Reacting to the ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court issued… [yesterday] morning, the Rev. John Yates, leader of the breakaway congregation at The Falls Church, sent a letter to his followers calling the ruling “a very disappointing result, to be sure.” He added that by having the case remanded to the Fairfax Circuit Court where “the Episcopal Church and the Diocese must still carry the burden of showing, apart from the division statute (which the Supreme Court ruled did not apply in this case — ed.) that they are the rightful owners of this property.”
The “property” referenced is the historic Falls Church in the center of the City of Falls Church, which Yates and his breakaway group has held onto since voting to defect from the Episcopal denomination in December 2006.
Meanwhile today, in an exclusive interview with the News-Press, the Rev. Michael Pipkin, leader of the “continuing Episcopalians,” members of The Falls Church who did not chose to defect and who’ve been locked out of The Falls Church by the defectors, said he hoped that while the case has been remanded back to the lower court, that a reconciliation between the two congregations could occur, and that arrangements could be made for his “continuing Episcopalians” to also worship on the campus of The Falls Church, specifically at 10 a.m. on Sundays in the historic chapel of the church, which is now not being used for any other purpose.
He noted, however, that Yates’ letter today made no mention of such matters, but that he was open to working something out for both congregations to share the property while the court matter is being finally resolved.
Only 4 of the 11 congregations which originally voted to depart TEC have shadow congregations. The other 7 do not. These shadow congregations are relatively small. In a couple of cases a dozen people and a few dozen in the larger groups. According to their own statements most of those now attending the shadow congregations after 4 years have no history with the property. They are new people. We know there is always a turnover of population in every church each year, especially in places like N Virginia. Naturally there is a core of people in each group who have an identity fixed on the building.
If these shadow groups would be flexible about their requests to share time and space, not making unreasonable demands, and TEC or the DoV promise not to pull any legal tricks then something could probably be worked out.
But how much better to do this in the context of an overall settlement. Any ideas how to do this?
Here’s what will happen should TEC ultimately win out. They’ll be forced to sell or abandon the properties because they won’t be able to maintain them with most of their members having left. As seen in NY, they would rather sell to a Muslim sect than to Anglican Christians. God forbid.
Glendermott, it would be good to have some “hard numbers” here, or at least numbers that are reported by someone. From the way this tends to be reported, the impression is given that masses of people have been “locked out,” and I see no attempt at correction either, these things tend to be consistently reported this way. This would be good to know if only for history’s sake. It would help also document how TEC manages its perception in the eyes of the media.
Here’s the stats for the Falls Church from parochial reports
http://pr.dfms.org/study/Exports/ParishRPT_20100611_115644.pdf
And for St. Margaret’s Woodbridge
http://pr.dfms.org/study/Exports/ParishRPT_20100611_115910.pdf
Truro has not filed any parochial reports and their old reports have been deleted from the national church reports as if they never existed. Astounding. Presto. Gone. Also no report for Christ our Lord, Lakeridge. They too have poofed and disappeared, legacy and all.
And these reports do not take in the whole situation with my church or others in the area/diocese that have had issues due to the lawsuits. For instance down the road is/was St. James Mt Vernon where the rector retired and walked away from the building to start an Anglican church in the neighborhood, which may not be reflected in the 2008 reports. My attendance was 220 a week before the court cases, and now is down to 136. But then it could just be my preaching.
Thanks for the stats very telling.
St. Margaret s woodbridge actually have a building left to them by a nearby Anglican Congregation. So they don’t count in my book.
I have heard that the St. Stephen’s group is small meeting in a living room, and Epiphany shadow congregation started up only after much time had elapsed and is really a new thing.
I heard from a reliable source that they tried to start a Truro shadow but it didn’t work.
The Falls Church historic sanctuary is being used at that time — there is a new family service meeting there from 9:30-10:30 a.m., in addition to other traditional services at 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. Remember, this is a parish with Sunday attendance around 2,200 (an increase since the split – despite three successful church plants being spun off in the years since) so the property is being maximized on Sundays.
However, the property could be used on Sunday afternoon. It’s worth noting that this was something akin to the original proposal — a service led by TFC priest Nicholas Lubelfeld, who remained in the diocese. Unfortunately, Bishop Lee inhibited Lubelfeld. By the time it was corrected and the inhibition removed, the shadow congregation had hired Pipkin.
The shadow congregation isn’t tiny, by the way — their membership is about 175, and I believe their ASA is over 120. That’s a fraction of TFC’s size, but it’s still twice as large as the average Episcopal parish — nothing to sneeze at. Additionally, a few people there do have deep ties to the property. One parishioner was the senior warden at TFC when the vestry called John Yates back in 1979. Most of the people seem to be newcomers, however (and I congratulate them for successfully reaching new folks!)
Good words and helpful info Jeff. Thanks.
Thanks Jeff & dovefromabove, that does help provide a better picture. I had heard of some shadow congregations with only a dozen or so in attendance, which is highly inaccurate in the case of TFCE. Dovefromabove, which is your church?
How does one become a “Shadow” church. Some of us have worshipped for decades at a church founded in the mid-18th century/ We still worship there. We opposed breaking off for a variety of reasons (in my case because I could not discern that our rather conservative parish had been forced to change its ways in any respect, that it was preferable to witness for correct doctrine within the church, that a departure coupled with an effort to lay claim to the buildings – a course advocated by the departure leaders – was highly likely to lead to ruinous and distracting litigation, just to name a few of my personal reasons, but then again, what do I know about these things) and voted against that course. People who left continue to occupy the buildings and we have had to find other quarters at least temporarily, but it’s the same church. There is continuity of membership, continuity of vestry, etc. Sure we have new members (whom we welcome), but so have the folks who left us. What makes us the “shadow”? Is it our size?
Falls Church voted over 90% to withdraw from TEC and over 97% to retain the building.
dovefromabove et al –
the links to parish stats you provided are not working for me. Is it just me, or have they been removed?
RE: “What makes us the “shadowâ€?”
Hi Nova — what makes your group of people the shadow is that the other side believes it possible for a congregation to vote to leave a denomination and keep the property to which they have title. It’s fairly simple really.
Now, of course, the revisionists don’t believe it possible for a congregation to vote to leave a denomination and keep the property to which they have title. And so they do not believe themselves the shadow.
Just another example, though small in this instance, of the two different antithetical and mutually opposing worldviews among the original congregation. It was basically inevitable that such disparity in belief would end up dividing the people. An organization simply can’t hold together two groups of people who hold such antithetical visions of everything from Holy Scripture to the Fall to sin to repentance to redemption to sanctification to the sacraments, all the way down to smaller issues like private property rights.
Thanks Sarah – that’s reassuring. It’s nice (in a way, given the overheated rhetoric of the times) to know that it’s completely arbitrary nomenclature, no doubt intended to create a kind of minimizing we/they dichotomy.
I doubt that there are any other mutually exclusive views between my parish members and those who left us. Certainly not on the more important subjects you mention.
NoVA Scout, my use of the term “shadow congregation” is not intended to be derogatory — it is the same as the British parliament’s use of terms like “shadow home secretary” to describe the assignments of the loyal opposition. I’ve also used the terms “continuing congregation” or “diocesan-aligned congregation,” but these two have created confusion.
As far as mutually exclusive views, it varies by congregation. Some shadow congregations turn out to be orthodox (e.g. Grace and St. Stephen’s in Colorado Springs — stocked with Nashotah-trained clergy and overwhelmingly conservative parishioners) others, less so. For example, TFCE sent a deputy to VA diocesan council who testified in favor of Resolution R-4 (Authorizing Rites of Blessing). Such a representative would never be sent from the church five years ago. Either the shadow congregation was poorly informed on the views of those they elected to represent them, or a majority of the shadow congregation shares those views.
In short, “not all shadow congregations are created equally” — some are a handful of people in a living room, some are self-sustaining parishes. Some maintain the conservatism of the parish they divided with, some are full-on revisionist. I should probably write an article about this.