Q: There has been a lot of public attention on the disagreements and controversy in the church related to homosexuality ”” whether there should be gay bishops and how the church should relate to same-sex couples. What are your thoughts about that?
A: Personally, I’m to the left of that issue. [Supporting] the full inclusion of gay persons in the life of the church is something I said when I was a nominee. But as a leader of the church, I’m a centrist. I think we need to lead from the center, and we need to rebuild the center. I think this issue, the place of gay persons in church ”” in the United States, anyway ”” is not an either-or question. There are parts of our church that remain thoroughly traditional in that respect and they will not be required to change. But there are parts of our church ”” indeed, it’s pretty clear, the majority of our church ”” that are moving toward and indeed already fully include gays and lesbians in the church. I hope that the rest of the Anglican world can accept that reality.
Q: It’s been three years since a majority of members in some Northern Virginia congregations voted to leave the diocese. Has the turmoil from that settled?
A: It’s in a kind of limbo right now. I just know that we’re waiting for the Virginia Supreme Court to hear our petition to take the appeal. I really look forward to the time when the litigation is behind us all.
Q: Can you explain why the Diocese of Virginia decided to go forward with the appeal?
A: It is following our vows to exercise care and concern and indeed ownership of our property, and if we don’t do that through whatever means are possible to us, you can make the strong case that the bishop is not living up to the ordination vows. That opens up an entirely new question with very serious ramifications.
The Diocese of Virginia promised to settle with the Churches out of court and then Changed their minds after interference from New York.
The legal issues would have been behind all of us if they had kept their word. They could be over soon anyway.
http://www.churchoftheword.net
Funny, I can’t seem to find the care and concern for real property vow in the Prayer Book.
“But you go into Northern Virginia with its modern complexities, and people know that the Episcopal Church is very much part of the vanguard, pushing the envelope — very edgy.”
Pushing the envelope toward formal disavowing of Scripture, perhaps??
How can you be a “centrist” about Scripture and God’s Moral Law? I think Jesus referred to centrists as “luke-warm”.
He’s saying that bishops are suing for property because if they don’t, they will be threatened with deposition by the Episcopal Church Center?
Cmt 1 [edited] bears no resemblance at all to the facts, which by now are well-known.
[Edited by Elf – please be careful of personal comments]
What he should have said:
Q: Can you explain why the Diocese of Virginia decided to go forward with the appeal?
A: Because we believe the lower court’s decision was wrong.
It’s the same reason everyone appeals.
Why is suing part of the ordination vows, and faithfulness to Scripture is not?
DavidH, they might also appeal because our legal system is a lottery and, who knows, they might win. Plus, it’s important for them to establish certain principles, even if the principles are wrong.
How does a person who, one imagines fairly clearly, is called of God to be a priest in his Church, and who, again one imagines, derives rich and even godly benefit from the likes of Kierkegaard and Bonaventure – how does such a one now conduct himself as a bishop within the Reformed yet Catholic Tradition?
For to say, “I hope that the rest of the Anglican world can accept that realityâ€, seems not only to present a serious cross-roads – to Virginia, to TEC, to others in the Communion – but to [i]occlude[/i] the nature of that dilemma in our collective “journey into Godâ€. One ventures that not even Kierkegaardian “paradoxes†are able to fudge the explicit contradictions now placed before us all – ecclesiologically, anthropologically, Christologically, theologically. Indeed, anyone who has read Aristotle, as I am sure this man has, knows well the realities of his rule of the excluded middle: we simply cannot enjoy [b]both[/b] ‘a state of affairs X’ [b]and[/b] its opposite, simultaneously. Reality ain’t like that folks …
Frankly, I fear both for this man’s ongoing journey of faith, and pray for him and his own spiritual director (NB his references to such good folk in the interview), even as I continue to pray for the entire AC at this time, bedevilled as we are with essential contradictions which we may not in good conscience deny.
[Sorry DavidH – noted – but we have to draw the line somewhere with our comment policy – we do not always get it right but we do try hard – Elf]
So sad. VA was once a great Diocese.
[blockquote]Q: Can you explain why the Diocese of Virginia decided to go forward with the appeal?
A: It is following our vows to exercise care and concern and indeed ownership of our property …[/blockquote]
Really? Property which you did not acquire, pay for or maintain, and which has someone else’s name on the deed is “our property”? Nice try!
Grandpa Dino: The people who acquired, paid for and maintained the property fall into several categories, including folks who have been dead for decades, folks who think it is a good time to leave, folks who agree with those who left, but do not support schism within the church and who think it best to stay and witness for orthodoxy, folks who agree with the current direction of the Episcopal Church, and folks who disagree, but who have observed that they have never been required to do anything that runs counter to their theology or sense of the divine, even though others in the Church have different ideas. None of these categories can assert property ownership by virtue of the correctness of their spiritual views. The most rational way to sort it out is this: if an individual wishes to leave a church because his conscience is uncomfortable with the teachings of the church, he should indeed leave. He should not take property as he leaves. He should devote his energies to finding a church whose doctrines and views are consistent with his own. If several people decide to leave for the same reason, they should similarly leave, without attempting to take property with them. If a whole bunch of people leave for the same or similar reasons, they should likewise not help themselves to property on their way out on the basis that they have contributed to the maintenance of the church plant. By the same rationale, people who elect not to leave should respect and not impede those who wish to leave and should go on about their worship without interference from the departing group. It’s very straightforward. I can’t think of a better template to decide these things. Otherwise one does find oneself thrown into the secular court system.
#14. Balderdash!
I spent thousands of dollars (hard earned at that working 12-14 hours a day) supporting the parish I was baptized, grew up, and served in. I had no say in the church’s departure from scriptural integrity. Was it my church? No…not exactly, but my money helped pay the mortgage. The problem with your analysis is that the visitor has run me out of my own home by his behavior. I was happy until the rules changed after 55 years. Now you say I should let the visitor take my home if I don’t like the way he behaves? Can I get a refund for “misrepresentation”?
Now Orthodox: I don’t think your hypothetical has any real world parallel in these church property disputes. I suspect that there are other folks who also contributed and who do not believe that there has been a departure from scriptural integrity and whose status as “visitor” is not clear. In those circumstances, I find it a little hard to put either of you in the position of “owning” the church. I have changed churches several times over several decades. Sometimes it has been because of inconvenient geography and sometimes it has been because of dissatisfaction with the priests or some other aspect of worship. I have never, however, had the notion that when I leave, no matter how long I’ve been there or how much I’ve contributed, that I have some right to take things with me when I go. I think most people understand that their gifts are gifts, and you don’t get to take them back in specie or in kind when, for whatever reason, you decide to move on. This is so even when one’s reasons are unassailably compelling.