Unintended Consequences

One hears a lot from the Fr. Jambor Camp (Jambor Camp) at All Saints Episcopal Church in Fort Worth about how the conflict between the EDFW and All Saints is all about the property. On the other hand , those who support the vote of the EDFW to separate from TEC deny that it is all about the property but is about TEC’s abandonment of the faith once delivered to the Saints. I would like to propose that the Jambor Camp may be right -- perhaps it really is all about the property. But it may be for a different reason than they suppose, and their decision may have unintended consequences for them.

Consider that much is made about the "Dennis Canon" and how it declares that all property of TEC parishes is held in trust for TEC and the diocese. Of course, some of us do not believe the Dennis Canon was ever legally enacted, nor could it invalidate the Statue of Frauds requiring such a trust to be in writing and signed by both the trustee and the beneficiary of such a trust. But, let us assume, just for the sake of this discussion, that the Dennis Canon is valid. What does it actually say? Here it is:

Title I.7.4 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America

“All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.”

Now, the Jambor Camp keeps saying it is all about the property, and they are adamant that they are no longer a part of the EDFW to which Bp. Iker belongs but are part of the continuing diocese, which the North Texas Episcopalians are working to reconstitute. They want Bp. Iker to leave them and their property alone. Let us assume for the sake of this discussion that the Jambor Camp is correct when they claim they are part of TEC and the soon-to-be reconstituted diocese. On the agenda for the "Special Convention" of the reconstituted diocese, is a resolution to declare Canon 18.4, among others, to be unenforceable. That means they will no longer be under the protection of Canon 18.4 of the EDFW but will be under the authority of the so-called "Dennis Canon" cited above. Their property will no longer be held in trust for All Saints by the EDFW. Their property will then be held in trust by All Saints for TEC. Notice that Title I.7.4 cited above states that:

“All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located.”

This is quite different from what Canon 18.2 of the Canons of the EDFW which states:

“Real property acquired by the Corporation for the use of a particular Parish, Mission or Diocesan School shall be held by the Corporation in trust for the use and benefit of such Parish, Mission or Diocesan School.”

The Jambor Camp has been saying all along that, while "legal" title may rest in the EDFW, "equitable" title rests with the parish. This, they claim, is how a court will rule, and, therefore, the property of All Saints will belong to All Saints. In that event, and if the Dennis Canon is valid, All Saints will find they are no longer the beneficial owners of their property, as they are under Canon 18.4, but are then the trustee holding "legal" title to the property for TEC, who will then have the "equitable" title to their property. Following this line of reasoning, All Saints could never own their property.

If, on the other hand, All Saints were still under the authority of Canon 18.4 of the EDFW, their property ("equitable" title) would be protected by the EDFW’s trust ("legal" title) from TEC, and would thus defend All Saints’ property from a land grab by TEC. Notice the provision of Canon 18.4 below:

Property held by the Corporation for the use of a Parish, Mission or Diocesan School belongs beneficially to such Parish, Mission or Diocesan School only. No adverse claim to such beneficial interest by the Corporation, by the Diocese, or by The Episcopal Church of the United States of America is acknowledged, but rather is expressly denied.

If All Saints is not under the authority of Canon 18.4, All Saints has no protection from an adverse claim by TEC to their property. In fact, by removing themselves from the protection of Canon 18.4, All Saints will be subject to the Dennis Canon which claims all of All Saints' property as the property of TEC and the Diocese to which All Saints belongs.

Given the Pb’s proclivity for litigation, does the Jambor Camp really believe they would be immune from the Pb’s desire to take their property? Surely a review of recent history demonstrates that TEC has actively sought the property of those parishes that left TEC under the claim that the parish merely held title in trust for TEC under the Dennis Canon.

Now consider the direction that TEC appears to intend to lead All Saints and those parishes who are affiliated with the North Texas Episcopalians. The Pb has proposed Bp. Gulick for Bishop of the reconstituted diocese. This is a man who is far left of the great majority of those remaining in All Saints. He has:

Voted against Lambeth 1.10 which Fr. Jambor says all of All Saints supports.
Voted for the consecration of the homosexual Viki Gene Robinson as Bishop
Voted for same sex blessings and for a service to be added to Book of Occasional Services
Voted to insist on women’s ministries in every diocese
Signed Bishop Spong’s Statement of Koinonia
Signed the “Mea Culpa too” statement in support of Bp. Righter.
Voted to recognize and affirm relationships outside of marriage

How long does the Jambor Camp think it will take their new bishop to impose these on All Saints? If this is the Pb’s first choice for All Saints’s new bishop, how much further from the doctrines of the faithful will be the next bishop she sends them? How long will All Saints desire to remain a member of TEC under these circumstances? If these positions on the issues facing the church are contrary to the vast majority of All Saints' members, as Fr. Jambor has stated, what will All Saints do then? If they decide to leave, TEC will claim their property. If they decide to stay, they will have to endure continual assaults on their beliefs.

It seems to me that All Saints is opening themselves up to tremendous risk. They seem willing to trade the protection of a diocese and a bishop willing to accommodate them about their property for a Pb who has demonstrated a complete disregard for the desires of any parish wishing to own their own property. It appears the Pb’s position is that all of the property belongs to TEC, and none of the property belongs to the parishes or the diocese. So far, parishes have lost their battles with TEC and the TEC dioceses in their litigation over property. That is true everywhere except Virginia, so far. Does All Saints really believe that they can simply stay put and keep their property? The Pb will never allow it. And it would appear that the Jambor Camp has allowed itself to be manipulated by the TEC into a very narrow box and have become victims of unintended consequences.

The Genealogy of Man from Creation to Egyptian Captivity

One day while reading Genesis I was struck with the number of years that were stated for the ages of the men when they had offspring and how old they were when they died. Being the kind of person who loves to figure things out, I set out to make a chart of each person with their ages when they had offspring and their ages when they died. After I did this, the idea came to me that if I could figure out a starting point, perhaps I could figure out when in time these things happened. So, I started from the beginning and worked my way through Genesis, but that did not prove to be very helpful in fixing events in time. So, I left the project and moved on to other things.

Next, I tried creating a chart with the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah. That proved even more daunting because, as I discovered, there were overlaps and gaps that were difficult to reconcile. (I have since found a way to reconcile most of the overlaps and gaps and completed a chart for this as well.) However, I was able to discover a critical bit of information related to the reign of Solomon, which led me to the dates of Solomon's reign and the passage in 1 Kings 6:1 about the exodus occuring 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon's reign. This brought me back to my first project and provided a starting point at the end of the chart. By plugging into my chart about the ages of the men in Genesis the date 480 years before the fourth year of the reign of Solomon (966 BC), I calculated the year of the Exodus to be for the year of 1446.

Two views of the date of the Exodus seem to prevail among Bible scholars. The early date is 1445 B.C. and the late date is 1290 B.C. Since, according to 1 Kings 6:1, the Exodus took place 480 years before the forth year of Solomon’s reign, and since that date is fairly well estgablised to be 966, the early date of 1455 B.C. is the one adopted here. Proceeding from 1445 B.C., we calculate the beginning of the 430 years of captivity (Ex. 12:40) to be 1875 B.C. We know that Jacob died at the age of 147 after living in Egypt 17 years (Gen. 47:28), meaning he was 130 years old in 1875. This was the second year of the famine (Gen. 45:6) thus giving us 9 years from the beginning of Joseph’s rule in Egypt at age 30 (Gen. 41:46). From this and working back from when Joseph’s brothers sold him at age 17 (Gen.37:2) we calculate that Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born, meaning Jacob was born in 2005 B.C. and Joseph was born in 1914 B.C. Using these dates as our starting point, we calculate the rest of the dates on the chart. Therefore, since the ages of all of the other people back to Adam are stated clearly in Genesis, Adam would have been created somewhere around 4100 B.C. In addition, Josephus says that the number of years from Adam to the flood was 1656, which corresponds exactly with this chart (Antiquities, Book 1, Chapter III, Sec. 3)

I did not consult Rev. Archbishop Ussher's famous work Annuals of the World during my study and calculations. For one thing, I did not have a copy available, and for another thing, I wanted to figure this out on my own. After I completed my chart I pulled out an old King James Bible that I used from my childhood. It was one of those center reference versions with references to other parts of the Bible listed in a center column. At the top of each column on each page was a year, which I learned much later in life came from Ussher's book. Several years after I created this chart, I received as a gift from one of my children a very fine copy of Ussher's book. I now find that my calculations are very close to his, only different by 109 years. I have accounted for 9 years as the difference between my calculation of the year of the exodus (1446) and the one adopted from Biblical scholars (1455) which I adopted as the date of the exodus for my chart. I have not identified the difference of 100 years, but, as time permits, I will attempt to find that difference as well.

I commend this chart to my readers for their education concerning the lives and times of the people who lived before the exodus. What struck me as I conducted this study, however, was much more profound than actually making sense of the ages and years. I found that these dates are very specific, and they are absolutely congruent with each other. No one lived longer than the calculation would allow, and none died sooner. One of the interesting examples of this is that Methuselah, the man who lived the longest of any man recorded in Genesis, died the same year as the flood. It would be speculation to suggest that he died in the flood, but this is one of those congruous calculations. Methuselah could not have died after the flood, so the time line makes absolute sense. But then, if that is true, what does one do about Adam? Some have opined that the story of Adam is a myth developed to explain the origin of man. Yet, if all the other dates are so precise and congruent, why would the dates for Adam be an invention. The conclusion at which I arrived was that the dates are real, the span of time is real, and the story in Genesis is real and literal. It is not myth based on approximate dates, but a true story with actual dates. I leave my readers to ponder the realities that such a statement makes possible, and the realities that such a statement makes impossible. It was a revelation to me as the implications of my calculations became clear. Perhaps my readers will catch the revelation as well.

(Please excuse the uneven columns. I could not figure out how to do this chart in this forum any other way.)

Date....Person/
BC.......Age ....................Scripture.....Event
4113..Adam - 0 ............................1;26; 2:7..Adam is created
3983..Adam - 130.........................5:3...........Seth is born to Adam
3878..Seth - 105............................5:6..........Enosh is born to Seth
3788..Enosh - 90...........................5:9..........Kenan is born to Enosh
3718..Kenan - 70...........................5:12........Mahalalel is born to Kenan
3653..Mahalalel - 65.....................5:15........Jared is born to Mahalalel
3491..Jared - 162..........................5:18........Enoch is born to Jared
3426..Enoch - 65...........................5:21........Methuselah is born to Enoch
3239..Methuselah - 187................5:25........Lamech is born to Methuselah
3183..Adam - 930.........................5:5..........Adam dies
3126..Enoch - 365.........................5:23-24..Enoch is translated
3071..Seth - 912............................5:8..........Seth dies
3057..Lamech - 182......................5:28........Noah is born to Lamech
2973..Enosh - 905.........................5:11........Enosh dies
2878..Kenan - 910.........................5:14.......Kenan dies
2863..Mahalalel - 895...................5:17.......Mahalalel dies
2691..Jared - 962..........................5:20......Jared dies
2557..Noah - 500..........................5:32......Ham is born to Noah
2557..Noah - 500..........................5:32......Shem is born to Noah
2557..Noah - 500..........................5:32......Japeth is born to Noah
2462..Lamech - 777......................5:30......Lamech dies
2457..Methuselah - 969...............5:27......Methuselah dies
2457..Noah - 600..........................7:6........THE FLOOD
...........Ham/ Shem/Japeth - 98..11:10
2456..Noah - 601.........................8:14.......Earth was dry
...........Ham, Shem, Japeth - 99
2455..Shem - 100.......................11:10......Arphaxad is born to Shem
2420..Arphaxad - 35..................11:12......Shelah is born to Arphaxad
2390..Shelah - 30.......................11:14......Eber is born to Arphaxad
2356..Eber - 34...........................11:16......Peleg is born to Eber
2326..Peleg - 30..........................11:18......Reu is born to Peleg
2294..Reu - 32............................11:20......Serug is born to Reu
2264..Serug - 30.........................11:22......Nahor is born to Serug
2235..Nahor - 29........................11:24......Terah is born to Nahor
2165..Terah - 70.........................11:26.....Abram is born to Terah
2117..Peleg - 239........................11:19......Peleg dies
2116..Nahor - 148......................11:25......Nahor dies
2107..Noah - 950.......................9:29........Noah dies
2087..Reu - 239.........................11:21......Reu dies
2079..Abram - 86......................17:24......Ishmael is born to Abram
2066..Abram - 99......................17:24.....Covenant of circumcision with Abram
2065..Abram - 100....................21:5.......Isaac is born to Abram
2064..Serug - 230......................11:23.....Serug dies
2030..Terah - 205.....................11:32.....Terah dies
2017..Arphaxad - 438...............11:13.....Arphaxad dies
2005..Isaac - 60.........................25:26....Jacob and Esau born to Isaac
1990..Abraham - 175.................25:7......Abraham dies
1987..Shelah - 433.....................11:15.....Shelah dies
1957..Shem - 600......................11:11......Shem dies
1942..Ishmael - 137...................25:17.....Ishmael dies
1926..Eber - 464........................11:17......Eber dies
1914..Jacob - 91.........................30:22.....Joseph is born to Jacob
1897..Joseph - 17.......................37:2.......Joseph sold by his brothers
1885..Isaac - 180.......................35:28.....Isaac dies
1884..Joseph - 30....................41:46.....Joseph 2nd in command of Egypt
1875..Jacob130/Joseph39........I Kg. 6:1.Israel begins 430 years in Egypt
...............................................Ex. 12:40
1858..Jacob - 147/Joseph 56...47:28......Blessing given - Jacob dies
1804..Joseph - 110....................50:26......Joseph dies


Copyright © 1991, 1995, 1997, 2009 by William L. Fisher. All rights reserved.