(Press release) The judge presiding in the church property trial between the Episcopal Church and eleven former congregations, now affiliated with the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), ruled in the congregations’ favor today. The final rulings in this case concerned whether four parcels of property owned by the Anglican congregations were covered by the congregations’ Division petitions.
“We welcome these final, favorable rulings in this case. This has been a long process and we are grateful that the court has agreed with us,” said Jim Oakes, vice-chairman of ADV. “It is gratifying to see the court recognize that the true owner of The Historic Falls Church is The Falls Church’s congregation, not the denomination, and that the building is protected by the Division Statute. The Falls Church has held and cared for this property for over 200 years.”
“We hope that The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia will realize that it is time to stop this legal battle. In these economic times, we should be focused on helping our communities and spreading the Gospel, not spending millions of dollars on ongoing legal battles. The money we have been forced to spend to keep our property from being forcibly taken away from us is money that could have been spent in more productive ways.
“While the judge ruled that issues surrounding The Falls Church Endowment Fund will be heard at a later date, ADV is confident that we will prevail on this last outstanding issue,” Oakes said.
On April 3, 2008, Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows issued a landmark ruling that acknowledged a division within The Episcopal Church, the Diocese of Virginia and the larger Anglican Communion. Judge Bellows affirmed that the Anglican congregations in Virginia could invoke the Virginia Division Statute (Virginia Code § 57-9) in their defense. The Virginia Division Statute states that majority rule should apply when a division in a denomination or diocese results in the disaffiliation of an organized group of congregations. On June 27, 2008, Judge Bellows issued a ruling that confirmed the constitutionality of Virginia Division Statute (Virginia Code § 57-9) under the First Amendment. On August 22, 2008, he issued a ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the Division Statute under the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.
“We hope that the Diocese will reconsider its previous promises to appeal. While we are prepared to continue to defend ourselves, we are ready to put this litigation behind us so we can focus our time, money and effort on the work of the Gospel,” Oakes concluded.
Hallelujia! Deo gratias!
The Diocesan press release which came out immediately with the announcement of a decision, has some terribly humorous turns of a phrase. For instance, the Diocese states they only want the money from the Falls Church Endowment Fund so they can use it for outreach in the Falls Church community. One has to wonder if the concept of “outreach” would be expanded past trying to bring people to Christ to include any of the more popular TEC financial boondogles. For instance, could paying legal fees be considered a fomr of outreach. One wonders. Maybe we should consult a legal team on that one.
I especially enjoyed the quote from the new bishop stating that “We will explore every option to ensure that faithful Episcopalians in Virginia are guarantee the right to worship as they please …” I think it must be a misquote though, and the original was “as we please.’ To which it is rumored the bishop added, “And we are not much pleased …”
Indeed I have a number of ways in which my congregation would be pleased to worship. I wonder if we have now officially been given a green light?
Oh well, as my old confessor at the Society of St. John used to say, “Things in the church never get better, they just get sillier.” Have long thought that should be around a coat of arms, translated into Latin. I suppose I could draw it up and suggest it at the next Virginia Diocesan Council meeting.
There are plenty of Episcopal churches all over Virginia. Faithful Episcopalians have plenty of options for worship – including at the ADV parishes, which offer a Sunday-morning experience indistinguishable from the period before they left ECUSA.
If they can’t stomach that, for reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained to me, then they’ll have to drive to another building. You know, just like mainstream Anglican Christians have been having to do for thirty years when (not if) the “Resurrection is a myth,” “Jesus was a cool hippie,” “explore your sexuality early and often” crowd places one of their own in the pulpit.
Folks: notice the key word in the letter is “faithful.” Having been in the diocese for some time now I know this is the thing that matters. We must be faithful to the church. Most of the press releases and letters we have received from the Bishop’s office have stressed this idea of being loyal Episcopalians, and of being loyal to the diocese. I would not discount an upcoming movement in the Diocesan Council to create a form of loyalty oath.
Of course, being loyal to the Anglican communion or faithful to Christ is not spoken of in polite society here. It should be clear from the pursuit of the property that loyalty has to do with stuff and not ideals. But what could we expect from a church so dedicated to not having any doctrines, I mean lately …?
Church of the Word statement on property dispute victory
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
December 19th 2008
We received the judgment today from Fairfax Circuit Court, Judge Bellows presiding, that our three acre property in Gainesville, Virginia, falls under the reach of the § 57-9 Division statute.
This law was originally enacted to provide a fair and neutral principled way for the state to decide church property disputes brought before it. It is clear from this judgment that the congregation owns the property which it purchased only 15 years ago and in which it has invested over one million dollars in mortgage and maintenance since then.
COTW was part of a group of 20 or more congregations, some with property and some without, who were given permission by the Diocese of Virginia to enter into discernment process in the fall of 2006, resulting in a congregational vote in December 2006.
It is important to remember that the Diocese of Virginia set up the parameters for this discernment process in its ‘Protocol for departing congregations’. The protocol was agreed to by the Standing Committee and Executive Board of the Diocese, published on the Diocesan website and recommended to congregations. They provided study material for the discernment process, met with the vestry and sent a delegation to speak to the congregation before the vote to separate. They promised in the protocol to work with the congregations to resolve all differences amicably and so avoid the disgrace of Christians taking other Christians to court.
It is our desire to live at peace with our friends and former colleagues in the Diocese of Virginia and so we encourage their leadership to accept the judge’s ruling today and return to the spirit of the protocol by building working relationships with the CANA congregations and other Anglican bodies in Virginia.
Church of the Word is a part of CANA and, through CANA, a part of the emerging Anglican province in North America. The new province has already been accepted as a legitimate Anglican body by Primates representing a majority of Anglicans around the world.
We look forward to building the kingdom of God in our community and eventual expanding our facilities on this site or some other nearby property. Today’s ruling clarifies some issues for us and allows us to move forward with much needed development.
Thank you to all who supported us in prayer.
Ephesians 1:13 ‘You also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel’.
The Rev. Robin T. Adams, Rector
Church of the Word
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
I have never fully understood why this case has only focused on the division statute. Doesnt Va also employ neutral principles of law in property disputes among/between/within churches. Either way the ADV should prevail.
#6. Sure, neutral principles apply in VA. I don’t think the judge had to go there in most of the cases because there was a division statute that was followed by the congregations. If the statute was constitutional and it was accurately applied, then no need to litigate further.
I would suspect on appeal that even in unlikely event of a reversal on the division statute by the VASC that the case could still be decided for the congregations based on neutral principles of property law. Which presents an even steeper hurdle for TEC and DioVA.
What a wonderful Christmas present for the faithful! God bless all of you in the Virginia Anglican churches. God bless Judge Bellows for his wisdom. May the judges confronted with similar lawsuits around the United States (and Canada, if any have been filed there against the faithful) have similar wisdom and discernment. May God give wisdom to the leaders of TEC, that they would stop wasting precious resources and instead devote the same to the MDG which are so important to them.
res in ecclesia numquam meliores, solum absurdiores fiunt