Well, this might explain Bishop Lee’s willingness to go to San Francisco- the standing committee of Diocese of California is more conservative than Virginia’s. I know, I can’t believe it either, but the votes say what the votes say.
The only odd “yes†vote (that is publicly available) is Southern Ohio. Both El Camino Real and Los Angeles voted “no.” What’s going on? More to the point, what a difference the absence of the CANA churches has made.
I doubt that the CANA churches had much representation on the DioVA standing committee before they left. Don’t forget that only one DioVA delegate to GC03 voted against +Robinson. It’s a big tent, you know….
I lived in Virginia for almost tenty years of my life and this saddens me.
Not so much because I believe that the vote of the Virgiinia Standing Committee truly represented the “sense” of Episcopalians in the Diocese of Virginia as much as that the vote tells me that an activist revisionist minority has taken full control of the diocese.
As I said, I lived in Virginia and I think that I have a sense of how the average traditional Virgina Episcoplian views the syncretism represented by Northern Michgan’s selection of its new bishop.
My sense is that they feel that they have lost control of their diocese.
A feeling of losing control breeds anxiety and anxiety can lead to frustration and frustration can lead to anger and anger can lead to action.
So, the game isn’t over in Virginia and possibly sometime in the near future, the traditional Virginians with Virginian gentility will begin to take action to regain control of “…the Faith once given…” in their diocese.
Yeah, so much for representing the “center aisle” in TEC. This is indeed a sign that the Diocese of VA has taken a big lurch to the left. The polarization continues to intensify, despite the departure of many of the most ardently conservative parishes.
I hope that more congregations will wake up and soon take advantage of Virginia’s unique state law that allows them to choose sides in a denominational split and keep the property. Having lived in the Richmond area for almost 20 years, there are several remaining conservative churches in the diocese that I fully expect to exercise that option sooner or later.
Maybe they’ll be sufficiently motivated after whatever craziness comes out of General Convention next month.
NRFA: to the extent there is a “polarization” it may be because of the departure of more “conservative” elements, not despite it. I never felt that there was any pressure on local parishes to conform to some of the more wacked-out anecdotal stuff coming out of other parts of the Church. Too bad folks left. They could have maintained their support for orthodoxy from within the Church.
I don’t think it’s at all clear that the Virginia statute permits departing parishioners to keep properties when they leave the denomination (or conversely, forbids those who stay to keep the properties from which they choose not to depart). I expect we’ll find out just what that’s all about late this year or early next.
Assuming the VA Supremes agree to hear the appeal, we will find out if the Division Statute is constitutional. The issue of ownership does not hinge on that statute alone, however. Virginia does not recognize implied trusts. If the departing churches prevail on the Division Statute, it is game over for DioVa and TEC. If not, it’s on to the merits.
Well, this might explain Bishop Lee’s willingness to go to San Francisco- the standing committee of Diocese of California is more conservative than Virginia’s. I know, I can’t believe it either, but the votes say what the votes say.
I am horrified!
The only odd “yes†vote (that is publicly available) is Southern Ohio. Both El Camino Real and Los Angeles voted “no.” What’s going on? More to the point, what a difference the absence of the CANA churches has made.
I doubt that the CANA churches had much representation on the DioVA standing committee before they left. Don’t forget that only one DioVA delegate to GC03 voted against +Robinson. It’s a big tent, you know….
For just a moment, I thought my ‘lude had kicked in; but, no, I now realize I have no reason to be surprised.
DUH
The Founding Fathers, however, are rolling in their graves…
so much for the “moderate” Diocese of Va.
I lived in Virginia for almost tenty years of my life and this saddens me.
Not so much because I believe that the vote of the Virgiinia Standing Committee truly represented the “sense” of Episcopalians in the Diocese of Virginia as much as that the vote tells me that an activist revisionist minority has taken full control of the diocese.
As I said, I lived in Virginia and I think that I have a sense of how the average traditional Virgina Episcoplian views the syncretism represented by Northern Michgan’s selection of its new bishop.
My sense is that they feel that they have lost control of their diocese.
A feeling of losing control breeds anxiety and anxiety can lead to frustration and frustration can lead to anger and anger can lead to action.
So, the game isn’t over in Virginia and possibly sometime in the near future, the traditional Virginians with Virginian gentility will begin to take action to regain control of “…the Faith once given…” in their diocese.
Its a “wait and see” proposition.
Yeah, so much for representing the “center aisle” in TEC. This is indeed a sign that the Diocese of VA has taken a big lurch to the left. The polarization continues to intensify, despite the departure of many of the most ardently conservative parishes.
I hope that more congregations will wake up and soon take advantage of Virginia’s unique state law that allows them to choose sides in a denominational split and keep the property. Having lived in the Richmond area for almost 20 years, there are several remaining conservative churches in the diocese that I fully expect to exercise that option sooner or later.
Maybe they’ll be sufficiently motivated after whatever craziness comes out of General Convention next month.
David Handy+
NRFA: to the extent there is a “polarization” it may be because of the departure of more “conservative” elements, not despite it. I never felt that there was any pressure on local parishes to conform to some of the more wacked-out anecdotal stuff coming out of other parts of the Church. Too bad folks left. They could have maintained their support for orthodoxy from within the Church.
I don’t think it’s at all clear that the Virginia statute permits departing parishioners to keep properties when they leave the denomination (or conversely, forbids those who stay to keep the properties from which they choose not to depart). I expect we’ll find out just what that’s all about late this year or early next.
Assuming the VA Supremes agree to hear the appeal, we will find out if the Division Statute is constitutional. The issue of ownership does not hinge on that statute alone, however. Virginia does not recognize implied trusts. If the departing churches prevail on the Division Statute, it is game over for DioVa and TEC. If not, it’s on to the merits.