Dear Diocesan Family,
A panel of the Virginia Supreme Court will hear our petition for appeal on October 21 and, while it is unfortunate that these legal proceedings were necessary, I trust that this hearing will bring us one step closer to resolution.
I am proud that the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church have chosen the path consistently to defend loyal Episcopalians, and to safeguard and to protect the Church’s legacy and the Church from unwarranted governmental and legislative interference. It is with the same determination to stand by the people, traditions and legacy of our diocese that I look toward our appeal.
For nearly 225 years, the Episcopal Church has had the freedom to govern itself according to its beliefs. But that freedom is under direct attack here in our diocese in the form of a Virginia law that allows the government to interfere with the faith, polity and structure of our Church and other hierarchical churches in the Commonwealth.
I believe that this law is unconstitutional and that there is too much at stake to let it remain in effect. The legal struggle to secure our right to organize as we choose and safeguard our churches from those seeking to seize them has not been easy. This journey has been a long one, but now more than ever we must all gather around those who need us most at this difficult time.
Loyal Episcopalians have been exiled from their Episcopal homes for too long and I ask you to keep all of them in your prayers. This includes St. Stephen’s, Heathsville; St. Margaret’s, Woodbridge; Epiphany, Oak Hill; and The Falls Church, Falls Church. These parishioners have been denied the ability to worship as they wish at the very same churches where they were married, where they baptized their children and where they buried their loved ones. I view this next hearing with great hope for the day when I will join these faith-filled Episcopalians as they return to their church homes to celebrate and worship together.
Faithfully yours,
–(The Rt. Rev.) Shannon S. Johnston, Bishop of Virginia
[blockquote] “and to safeguard and to protect the Church’s legacy and the Church from unwarranted governmental and legislative interference.”[/blockquote]
Uhhh, wasn’t it the Diocese of Virginia and TEC that sought “governmental interference” in the first place by suing the Virginia churches in the secular courts, to get the courts to take away the churches’ property to give to them?
He should not be proud of violating his word, nor of merely repeating lines which someone else has written for him. Poor Man. I feel compassion for him.
This sounds quite a bit like a bishop who is preparing his flock for a very possible loss, putting before them his (specious) defense for why there was no other choice but to spend millions and essentially destroy the diocese in order to save it. Why if they were confident in winning would it be necessary to say anything at all, as the justification would be self-evident by the court victory?
Virginia’s illegitimate bishop Shannon Johnston is proud of his lawsuits against Christians? That’s just sick. If they didn’t want governmental and legislative interference, they should have negotiated a mutually agreed-upon settlement. The shameful legacy of lies and mendacity from Virginia’s Episcopal bishops is a judgment on themselves and their church.
Hard to know which word defines this letter better–“priggish” or “presumptuous”.
If they are going to use it for litigation rather than evangelism, may all their money go down a rathole.
Bishop Johnston says, “Loyal Episcopalians have been exiled from their Episcopal homes for too long …. This includes … The Falls Church”. Former Virginia Diocesan spokesman Patrick Getlein made a similar statement in February 2007, prompting me to send him this letter which he never answered:
DGus, surely you understand that Episcopalians are not defined by their personal belief systems, but by where they worship. I am sure it is true that nobody has been barred from attending services at these parishes on the grounds that they are Episcopalian, but I suspect it is also true that not one of them would be excluded from a local Baptist or Roman Catholic Church on those grounds, either. That doesn’t mean that those who exclusively attend Baptist, Roman Catholic, or ACNA services can consider themselves Episcopalians, or that those who wished to remain Episcopalian in the converted ACNA parishes have not been forced to go elsewhere. People who attend Baptist services exclusively are Baptists, and those who attend ACNA services exclusively are ACNA members; in neither case can they call themselves Episcopalian. Your argument would only make sense in a denomination where Christians have ties only to a local church and parishes are considered to be independent entities without any essential connection to a diocese or larger church community. That may describe ACNA, but it emphatically does not describe traditional Anglicanism.
The Episcopal Church’s “legacy”…..I expect that included in that legacy will be their renunciation of Jesus as the Christ and the only Source of salvation….their “prophetic teaching” that since men wrote the Bible, men can change it…..the belief that Hindus, Muslims, and Jews who by their own confession reject Jesus as Lord & Savior will also be in Heaven…..etc., etc.. Sometime to be very proud of.
Dale, look again please at what Johnston says:
“Loyal Episcopalians have been exiled from their Episcopal homes for too long ….
now here is the definition of exiled below, are you going to claim that is what has happened? Let’s not be silly…..
transitive verb exiled -·iled′, exiling -·il′·ing
to force (someone) to leave his or her own country, community, etc.; banish
I think one will find, upon examination, that the litigation is only in response to departing groups laying legal claim to Diocesan property. I know there are those who would prefer that the diocese not contest these claims, but I find it difficult to envision any diocesan bishop simply doing nothing in the face of court filings by the departing groups in which they seek to assert owership over properties that were, prior to the late-2006 actions, clearly within the Episcopalian sphere. Several of these properties are historic and their value is non-trivial, both culturally, spiritually and fiscally. Any bishop who would simply walk away from those petitions by departing groups would be rightly criticized. It seems very unrealistic that any Diocesan official could have not acted in opposition once the petitions were filed.
I am not without sympathy for the idea that some kind of settlement might be the best achievable result for both sides, and hope that one could get to that point. However, had the Diocese acquiesced in the court petitions filed by departing interests, there would be nothing to settle – under the rather peculiar Virginia statute that thus far has controlled the legal discussion, if those petitions had been unopposed, the courts would have mechanically transferred ownership to the groups who left. At that point, there would have been nothing to talk about, even in a settlement context. The Diocese had to respond or lose all legal claim.
Mr. Getlein was very gracious not to take your money, DGus. Given your renewal of the offer, I will encourage him to pick up his reward. There have been no Episcopal services at the Falls Church since late 2006. The departing members of the parish continue to worship there and no provision has been made for Episcopalians to have services in the premises the departing members continue to occupy, despite requests from them to do so. They look forward to being able to return to their church buildings, but the only Episcopal services available to the Falls Church are taking place in rented space at the Presbyterian Church across the street. The continuing Episcopalians wish those who left well. They understand that many of their friends no longer wished to be associated with the Diocese of Virginia or the national Episcopal church, but look forward to the day when those who did not choose to leave can return to the historic premises that over decades have become part of their worship experience. In the meantime, they continue to worship God and find Christian fellowship as guests of their gracious Presbyterian brothers and sisters in Christ. Despite the loss, which they hope is temporary, of access to their home, they also have been blessed with the benefits of understanding that faith and devotion can thrive in conditions of stress and deprivation. So the experience, however unwanted and unsought, is not without its blessings.
Chazaq: what is “illegitimate” about Bishop Johnston? I was unaware of any irregularity in his becoming Bishop. I have had only limited contact with him, but he seems like an intelligent, pious, and honorable man and a legitimate bishop in all discernible respects. If he is not the legitimate Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, who is?
#10 You don’t believe all that guff do you?
Hi NoVA Scout,
The irregularity in Shannon Johnston becoming bishop stems from the canonically defective consents that were requested, received, and accepted as part of his consent process. I am no canon lawyer, but the basic upshot as I recall is that the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church specify what is supposed to be in the consent forms, so as not to violate the canons. Johnston never received consents that conformed to the canonical requirements, yet Schori decided it didn’t matter and declared he had received the canonically required consents. Go figure. This was pretty well documented and got international attention, for example in a Church of England Newspaper article in July a couple of years ago.
The diocese and the parishes had a settlement regime in place, that would have avoided this noxious litigation, and 815 yanked it at the last minute, and forced the litigation — which 815 thought they would win.
But even if TEC does not win, the litigation will have had one success. Its primary purpose has always been the threat itself of ruinously expensive litigation — to assure that no one else would attempt to secede, to scare folks to remain in place. I don’t think anyone really takes seriously this sanctimonious rhetoric about exiled Episcopalians.
BTW, what is the significance of the four specific parishes mentioned in the bishop’s letter? Aren’t there several more than that involved in this litigation?
Tell ya what, #10, if TEC will give me (and all the other orthodox) the money I have tithed to fuerther the preaching of the gospel, when they have decided to change it, I’ll be happy to let them have the property. (in the vernacular, that is called ‘bait and switch’). It would also be nice if they would actually tell the world what they truly believe…. (though I think KJS and Bruno are doing a pretty good job of giving us an idea of where they stand)
[blockquote]7. Dale Rye wrote:
DGus, surely you understand that Episcopalians are not defined by their personal belief systems, but by where they worship.[/blockquote]
Well, Dale, that sounds like a tacit admission that, for
TEC, it really is all about the property and the buildings.
By your logic re ACNA, you also implicitly declare TEC is out of communion with the Southern Cone provinces, which are in good standing in the AC. Yes, Episcopalians could attend RC or Baptist services, but if they made their affiliation known, they would be denied communion as not having been baptized into the lived-out faith of those bodies. This as differentiated from, say, Louie Crew’s trumpeting of having been moistened once while denying, implicitly or explicitly, most or all of essential Christian doctrine on the sinful nature of man, the virgin conecption, full and simultaneous divinity and humanity, bodily death on the cross, physical bodily resurrection from the dead, substitutionary atonement, and bodily ascension into heaven of Jesus Christ.
As Billy Sunday said, being in a garage does not make you a car. Apparently, for you, Dale, no matter what (if anything) is preached about Jesus from the pulpit, all that is Episcopal comes from manifesting in a certain kind of building, like a movie ghost tied to its familiar haunt. You might want to rehearse how you will phrase that at the Great Accounting. Don’t be too proud to change your speech while there is still time, if that seems meet.
No. 11: I believe “all that guff” it in the sense that I know the factual assertions to be true and accurate and the opinion components to be accurate reflections of my views on the subject. If there is something mistaken in the factual assertions, I am willing to correct them. If my opinion is based on mistaken facts, I will reevaluate it. But it is a situation with which I am very familiar.
Chazaq (no.12). Thank you. I was unaware of that. It has not been a point of continuing controversy within the Diocese, to my knowledge.
Dale Rye,
As you know, the hypothetical “loyal Episcopalian†walking into, say, The Falls Church post-departure versus pre-departure would experience no change – none. He would see the same clergy, see the same parishioners, participate in the same liturgy, sing the same songs, sit in the same pews, hear the same sermons, park in the same parking spot, eat the same food at coffee hour and read about the same outreach programs. Well, there might be one change: the possibility of seeing a man, or two, “marry†another man before the altar had been foreclosed. And that’s what it’s all about for those “loyal Episcopalians,†isn’t it, Dale?
NoVA Scout,
OK, here’s a non-factual assertion: “litigation is only in response to departing groups laying legal claim to Diocesan property.†That’s of a piece with Mr, Johnston’s, “in the form of a Virginia law that allows the government to interfere with the faith, polity and structure of our Church.†According to Virginia law, the property doesn’t belong to the Diocese anymore (if it ever did), which is not due to the interference of the government, but – and we both know this is what really drives the “loyal Episcopalian†set into a rage – to the people, who rejected the garbage on offer from today’s collapsing Episcopal Church.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
RE: “It has not been a point of continuing controversy within the Diocese, to my knowledge.”
Well that’s kind of a duh statement. [i]Of course[/i] “it has not been a point of continuing controversy within the Diocese . . . ” Because such minor trifles as violating the canons only matter when it’s about revisionists reflecting on the Wicked Conservative Episcopalians — like Mark Lawrence. But it’s “a point of continuing controversy” for conservatives! And will continue to be so. Hence . . . conservative Episcopalians pointing out that Shannon Johnston is an “illegitimate bishop.”
What hypocricy on the part of revisionist Episcopalians. Really sick.
In response to #13’s question:
[i]BTW, what is the significance of the four specific parishes mentioned in the bishop’s letter? Aren’t there several more than that involved in this litigation? [/i]
I am pretty certain they are the only departing parishes in VA with attempts at continuing Episcopal congregations. For instance there was no group at Truro that attempted to remain Episcopalian.
Sarah1: Are you saying that similar charges of defective consents were raised in connection with Bishop Lawrence? If so, my reaction is that either both Bishops are “legitimate” or both are “illegitimate” and that the defect has nothing to do with “conservatism” or “revisionists.” But I’m not sure I follow your point.
Phil: No litigation was initiated in Virginia by the Diocese until the departing groups filed court petitions seeking to declare ownership of the properties. That is the basis of my statement and I do not understand you to contest its accuracy, despite your charged verbiage.
As for the impact of Virginia’s unusual statute on the situation, I think it not as clear as you represent. That is the subject of continuing litigation as is the question as to why a state government has such statute governing religious disputes. I suspect that the answer has a great deal to do with issues that flared in Virginia immediately before and after the War Between the States and the identities and sentiments of members of the General Assembly at that time. Whether that is sufficient to provide legitimacy to that statute in this day will be decided in the fullness of time, I suppose.