Via email–KSH.
Today, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the church property case appeal made by The Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia challenging the ruling of the Fairfax County Circuit Court. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of nine Anglican congregations in Virginia , under the umbrella of the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), confirming that the Anglican churches could keep their property.
Steffen Johnson, who argued the case on behalf of the Anglican District of Virginia churches, stated, “We are grateful for the opportunity to defend the appeals in the Virginia Supreme Court today. The argument went very well. It was a lively bench with good questions for both sides.
We continue to feel strong about the positions outlined in our briefs and developed in the extensive record in the trial court, and we look forward to the Court’s decision.”“Our church members are standing firm for the Gospel and will remain in prayer as the Virginia Supreme Court considers the oral arguments made today,” said Jim Oakes, chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia. “I am extremely confident in our case that was eloquently presented by our legal counsel. However, it’s unfortunate that this matter is being discussed in a court of law in the first place after our numerous attempts at amicable negotiations. I, like my fellow parishioners, look forward to and pray for a quick end to the litigation so that we can completely focus our time, money and energy on bringing new believers to Christ and helping those in need. Our doors remain open wide to all who wish to worship with us.”
Bishop David Bena, Contact Bishop for the Anglican District of Virginia, added, “Members of the Anglican District of Virginia have been in a period of intensive prayer and fasting leading up to and including today. As an ordained clergyman, I know that this court case is, as it has been from the beginning, in the Lord’s hands and the will of God will determine where ADV congregations worship in His name.”
A ‘division’ has occurred and ADV is a ‘branch’ of the Episcopal Church in the sense that, it comes our of TEC and has a common history and polity. 57.9 is a valid law in Virginia. The churches did what was asked of them by the diocese and continue to hold exclusive title to their property. Let us pray for an end to this harassment.
http://www.churchoftheword.nnet
Always good to see you posting here, Glendermott (#1). It always brings back positive memories for me of my brief time at Church of the Word in Gainesville, memories I cherish.
I trust that with the hearing of oral arguments now over, it won’t be long before this awful ordeal is finally over at last. Isn’t a decision expected by June? I’m glad that the ADV had such good legal representation. I look forward to reading BabyBlue’s account, or others who may have witnessed proceedings.
It’s too bad that only VA has that unique state law, the old Division Statute 57-9 you mentioned, Glendermott. God does have a wonderful way of bringing good out of evil, and that statue is one of the good things to come out of the horrors of the Civil War. I trust that similarly, our gracious God will somehow use for good this prolonged time of uncertainty and this insanely expensive court battle. I hope that when the dust finally settles this summer, that more conservative Episcopal churches in VA will take advantage of the positive outcome I’m expecting to take heart and leave TEC, confident at last that they can keep their property. As is only right and fair since they paid for it.
David Handy+
The statute is a might peculiar one and I highly doubt it would be enacted in any state (even Virginia) today. As Father Handy indicates, it is detritus of the War Between the States and was purpose built to deal with hard feelings of those times. We don’t know that it is a “valid” law, as stated in Comment No. 1, because, if it is contrary to either the state or federal constitution, it is void ab initio. That it might help out someone we like or hurt someone we don’t like doesn’t save it from being an embarrassment to a modern government and its citizens. It appears that the consitutionality of the statute may get side-stepped altogether, judging from reports of the argument. Courts are very reluctant to rule on consitutional grounds if other grounds for decision are available. If the oral argument is any indication, the opinion is more likely to go off on whether the language of the statute applies to the circumstances that surrounded the decision of people to leave the Episcopal Church for more satisfying spiritual homes.
As to the “they paid for it” point from No. 2, it doesn’t work at all well as an ownership determinator in these matters. Lots of people “paid for it”, including some who overtly opposed secession, some who voiced no opinion, and many who had no awareness of the issues. As applied here thus far, or under the “paid for it” formulation, their contributions are worth zero. I would not be comfortable with a church governance structure that permitted people to cash out when they leave while zero-ing out the contributions of those who stay. That the secular government intervenes to enforce such a system makes me feel all the queasier.
#3. NoVA Scout, Isn’t the better answer to ‘who owns these buildings?’ found in two parts. (1.) From a secular viewpoint the buildings are owned by whoever’s name is on the deed and there are secular courts to sort that out. (2.) From a Christian viewpoint the buildings are owned by God. All that we are and have is His and we return to Him but a portion of what He has given us. In this latter case the issue to me seems to be who will use these buildings in a way appropriate to God’s claim on them.
As far as I can see, there is no comparison between CANA and TEC as to how God’s property is being used. I will not recite a litany of what CANA is doing to advance the kingdom. Further, I need not delve into TEC’s sorry stewardship of the faith and use of facilities. You need not remind me of all the good they are doing . I see that in many places, but there is plenty they are doing that causes heads to hang in shame.
I think you mean “District” not “Diocese”.
You are correct, Simon, I thought rightly and typed wrongly. Thanks for the heads up–KSH.