BabyBlue has a new letter from the diocese of Virginia posted on her blog. (It is not yet on the diocese’s website.)
To the Clergy and Lay Leaders of The Diocese of Virginia
August 8, 2007
Dear Friends:
Many of you have written, called and sent e-mails of support in recent months. I am grateful for all that you do in support of the mission of the Church to be the hands and feet of Christ at work in the world. Our aim is to help preserve the integrity of the Church so that you can continue to do that as Episcopalians in The Diocese of Virginia and to make sure that future generations will be able to say “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You.”
Clearly The Episcopal Church faces challenges as our church is beset by groups and individuals determined to hijack the legacy of our ancestors and make off with the inheritance we are honor bound to protect, preserve and pass on to future generations. We face opposition from groups that are not only leaving The Episcopal Church but are now also steering a new course away from the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is very telling that Dr. Ephraim Radner, one of the founders of the Anglican Communion Network, one of the realignment groups, has resigned and distanced himself from the mission of that group.
Closer to home, this is an important week in The Diocese of Virginia’s defense of its heritage and stewardship of its future. On Friday, August 10, The Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church will appear in Fairfax Circuit Court to defend our claim to Episcopal Church property against non-Episcopal groups that are trying to appropriate our churches for their own uses. This Friday, those groups will press technical and procedural claims that the Diocese and the Church have failed to state a case. In other words, they will try to have our case dismissed. Naturally, we oppose their actions. Later, in November, the court will hear arguments on the lawsuits, styled as petitions, filed by the Nigerian congregations that started this dispute. The Diocese and The Episcopal Church are named as defendants in that action.
This elf can’t resist pointing out, that as one of BabyBlue’s commenters notes, the Diocese of VA leadership seems to be following the script of the “Revisionist Dictionary” by one of our favorite T19 commenters, “Irenaeus,” which Stand Firm has been posting in sections this week. Here are Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
Irenaeus’ definition of “hijack”:
HIJACK: What the Orthodox want to do to the Episcopal Church. What the Orthodox assert that Progressives have done to the Episcopal Church.
Indeed.
Note: this is also posted at the Episcopal cafe.
I love how this letter refers to “Nigerian congregations” as if Truro, Falls Church, etc., were immigrants who had seized the property. It tries very hard to forget that until quite recently the same folks were brothers and sisters in Christ.
How fascinating and funny it is to read this: “. . . our church is beset by groups and individuals determined to hijack the legacy of our ancestors and make off with the inheritance we are honor bound to protect, preserve and pass on to future generations.”
Note that the “legacy of our ancestors” and the “inheritance we are honor bound to protect” manifestly has little to do with the gospel or tradition, or scripture, or reason, but has everything to do with the buildings. Our ancestors would be spinning wildly in their graves not over the loss of their property, but over the loss of the legacy and the inheritance of the Christian faith.
In the other Virginia thread earlier today, one of our commenters has already pointed out some errors in Getlein’s letter:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4943/#91420
It sort of sounds like Winston Churchill’s, “We shall fight them on the beaches …” doesn’t it?
Sherri,
I think the term “Nigerian congregation” is a most accurate, non-judgemental term.
“Truro, Falls Church, etc.” are certainly not “Episcopal congregations.” We can agree on that. And while they may be “Anglican congregations,” the same is equally true of Episcopal parishes, making label “Anglican” non-specific and confusing.
Most importantly, the term “Nigerian congregations” is not loaded, as would be the case with something like “schismatic congregations” which implies judgement.
No, the folk who now occupy “Truro, Falls Church, etc.” are not immigrants who have “seized the property.” They are primarily American citizens who have “seized the property.” But they are not members of the American branch of the Anglican Communion.
They are members of a Nigerian church.
The commenter (referenced in #3) points out three areas of error. The first and second are merely matters of opinion. The third is broken into 3 parts – the first is simply a reading comprehension error on the commenter’s part; the second is again a matter of opinion; and the third is a misunderstanding of pleadings.
Then why not call them CANA churches? Isn’t that the correct name? “Nigerian churches” sounds very loaded to me. Intentionally so. The whole letter seems bent on conveying the impression that the people in those churches never had any business there in the first place. They occupy property that was already theirs.
I found +Lee’s obvious sympathy ploy an interesting issue. Do you think that, should CANA win the property, they would allow a TEC priest to perform a funeral service? Seems harmless enough and would allay this woman’s fears
“Nigerian churches” is probably no more loaded than our Elfen friend titling this letter a ‘salvo’ or referencing a comment from a former parishioner alleging errors that don’t exist;)
Brian (#8), I would hope that whoever gets the churches there would be no problem about burial services. I would hope both sides could be that generous.
Ownership of the Virginia properties is certainly something that reasonable persons can debate on moral, legal, and even Biblical bases. However, in the interest of truth it should be noted that this litigation is not occurring for any of the reasons described by Mr. Getlein’s letter. Whether he is simply dishonest, or misinformed can be determined by others.
The Virginia litigation, and indeed all TEC litigation for property is pursued for strategic, and not tactical reasons. TEC is not going to repopulate Truro with “loyal Episcopalians” unless they are, as noted by Mr. Getlein, interred in memorial gardens or cemetaries. This litigation is to intimidate Episcopalians throughout the U.S. into not attempting to leave with property. Many TEC functionaries know full well that many Episcopalians are reluctant to leave without the houses of worship they occupy to start over, and they use this knowledge to their advantage. This tactic explains why TEC is refusing to negotiate with Truro and the Virginia churches and also why they are suing everyone in sight and personally, even though that is not legally necessary to preserve their claims.
Several years ago, I pointed this fact out on this very blog. Moreover, I also pointed out that if the orthodox decided to leave with property, TEC would have no choice but to let them go and negotiate property disputes with departing parishes. From a financial, time, and public relations standpoint, TEC could not possibly decide to hardball litigate property issues with hundreds of churches all over the country.
I would also like to point out with respect to the various callings and decisions that keep the orthodox firmly within TEC that you do, in fact, give aid and comfort to them while they sue your Virginia allies. Your lack of action enables TEC to concentrate its resources against the Virginia, California, and Florida churches amongst others who have left. Action, and inaction, do have consequences.
Finally, it is not surprising that Dr. Radner’s unfortunate departure from the Network is being used as propaganda. Not surprising at all.
My guess is that this is designed to answer increasing expressions of concern that diocesan funds are being used in this manner. It is also an effort to look conservative–all the language about preserving heritage and so forth and demonize others. But this is what is most striking: if they were so sure they would win in court, why send such a thing at all? If they won in court, it would be an opportunity to look as if they were prudent and correct from the start–and even to appear magnanimous. And even if they are having trouble convincing parishes and clergy that this is a reasonable way to act, it’s not like their going to stop now anyway. The only way this makes sense is if they genuinely fear they might lose. Demonizing the defendants thus justifies the next round–the appeals. It also enables them to say, “we had no choice,” even if they do lose. But for the life of me I can’t see why they would send this if they thought they were confident of winning.
Brian, “salvo” actually has a pretty broad range of meaning. I thought the combination of the sense of:
— another exchange of fire in a battle
— a verbal assault
— “An expedient for protecting one’s reputation”
made it quite an appropriate word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/salvo
But no, I don’t claim it is an objective or unbiased word. I take full responsibility for the headline. Nothing to do with Kendall, just for the record.
Interesting how words take on such import in these battles and can so dramatically color perception. I probably would have yawned at the letter were it not for its use of hijack twice.
Irenaeus’ dictionary is exceedingly apt and timely in this elf’s opinion.
–elfgirl
On second thought. There is another reason they might be sending this. It may be that they plan some particularly nasty and unchristian tactics in the court actions, or the use of what in any Christian context would be unacceptable language (far worse than this, if that’s imaginable). This could possibly be a preemptive defense of the conduct they intend on engaging in, and which they know will risk alienating moderates who are already questioning the use of their money in this way. If so, they must be planning something really, really ugly.
I am not certain why +Lee and 815 think that this fight is winable. The Va statute seems clear that when a demonination divides that a parish can choose which side to join. Clearly there is a division going on in TEC. The statute also seems to be the “right” result whichever side one is on theologoically in light of the free exercise clause. It appears that the Virginia legislature saw a need for situations such as this one. I do think the result should be different if the national denomination had paid for the Church.
Chips #15, please consider my comment at #11 above. Whether its winnable or not is irrelevant.
Well, I’ve been called a liar and a thief by Fr Jake on his blog, and now I’m being called a hijacker by the lawyer for the Diocese of VA. Must be TEC slang for “brother in Christ”….
As I noted on Babyblue, I wonder if the DoV has explained to the elderly woman that if TEC wins the churches will be sold off after a few years and she can negotiate burials with a non-Anglican denomination?
RalphM
AS soon as one reads “hijack” used thus, you know you are reading a polemic, not an argument or a bulletin of instruction. Accordingly, one may reasonably avoid the rest, since the rest will be at one with hijack.
As to “Nigerian church,” the phrase is indeed loaded, for it carries the connotation of “black African,” and this is always pejorative oon the context of criticism, and at the very least, it connotes “foreign,” meaning “alien,” with overtones of “barbarian.” Recall Spong’s reference to the African churches, that they were worshipping animals a generation ago, and we have an historical context for the contumely.
Now, of course, this cannot be proven in any of the usual senses of the word, so the defense can claim that I have read the phrase wrong, for whatever reason. In a more impartial setting, CANA would have been used, for the phrase is less loaded emotionally. Or perhaps a word like “dissidents.” And we have moreover, heavily biased language besides this phrase, and this tells us that the writer of this polemic is doing what all polemicists do, which is to use language to produce an emotional response that overrides judgment. LM
Apologies. I meant “Nigerian congregations.” My anaysis stands however, even with my misquotation.
LM
“I am not certain why +Lee and 815 think that this fight is winable. The Va statute seems clear that when a demonination divides that a parish can choose which side to join. Clearly there is a division going on in TEC.” (Chips in #15)
Chips, unfortunately, statutes that *seem* clear do not always turn out to be so.
Is there a Virginia attorney in the house? I’d be curious to know whether the statute itself, or court decisions interpreting it, clarify what rises to being a “division” in a denomination, such that the statute gets triggered in the first place.
Unless there is some threshold set by statute or court precedent, then these Virginia cases clearly wade into new legal territory in that state.
I think we’d all be likely to agree that if a church is torn completely in half — 50/50 for each side — that would warrant being considered a “division” in that denomination.
But less than that, there may be no bright line, and I suspect we’d all agree that a single congregation — out of dozens, hundreds, whatever — would (and should) probably not rise to being a full-fledged “division,” just a desired departure.
So, any fact pattern falling somewhere in between (as in the current cases) — in the absence of controlling statute or precedent — means that it’ll be up to the court’s subjective opinion (and hence, more likely appealable, no matter which side emerges victorious at the trial court level) as to where lies the line between (1) a dissenting minority that is so small in size that it falls short of being part of a full-fledged “division” of the denomination and (2) a dissenting minority that is sufficiently large for there to be deemed to be, within the meaning of the statute, a full-fledged “division” in the denomination. (Would the threshold lie at 5%? 10%? 25%? 40%? And of *what* — ASA, baptized membership? And over what geographic area should the denominator (no pun!) be figured — statewide only, or nationwide?)
Can some legal eagle (who is actually familiar with the Virginia law and the binding or advisory precedents there) address these questions intelligently (and intelligibly)? Thanks…
I agree with William#2 that the chances of winning the case are irrelevant. ++Katharine has made no secret of the fact that TEC will actively fight for property.
I did find William’s imputation of motives a bit over the top and question the logic of this:
I would also like to point out with respect to the various callings and decisions that keep the orthodox firmly within TEC that you do, in fact, give aid and comfort to them while they sue your Virginia allies. Your lack of action enables TEC to concentrate its resources against the Virginia, California, and Florida churches amongst others who have left. Action, and inaction, do have consequences.
Finally, it is not surprising that Dr. Radner’s unfortunate departure from the Network is being used as propaganda. Not surprising at all.
Because the first paragraph claims that those who stay are akin to the Vichy French, isn’t Dr. Radner+ on our side anyway?
Do we think for a second that if we’d decided to align with an Anglican Church of Norway (if there was such a thing), that Bishop Lee would refer to us as those Norwegian Churches?
bb
You know you’re my favorite, elfgirl;-)
BabyBlue
The point is that they are not a church in the Anglican Communion. Any church that invades is not welcome and I imagine +Lee would say as much. To paraphrase the prophet:
You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride,
You may be a vestry person taking property on the side,
You may be workin’ in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair,
You may be somebody’s mistress, may be somebody’s heir
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be ++Akinola or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.
[i] Whoa, Brian. What about me? [/i]
Elf Lady 🙁
Brian,
interesting how you insert the word “or” between Akinola and the Lord thereby implying having Akinola as your diocesan somehow excludes service to the Lord. Considering his stance on the authority of scripture vs the fuzzy stance of TEC, I find that a very interesting implication.
[blockquote]We face opposition from groups that are not only leaving The Episcopal Church but are now also steering a new course away from the Archbishop of Canterbury.[/blockquote]
Yet another spokesperson for the Archbishop of Canterbury?
I can’t think why anyone would imagine that this reads well anywhere else in the Communion.
#24 You want to quote Dylan? Fine.
The iron hand it ain’t no match for the iron rod,
The strongest wall will crumble and fall to a mighty God.
For all those who have eyes and all those who have ears
It is only He who can reduce me to tears.
Don’t you cry and don’t you die and don’t you burn
For like a thief in the night, He’ll replace wrong with right
When He returns.
Truth is an arrow and the gate is narrow that it passes through,
He unleashed His power at an unknown hour that no one knew.
How long can I listen to the lies of prejudice?
How long can I stay drunk on fear out in the wilderness?
Can I cast it aside, all this loyalty and this pride?
Will I ever learn that there’ll be no peace, that the war won’t cease
Until He returns?
Surrender your crown on this blood-stained ground, take off your mask,
He sees your deeds, He knows your needs even before you ask.
How long can you falsify and deny what is real?
How long can you hate yourself for the weakness you conceal?
Of every earthly plan that be known to man, He is unconcerned,
He’s got plans of His own to set up His throne
When He returns.
Who does God love in this situation?
Re: “Nigerian congregations”
I, for one like the title — I think I’ll use it — “I belong to a Nigerian church.”
Nevertheless, those who try to claim it is an unbiased phrase are short sheeting the bed — when you’ve got a white haired guy in Richmond named Lee issuing invective against the Nigerians, it’s intentional. It’s designed to sway the old-line Virginians.
This is the state where the meaning of “macaca” swayed the last Senate election.
[blockquote]Do you think that, should CANA win the property, they would allow a TEC priest to perform a funeral service? [/blockquote]
A Uganda parish in Tallahassee had _two_ TEC _bishops_ in to celebrate eucharist at a funeral recently.
Ooooo – a Dylan quoting contest. I was listening to Dylan unplugged yesterday and kept thinking how applicable this was to the TEC bishops — don’t stand in the doorway, don’t block up the hall — we’re beyond your command:
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who
That it’s namin’.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside
And it is ragin’.
It’ll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’.
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.
Encore:
Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Bishop Lee?
Brian #21, thanks for your comment. However there is no imputation of motive, simple logic: its harder, indeed impossible for TEC to successfully fight hundreds of wars simultaneously than a handful. If all the orthodox parishes in TEC decided to leave tomorrow with the property, there is nothing TEC could really do to stop it.
Plainsparson, your question is easy: everyone.
Elf Lady
My humble apologies!
Mike L
Actually, I simply replaced the words “the Devil”;)
Ok BabyBlue,
Here’s one for the ‘orthodox’ leaders;)
Like the lion tears the flesh off of a man
So can a woman who passes herself off as a male
They sang “Danny Boy” at his funeral and the Lord’s Prayer
Preacher talking ’bout Christ betrayed
It’s like the earth just opened and swallowed him up
He reached too high, was thrown back to the ground
You know what they say about bein’ nice to the right people on the way up
Sooner or later you gonna meet them comin’ down
Well, there ain’t no goin’ back when your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back
Hear ya got a brother named James, don’t forget faces or names
Sunken cheeks and his blood is mixed
He looked straight into the sun and said revenge is mine
But he drinks, and drinks can be fixed
Sing me one more song, about ya love me to the moon and the stranger
And your fall by the sword love affair with Erroll Flynn
in these times of compassion when conformity’s in fashion
Say one more stupid thing to me before the final nail is driven in.
Well, there ain’t no goin’ back when your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back
There’s a retired businessman named Red, cast down from heaven and he’s out of his head
He feeds off of everyone that he can touch
He said he only deals in cash or sells tickets to a plane crash
He’s not somebody that you play around with much
Miss Delilah is his, a Philistine is what she is
She’ll do wondrous works with your fate
Feed you coconut bread, spice buns in your bed
If you don’t mind sleepin’ with your head face down in a grave.
Well, there ain’t no goin’ back when your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back
Well they’ll choose a man for you to meet tonight
You’ll play the fool and learn how to walk through doors
How to enter into the gates of paradise
No, how to carry a burden too heavy to be yours
Yeah, from the stage they’ll be tryin’ to get water outta rocks
A whore will pass the hat, collect a hundred grand and say thanks
They like to take all this money from sin, build big universities to study in
Sing “Amazing Grace” all the way to the Swiss banks
Well, there ain’t no goin’ back when your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back
They got some beautiful people out there, man
They can be a terror to your mind and show you how to hold your tongue
They got mystery written all over their forehead
They kill babies in the crib and say only the good die young
They don’t believe in mercy
Judgment on them is something that you’ll never see
They can exalt you up or bring you down main route
Turn you into anything that they want you to be
Well, there ain’t no goin’ back when your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back
Yes, I guess I loved him too
I can still see him in my mind climbin’ that hill
Did he make it to the top, well he probably did and dropped
Struck down by the strength of the will
Ain’t nothin’ left here partner, just the dust of a plague that has left this whole town afraid
From now on, this’ll be where you’re from
Let the dead bury the dead. Your time will come
Let hot iron blow as he raised the shade
Well, there ain’t no goin’ back when your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back
[url=”http://notdarkyet.tripod.com/020408ready.mp3″]Hallelujah![/url]
Irenaeus’ dictionary is exceedingly apt and timely in this elf’s opinion.
Indeed, elfgirl. It’s gotten a good workout just today. 😉
Somehow I’m feeling an urge to go off and listen to Hwy. 61 Revisited. Thanks for the Dylan, y’all.
Wasn’t one of the CANA parishes going to allow the TEC remnant to continue worshipping on the property at one point? If I am remembering correctly, that would suggest funerals won’t be a problem.
It may be the Devil,
Or it may be the Lord,
But your gunna have to serve somebody.
[i]As I noted on Babyblue, I wonder if the DoV has explained to the elderly woman that if TEC wins the churches will be sold off after a few years and she can negotiate burials with a non-Anglican denomination? [/i]
Will the churches be sold off? Has this been determined? Are sealed bids being accepted?
No of course not, Revamundo. The churches will thrive, as the inclusive, accepting theology of ECUSA reaps all the rewards we have been promised and both congregations and coffers swell with people and money, respectively, once they recognize just how great a product ECUSA is serving up.
Another option could be that the churches would serve as excellent Historical Museums of ECUSA’s past Glorious History and People’s Revolution for the admiring throngs who wish to emulate our success.
#33: Seems to me that your reasoning is precisely why pecusa is putting so much pressure on individual dioceses to sue individual parishes who are leaving pecusa. Problem is, the dioceses in many cases don’t have the money to handle the cases.
I had always suspected that Dylan was without merit, either lyrically or musically, and now you have removed all doubt. It is baffling how anyone so patently second rate can carry such an enormous reputation. T hese lyrics are banal and cliche ridden.
LM
#42 Two items to consider.
1. This has been the pattern in other dioceses when buildings have been emptied of most of the ASA. The diocese will pump money in for a few years, then close the churches when the $$ drain is unbearable.
2. The annual budgets of the departing churches are at least 3 times that of the DoV, and the vote to depart averaged over 80%. There are those who will stay with the buildings regardless of who wins, so perhaps 30% would remain to support the buildings if DoV wins.
Bottom line is that the “faithful remnant” in a dying denomination will never be able to support the bricks and mortar.
RalphM
My apologies Tony, I meant to reply to #40 (Revamundo)
RalphM
Yes Tony #42, you see the point. Perhaps the lawyers who represent CANA in Virginia will also see the strategic merit in causing TEC to be dismissed from the lawsuit as a party since they have no standing. Wouldn’t life get interesting in the TEC once the masses realize that the only power 815 has to make their lives unpleasant is power they, themselves have given 815?
Dylan uses cliches as words and hence they are no longer cliches.
When the rain is blowing in your face
And the whole world is on your case
I could offer you a warm embrace
To make you feel my love
When the evening shadows and the stars appear
And there is no one there to dry your tears
I could hold you for a million years
To make you feel my love
I know you haven’t made your mind up yet
But I would never do you wrong
I’ve known it from the moment that we met
No doubt in my mind where you belong
I’d go hungry, I’d go black and blue
I’d go crawling down the avenue
There’s nothing that I wouldn’t do
To make you feel my love
The storms are raging on the rollin’ sea
And on the highway of regret
The winds of change are blowing wild and free
You ain’t seen nothing like me yet
I could make you happy, make your dreams come true
Nothing that I wouldn’t do
Go to the ends of the earth for you
To make you feel my love
1) Who’s the woman in bishop pink by the big gong?
2) I find the whole tone of this piece kind of creepy:
Example:
It is in stories such as hers that our requirement to preserve, protect and pass on the legacy of our church ancestors has real meaning. Those of us in this generation with the responsibility of stewardship are working tirelessly to that end.
There should be a simple rule in these matters. If the parish in question has good grounds to show that the new dogma of TEC is in conflict with their traditional dogma, then they should get to leave building and all. If the parish has over its history paid for the construction and maintenance of the building then this should really be non-controversial. If they parish is in any debt to the diocese then arraignments for compensation should be made.
I know that courts will have little interest in matters of doctrine, but perhaps these can be reworded in legal language. Dogma could be called ‘working principles’.
The traditional teachings of parish A are that the Bible is God’s revelation of his will to mankind and that Jesus Christ is God’s bodily revelation to humankind. Jesus died for our sins and rose bodily from the grave as a testimony of God’s work and love for humankind. There is no salvation outside of this revelation.
The working principals of parish A are that the book known as The Bible provides a primary source for all communal and personal matters, and that all other considered testimony must conform to the teachings and examples in the Bible. Parish A understands Jesus Christ as the administrator of truth. Though he is long dead the people of parish A behave as if Jesus Christ were alive. Parish A has traditionally practiced this cultural form and has built a community around these principles.
I am not being entirely cute here. It would be an interesting challenge to translate our doctrinal concerns into courtworthy terms(I do not think I hve done a very good job of it) To extrapolate why these operating principles produce very different results in life and community than those TEC’s hierarchy wish to implement would be a good exercise in showing why these differences matter on the ground and not just as ideas.
But alas I am just a carpenter and the selective hearing of the courts confounds me.
Lee didn’t personally issue this, but he did issue it THROUGH Geitlein so that he (Lee) could still appear “presidential”. One of the oldest tactics in the book….and we will see much more of this in the days to come. In my diocese, fellow members of the AAC are not waiting….we are taking the battle to the bishop and we are pouring it on between now and September 30.
Re #48: Can’t be done. The working principles for a church are its theology (which the courts cannot touch) and its organizational rules (which the courts should be able to enforce as they can for any other corporate or collective entity). Believe me, you do not want the government—whether the judicial, executive, or legislative branch—deciding what policies and practices “conform to the teachings and examples in the Bible.” The 1890 Utah Supreme Court would have required polygamy, for example.
[b]Nobody[/b] in this dispute, from the staunchest reasserter to the rankest reappraiser, would be well served by letting the courts make judgments about church doctrine and who is preaching it. The issue is how far the courts can go to resolve disputes about church organizational rules.
The traditional approach was to identify the final decision-maker within the church and then defer to their judgment. For congregational churches, this was the majority of the members of the local parish. For hierarchical churches, it was whatever church court was considered the final arbiter within the denomination. The rationale for this is that the organizational structure of religious bodies is inextricably tied to their doctrine. For example, the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Episcopal churches are named for their theologically-determined structures. To ignore the church’s organizational structure would be to substitute a government theology of the church for the one adopted by the denomination.
The newer approach is to let the courts decide based solely on the names on the title deeds without considering their context within a particular organization run by mutually-agreed rules. Although this is called “neutral principles,” in my opinion it really isn’t neutral since it treats religious organizations (whose structure is to be ignored) differently than secular organizations (where the authority of an officer to perform a particular act can always be determined by looking at the organizational structure). It also fails to be neutral because it treats local congregations as independent actors (as in congregationalism), even in hierarchical denominations that have consciously rejected congregationalism as a matter of religious principle.
At its last writing on the subject, the US Supreme Court seemed to believe that either approach is consistent with the Federal Constitution, so it is a matter left to the discretion of each individual state.
#32 William P. Sulik & #43 Larry Morse, [i]in re[/i]: Dylan (unplugged or not)
I have always preferred [i]Men of Worth[/i], including their album [i]Unplunged[/i].
#48, I think by your question regarding “the woman in bishop pink by the big gong?” you are referring to the picture on BB’s page. That is a picture of Delores Umbridge, Headmaster of Hogwarts from the current release of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
Also, I strongly agree with Dale Rye, in #50. No one wants secular courts determining doctrine. I understand the temptation — if we can show that ECUSA has departed from the doctrine in place at the time of the donation or incorporation or formation or what have you, it should be a slam dunk to win. [However Dale and I disagree with the approach toward deference (which I think crosses the line of separation) and neutral principles as outlined in his 3d and 4th ¶¶s.]
And, #51, heh! good one. I tip my hat and hoist my beer to you.
umm…
that should be “Dolores Umbridge”
I was not saying the courts should determine doctrine. I was saying that doctrines (working principals) of any given parish could be proven continuous. The point is not that the court would judge their merit, but there consistency over time. Essentially this would be a human/cultural rights approach. Perhaps this is already being used in some form.
I do think we should occupy some of these buildings that are being taken from the congregations. A little civil disobedience goes a long way.
Here we go:
Doctrine: Spiritual Operational Norms, now that sounds like it is straight from 815.
50 & 52
Thanks for the info about the court proceedings. I am in Canada so I have not really got a handle on these details as we have not moved to this stage of dissolution yet, though this may happen soon.
I am two books behind on Harry Potter. All my kids are old enough o read to themselves now so unless I take the time for myself I miss out.
#38 – Yes, that would be All Saints’ Dale City. John Guernsey is a very, very wise man, who negotiated with DoVA before he and his congregation left for Uganda. They rent the current church property for $1 a year, and they build on their new property (bought long before they left, it has been in the works for a long, long time) without diocesan help. Different situation for Truro and others.
#20: No definition of division in the statute. No precedent for its application.
#15: Interesting word choices that reveal the problem here: has the denomination (TEC) divided, or are people choosing to sever ties with / disaffiliate from it?
#48: Dale’s right. There’s just no way to do that constitutionally — can you really imagine a court deciding which part of a church has departed from doctrine / historical principles? Regardless of the words used, it’s impossible.
Finally, as a fellow HP fan, I am amused and intrigued by the Umbridge comparison, regardless of my sympathy or lack thereof for BabyBlue’s position in all this.
2 other points, then I’m done:
1. Those on the other side of this are constantly talking to the media and making comments no less one-sided than those in Getlein’s letter. Why (other than the obvious — that this is not a TEC-friendly site) is Getlein’s letter so surprising or worthy of vilification?
2. #15, you think that having the majority of the local congregation decide this is best no matter what side you’re on from a Free Exercise perspective. Believe me when I say I’m a big fan of democracy. But what your statement says is: no matter what the rules of the religion are, government should be able to impose rule by the majority on it. Doesn’t exactly seem to fit with the free exercise of Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or other such religions, does it?
David H #58, the tone of Mr. Getlein’s letter is lacking in what we would hope for in representation of a Christian denomination. Using terms like “beset . . . hijack . . make off … trying to appropriate” impute very bad motives to the CANA congregations and their leaders in Virginia. There are examples in Texas and Florida of TEC Dioceses negotiating settlement of property issues with dissenting congregations. Are those TEC leaders somehow less “honor bound” as Mr. Getlein puts it, to preserve TEC property for “future generations?” Could you not possibly ask yourself if something else other than what Mr. Getlein says (see my post at 11 above) is at work here? We can agree to disagree about this, but at least can we not be honest about it?
William (#59), I’m sure there are strategic decisions being made on both sides — by 815 & co on how to pressure separatists, and by Common Cause, Akinola, & co regarding how to hasten TEC’s demise (or, to be more charitable, it’s replacement).
I read a lot regarding the Virginia litigation, and if you think Getlein’s letter is worthy of being excoriated because it is unChristian and imputes bad motives to the CANA folks, I have to ask: are you consistent? When Jim Oakes and others in the separatist congregations excoriate TEC and the Diocese, do you comment on their unChristian terminology or on the fact that they’re imputing bad motives to Bishop Lee and others?
Honesty is a 2 way street. So is litigation.
David H, to answer your question, yes I am extremely consistent. And actually sir, honesty is not a 2 way street; I need to be honest whether you are, or not.
Hummm
When the Episcopal church broke off from the CoE at the time of the Revolutionay War did the Episcopal churches pay the CoE for the Anglican churches or did they just take them as theirs?
How interesting BabyBlue should use a picture of Dolores Umbridge.
Just this past Sunday our pastor in his sermon made reference to the mainstream churches being like the Ministry of Magic. They are spending all their time denying that the Dark Lord (Satan) and his influence (sin) exist, rather than fighting him or allowing people to be equipped with the tools to fight him. Our pastor said it was up to us as Christians to become the Order of the Phoenix and counter the mainstream churches even if we face mocking or persecution from the mainstream as a result.
In the ten years I’ve gone to my present church, our pastors have been fairly reluctant to criticize or comment on what is going on in other churches, but there have been several times in the past few months where the gloves have come off.
#63’s comment is on target. When is the Anglican church going to enter the fight – actually enter it and prepare to fight these issues out? Regardless of what other mainstream churches say or the contumely dumped on our heads. Establish one’s identity, then defend it when it is attacked. Why is this a hard doctrine? INstead, we have the ABC, with whom I was once very sympathetic, waffling and talkingtalkingtalking. When the spiritual life one represents is under attack, turning the other cheek doesn’t cut it. LM
William (#61): I need an editor if I’m going to comment late in the evening. What I meant to say is that the test for, or the requirement of, honesty is a 2 way street — not that any one person’s honesty should depend on another’s.
But I don’t think honesty is the right word here. I think both sides believe what they’re saying — I just think that what they say is often colored by their biases or perceptions. If “bias” is our test, I don’t think Getlein’s letter is any more biased than Oakes’ statements.
David H, thank you for your response. But I think you are missing my point. I’m not familiar with the public statements by Mr. Oakes to which you allude but if they are posted on this blog we can certainly discuss them. When you do something wrong, that fact does not change by pointing out the mote in another’s eye as Jesus said. Mr. Getlein claims the mantle of Christianity. That means his actions and comments are watched by others, including those whom we would hope to bring into faith. There is nothing in his comments that would make me desire to be a Christian or any part of his denomination. Mr. Getlein’s tone and comments are not out of line in the secular, political arena but shouldn’t we strive for more as witnesses for the faith?
William, #66:
Here is a recent comment reported in the press by a rector of one of the separatist congregations (not Oakes):
“Attacking the properties of whole parishes of lay members is quite different, vindictive, [meant] to intimidate. It’s only when church executives have lost their spiritual authority that they have to resort to secular courts and rule by threats.”
Oakes has made similar comments, as have others. The point I’m trying to make is not any particular comment — it’s to say that the separatists have been active and vocal in the press for some time in no less biased a way than Getlein’s letter. Yet only Getlein appears to draw attacks on T19. A balanced discussion would assess the bias / honesty / “Christian-ness” of both sides’ comments.
Again, with the last part of your comment, you’re signaling out Getlein. I don’t think the actions of anyone involved in the litigation make anyone feel more favorably toward Episcopalians, Anglicans, or Christians. I think being involved in litigation (the result of actions on both sides) is very sad. I think God is disappointed and saddened by both sides.
A response to the Diocese of Virginia Letter can be found at:
http://www.anglicandistrictofvirginia.org
Per William and David’s exchange. . .
This is not a two way street in at least one significant way. To make an analogy, let’s say we have a family with a home in a certain kind of cooperative organization. That coop has a special mandate and to reap the maximum benefit all properties were treated collectively though each household may act as sole owners with the provision that they follow the mandate of the coop. Now time goes by and the leadership of the coop changes and with this the mandate is changed. Some families decide the new mandate in not on. The very reason they joined the coop in the first place was on account of the mandate. The Smiths have paid for there house and all of its repairs over the years. They are one of the families that want to leave the coop and align with another that holds the mandate they also hold.
Legality aside, for we are called to seek justice not law, who should get the house? Will litigation over the property place the coop administration and the families on an equal footing? For one the house is part of it assets. For the other it is their family home. This is a basic inequality. The other inequality is that the administration has greater resources than the family.
I do not think Oak’s statement, “Attacking the properties of whole parishes of lay members is quite different, vindictive, [meant] to intimidate. It’s only when church executives have lost their spiritual authority that they have to resort to secular courts and rule by threatsâ€, is of the same nature under the circumstances as this newspeak of Getelin, “Clearly The Episcopal Church faces challenges as our church is beset by groups and individuals determined to hijack the legacy of our ancestors and make off with the inheritance we are honor bound to protect, preserve and pass on to future generations.â€
When I first started reading the article I thought it was from the perspective of a reasserting congregation.
Certainly both sides are guilty of some hyperbole, but we cannot reasonable say they are on an equal footing.
David H., thank you again for your response. I am “singling out” Mr. Getlein as you put it simply because his comments are the subject matter of this thread. I think you make a valid point though, that there seems like little difference between Mr. Getlein saying “hijack, appropriate, make off,” and Mr. Oakes saying “attack vindictive intimidate threats.” People looking at both sets of statements who have little knowledge of the underlying facts could easily paint both parties to this dispute with the same broad brush.
I suspect you and I are at different ends of this theological divide. Its sad and noteworthy that no one even in society as a whole is able to hold their allies and partisans to account for their intemperate comments and bad decisions. Everything is looked at in terms of whether you are “on our side” or not. If you are “on our side” you have license to do whatever. I disagree with this. But my understanding of the Virginia litigation is very different from yours; and no, it doesn’t take “two” to do litigation, it only takes “one” to file a lawsuit and here TEC is doing all the suing. The Virginia congregations have sued no one. They filed legal documents asserting ownership of the property at issue; TEC abandoned the protocol to work things out amicably and sued just about everyone in sight. You can’t just come outside when you see my sister and I fighting and tell us both to behave; its possible I was just minding my own business and she started hitting me.
TEC is not conducting itself honorably in these matters.
Re #62 (long after): Under the ecclesiology believed in 1776-81 by Anglicans (and expressed in Art. 37), when the United States became an independent country, the Church of England ceased to exist in the former colonies. Christians there had the authority to organize their own churches without interference from any foreign power, whether the Church of England or the Church of Rome.
Since the churches belonged to the Americans, they owed no compensation to the British. Those parishes that chose to join TEC/PECUSA (and not all did) acceded to its doctrine, discipline, and worship, including the authority of General Convention. In essence, TEC acquired the same powers over these congregations as had formerly been exercised by the C of E (which clearly did not permit congregations to freely leave with the parish property).
Unlike the C of E following the Revolutionary War, TEC is asserting that its authority still extends to all those congregations that have acceded to that authority. Like the southern states’ relation to the federal government, once they had joined the union they could only leave under conditions set by General Convention, either in the individual case or under general rules embodied in the constitution or canons. The Virginia congregations are essentially making the same claim as the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1861, that having joined the union voluntarily, they are free to leave it the same way.
Whichever argument one might accept, this is clearly not the same situation as America after the Treaty of Paris.