know that children who grow up with absent fathers can suffer
lasting damage. They are more likely to end up in poverty or drop out of
school, become addicted to drugs, have a child out of wedlock, or end up in
prison. Fatherlessness is not the only cause of these things but our nation but
recognize it is an important factor. June 2001
·FocusFamilyINSIGHT Global Strategic Development –
Family Research, Glenn T. Stanton, June 19, 2009
·Richard Koestner, et al., “The Family Origins of
Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six Year Longitudinal Study,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1990): 709-717.
·Kyle D. Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as
Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, (New York: The Free Press,
2000).
·Eleanor E. Maccoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up
Apart; Coming Together, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1999).
·Catherine Tamis-Lemonda, et al., “Fathers and Mothers
Play with their 2- and 3-Year Olds: Contributions to Language and Cognitive
Development” Child Development 75 (2004) 1806-1820.
·Paul R. Amato and Fernando Rivera, “Paternal
Involvement and Children’s Behavior Problems,” Journal of Marriage and the
Family 61(1999): 375-384.
·Henry B. Biller, Father and Families: Paternal Factors
in Child Development (Westport, CT: Auburn House, 1993).
·Frank Furstenberg and Kathleen Harris, “When and Why
Fathers Matter: Impacts of Father Involvement on Children of Adolescent
Mothers,” in Young Unwed Fathers: Changing Roles and Emerging Policies,
R. Lerman and T. Ooms, eds. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1993).
·Scott Coltrane, “Father-Child Relationships and the
Status of Women: A Cross-Cultural Study,” American Journal of
Sociology, (1988) 93:1060-1095.
ADDENDUM IV
The sponsors and workers, the credits of
the film Courageous are long and include this list of
businesses that contributed to the making of the film:
“Choose Today Who You Will
Serve,
But As for Me My House, We
Will Serve the Lord.”
-Joshua
24:15
SPECIAL THANKS TO THE
FOLLOWING BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZATIONS
