I doubt they will be “preserving Episcopal property for future generations.” They cannot afford it. They will sell it to developers. I can even see them selling The Falls Church to an Islamic group for use as a mosque, just to stick it in the eye of CANA. These people (TEC) have no shame and very little, if any, Christian ethics. I am still amazed that even where churches are concerned, it still all reduces to keeping power and “follow the money.” How utterly sad. If we did not believe in a sovereign God, the only feelings left would be despair.
There is a displaced Episcopal congregation at The Falls Church. Many people who have continued worshiping with the departing group in the time they have occupied those premises, but who will be just as happy to continue to worship there when the Episcopalians are able to return. No danger of it becoming a mosque.
“This is another positive step on the path toward preserving Episcopal property for future generations.”
Does the court ruling say anything about “preserving Episcopal property for future generations”? If this is a court ruling does it mean that The Episcopal Church has a fiduciary duty to preserve this Episcopal property for “future generations”.
What “future generations?” The way TEC is going, they’ll be lucky to find anyone to sit in the pews in ten years. How many denominations do you know of that are losing so many people so quickly as TEC is?
Anyone commenting on the future is “pre-supposing quite a bit”, Cennydd. But I try to keep it rational. My assumptions at this point are that, without the “Division Statue” in their armory, the folks who left have very little legal ammunition to support the idea that departure creates property rights and it is, thus, a matter of not too much longer that the exiled Episcopalians will be able to return. The seceding group built their claim to property, and their lawsuit against the Diocese very substantially on that statute. I don’t see any way that the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision could be appealed (federal constitutional issues were assiduously avoided by the Court). That leaves those who departed with very little to fall back on in the courts. I also assume (because I know many of these people as friends) that a large number of parishioners either did not have strong views on the merits of secession, but kept worshipping at the church after the occupation because they have worshipped there for years and find it a pleasant and comforting venue for worship, because they like the youth programs, and because they felt assured that there would be no disruptions as a result of the seizure. Once Episcopalian clergy and parishioners are back (which I now think will be relatively soon), these attributes will continue to keep the pews reasonably well filled. “presupposing” on my part, sure. But certainly not an unreasonable projection. Time will tell, of course.
Another point to consider, re your comment No. 7, is that the situation in Virginia has strong local and Diocesan content. The Diocese, unlike some in other states, did not purport to take itself out of the national church (I still can’t figure out under the canons and governance structure of TEC how a diocese can do that – but that’s another issue), and the local Episcopal congregation, at least in the large Falls Church scenario, has shown healthy growth since it was exiled from its buildings. I expect (again, presupposition on my part) that growth to accelerate once this disruptive property stratagem is put to rest.
As I understand it, the case returns to the trial judge who will now use “neutral principles” to determine who owns the property. Didn’t this judge point out in his ruling that entities which actually own local property take care to place the deeds in the name of the entity (Roman Catholics, Mormons, among others)? I doubt that this will be resolved “relatively soon.”
It is a sad truth that many people are loyal to the building rather than to the teaching represented within it. So NoVAScout may be correct in saying that some of the Falls Church people would stay there if the TEC diocese were given the property — but I also think that many would leave.
There may very well be enough bodies of a liberal social bent in the “Peoples Republic of Northern Virginia” to feel drawn to a TEC reinhabited Falls Church. I am not so sure, however, that bodies in pews will translate into enough money to maintain the structure and programs. Even though the geographical area is chock full of highly paid federal government employees, studies have shown that committed, orthodox Christians (and like persons of other faiths) out contribute the typical liberal mainline Protestant church attendees/members. Only time will tell, but I can speak from experience serving on many church finance committees, that very often, the most outspoken liberal, social justice advocates in congregations were among the least generous givers. I have often wondered if this may be due to their assumption that the government will take care of people and taxes will pay for social needs, obviating the need to tithe.
IMHO, the whole affair points out the critical importance of knowing exactly where a church hierarchy stands in terms of individual congregation property rights, and taking immediate, vigorous action to block any proposed changes that will modify these rights and attempt to centralize control of church property within the hierarchy. Think how different things might have been if the so-called Dennis canon had been strenuously opposed from the very beginning. It might never have passed and faithful Anglicans would not be forced to spend much time and many dollars to try and separate from an apostate denomination and take with them the property they paid for.
Yeh — those guys in Virginia should just give up right away and not appeal! ; > )
RE: “I doubt they will be “preserving Episcopal property for future generations.†They cannot afford it.”
Daniel — the libs in TEC still don’t grasp the significance of the chasm between their gospel and the Gospel which the leavers believe — so they continue, diocese by diocese to make the same old mistake of believing that bunches of people will return if the TEC liberals can win back the property. They just won’t get it until it is demonstrated parish by parish, diocese by diocese, over the coming decade. You can see a sterling example of that with NOVA Scout on this very thread.
It’s fruitless to debate it with them — that’s why they’re libs, after all — they don’t think this debate is all that important and of course conservatives understand it to be communion-breaking.
Ten years from now they’ll know — and some will have the honesty to admit the truth of the chasm . . . and others will still be saying “they’ll be back — and we don’t care — and we don’t miss ’em — and they’ll be back.” ; > )
Nos. 10: What does “liberal social bent” have to do with it? This is religion and worship, not politics. I have no way of telling with empirical certainty, but I assume that Falls Church Episcopalians (many of whom I know outside the Church) span a wide range of the political (and theological) spectrum. That some are quite liberal in their beliefs and some quite conservative and many are somewhere in between doesn’t seem to in any way dampen the excitement of their worship together.
Re the comment in No. 11 (which also seems to suffer from this liberal/conservative fiction), if your first point is that there will be an appeal, I am hard-put to know how that would work. The highest court in the Commonwealth has interpreted a state statute. Absent a federal constitutional issue, where does one appeal that? My sense of this is that this is the end of the line for the Division Statute as it affects these pending cases brought by the departing groups. How would you put together an appeal and to which court would you direct it?
10: “Think how different things might have been if the so-called Dennis canon had been strenuously opposed from the very beginning.”
In Virginia, not so much. The only reported Episcopal property case in Virginia — won by the diocese — was pre-Dennis Canon.
11: “All of the facts on the ground are still on the side of the 9 congregations.”
Now that’s just delusional enough to be funny. Ask your lawyers, Rev. Adams — they know better.
12: “Yeh—those guys in Virginia should just give up right away and not appeal!”
They did appeal. And they lost. The US Supremes don’t reinterpret state statutes. In other words, stick a fork in what was by far their best legal hope — it’s done.
I took the “facts on the ground” comment to mean that some of the departing groups are physically occupying the disputed premises and have been using assets as if they had title to them. But, surely, physical force should not be enough to decide ownership.
As Sarah rightly calls NoVa Scout on — the assumption that the people will stay with the buildings rather than the church — is a common one. In California the Bp. of LA kept speaking about the business of reconciliation with the congregation once they took over St. Luke’s of the Mountains property, but after their big victory celebration with multiple bishops, clergy and laity from all around the diocese was over and the dust settled, they turned out to have a handful of people, none of whom had been worshipping there for the past four years. In no way will they be able to support the property. I expect the property will go up for sale in about three years from taking possession and the endowment is depleted. They may last an additional year or two if they sell the rectory.
I thought it was intentional posturing on the part of the bishop, but then I realized he was operating under the same self-delusion that NoVa Scout is — the building is the draw. As Sarah pointed out, in congregation after congregation, diocese afteer diocese this has not been the case. In a church as strong and biblical as TFC, this will prove even more the case. Besides, the programs and wonderful worship will go with the church. There will only be a liberal replant left behind. Those types of declining churches exist all over northern Virginia. There will be no need to travel from all around the area to the new revised TFC if that is all one wanted. That can be found in every neighborhood.
David H, post 15,
When you said “Ask your lawyers, Rev. Adams—they know better” did you mean that lawyers know better because they have gained authority over Bishops and Clergy in The Episcopal Church?
If TEC has come to the point of assigning authority over Bishops and Clergy to lawyers, it seems to me that it would be inaccurate to use the word Episcopal as a description of the church.
RE: “which also seems to suffer from this liberal/conservative fiction . . . ”
Nope — no fiction. Just the facts. One side believes one gospel, and the other the Gospel.
The two can’t, ultimately, be in the same organization together since they don’t share the same goals. It’s much like having skeet shooters in the tennis club to shoot skeet next to the tennis courts. Doesn’t work — and the tennis players move elsewhere, since they’d really like to play tennis. Not shoot skeets.
But there — revisionists don’t like to admit to the chasm. So it’s understandable that NOVA needs to keep up the illusion and some shred of a covering.
So Gospel believers are “conservatives” and non=believers are “liberals”? Sounds simplistic and impossible to apply analytically to me. But it is worth something to know that Sarah regards me as a “conservative?” I have always felt that way myself, but she owns the labels around here.
Roll ’em all you want Sarah. Your comments regarding the law side of things make no sense and don’t exactly come from a position of knowledge about Virginia law. They did appeal. They can’t appeal this issue any more. They will appeal again on other issues. They’ll have far less of a shot of prevailing on those issues.
I don’t expect the CANA folks to give up at all, so unlike NoVA Scout, I think there’s another 2 years or so left to the Virginia litigation. Could Virginia law change significantly such that the CANA folks prevail? Sure — anything’s possible. But again, 57-9 was their best shot. If you talked to the CANA folks’ lawyers off the record, they’d tell you that too.
It is too bad these parties can’t settle. I wish they could.
“a supporter of the rest of your kind”. You continue to demonstrate your mastery of the drive-by comment heavy on the personal judgment and light on the facts. As I’ve said before, I’m glad you have fun with that.
bettcee, I don’t really understand your comment — I don’t think that’s a natural reading of what I said at all.
DavidH – It may be, as you suggest, that CANA will keep fighting. My point was more that the bulwark of their theory, 57-9, is hors de combat at this point. There are other subsidiary issues, but my sense, having looked at the deeds on some of the parcels involved, is that the outlook is not cheery for those who departed, but who believe they should get the property on the way out.
Yeh—those guys in Virginia should just give up right away and not appeal! ; > )
RE: “They will appeal again on other issues.”
No — wait. Those guys in Virginia should just give up right away and not appeal!
RE: “You continue to demonstrate your mastery of the drive-by comment heavy on the personal judgment and light on the facts.”
Nothing drive by about pointing out that your own bizarre “stick a fork in it” language — [i]on practically every single case ever tried in the past six years[/i] — is freighted with your need to support your fellow revisionists. Nothing drive-by about it — and it’s factual too.
RE: “As I’ve said before, I’m glad you have fun with that.”
Well then we’re both glad and we’re both having a great time. I relish it and look forward to it — always nice to know that two people who don’t share the same faith can still enjoy themselves ath the same pastime.
It seems to be getting lost here that there are a not insignificant number of ‘institutional conservatives’ remaining in the Dio of VA. For instance, the remnant TFC congregation is far from a bunch of liberal loonies.
Are these ‘institutional conservatives’ across the Diocese the activists that some here might want them to be? Almost by defintion, no.
Legal review for the non-lawyers:
Matters of state law statutory interpretation are decided by the highest court in that State/Commonwealth. Only if that highest court’s interpretation raises Constitutional issues is the Constitutionality of that statute appealable to the Federal Supreme Court. Even then, it is only the Constitutional issue that is reviewable by the Federal Supremes, at their discretion, not the statutory interpretation provided by the state/Commonwealth’s highest court.
No. 27: For some people, the narrative is more manageable if it is crammed into the straight jacket of “liberal revisionists” slithering away from “Conservative” righteousness. That the Virginia story has no relationship to this kind of child-like, cartoonish view of things sometimes provokes outbursts from a few people who are heavily invested in the labels game. The difficulty with these facile labels is that they inevitably stand in the way of understanding and constructive thought about a vexing problem that has had very damaging impacts on churches, from the national down to the parish level.
NoVA Scout,
Maybe you could understand the theology better if you realized that most Conservatives are simply Christians who resist the Revisionist’s penchant for trying to change the Biblical Truths of Christianity.
Sarah, 26, wrote: [blockquote]Nothing drive by about pointing out that your own bizarre “stick a fork in it†language—on practically every single case ever tried in the past six years—is freighted with your need to support your fellow revisionists.[/blockquote]
Care to support any of that? Didn’t think so — it just ain’t true. I don’t say that every case is over (I’m very realistic about both the state and length of litigation), and I’m not a revisionist. You make these types of allegations all the time, you never support them, and even other commenters who aren’t tagged by you with the “revisionist” label and who don’t like my legal point of view have observed that your drive-by labeling and dismissals aren’t based on facts.
[blockquote]always nice to know that two people who don’t share the same faith[/blockquote]
Sigh. Same old same old. We do share the same faith. We don’t share either the same legal point of view or reasons for that point of view. (Ironic that you seem to be stuck on treating religion and legal positions as the same thing, after criticizing TEC’s equating lawsuits and mission.)
Bettcee (30): I have trouble following your comment. I do not recall saying that I had any problem understanding any particular theological point, let alone “the theology”, whatever that is in this context (In fact, there are some theological issues I struggle with and still have a lot of study time to invest in. They just aren’t particularly germane to my comment). My point was more about human psychology and the tendency to try to group people we dislike or with whom we disagree into simplistic categories that create alienation and that discourage substantive dialogue. On a theological level, I’d put myself in the bottom half of the upper quarter of lay theological awareness and scholarship. I aspire to doing better, but I spend most of my non-daytime job time in the theology cubicle.
Theology is not particularly relevant to my comment, however. I’m fairly conservative in many ways myself. I have never found that rubric very useful in a theological context. Perhaps if you elaborated. . . ?
Bettcee: Not sure what you’re saying, but my problem is not with theology or “the theology.” I have a lot more to learn in that area (day job holds me back a bit) but would guess that I’m pretty near the front of the class among laymen in that field. My comment was more about the psychology of the situation. I assume, by the way, that you use the term “Conservative” in a religious sense. One of the problems I seem to see a lot of lately is people transporting secular political terminology into religious discussions.
I doubt they will be “preserving Episcopal property for future generations.” They cannot afford it. They will sell it to developers. I can even see them selling The Falls Church to an Islamic group for use as a mosque, just to stick it in the eye of CANA. These people (TEC) have no shame and very little, if any, Christian ethics. I am still amazed that even where churches are concerned, it still all reduces to keeping power and “follow the money.” How utterly sad. If we did not believe in a sovereign God, the only feelings left would be despair.
There is a displaced Episcopal congregation at The Falls Church. Many people who have continued worshiping with the departing group in the time they have occupied those premises, but who will be just as happy to continue to worship there when the Episcopalians are able to return. No danger of it becoming a mosque.
Does the court ruling say anything about “preserving Episcopal property for future generations”? If this is a court ruling does it mean that The Episcopal Church has a fiduciary duty to preserve this Episcopal property for “future generations”.
The VASC ruling only said that some elements of the 57-9 filing were not valid. It did not side with TEC
2. You’re presupposing quite a bit, aren’t you, NoVA Scout?
“It did not side with TEC”
Which is why your side lost, right?
What “future generations?” The way TEC is going, they’ll be lucky to find anyone to sit in the pews in ten years. How many denominations do you know of that are losing so many people so quickly as TEC is?
Anyone commenting on the future is “pre-supposing quite a bit”, Cennydd. But I try to keep it rational. My assumptions at this point are that, without the “Division Statue” in their armory, the folks who left have very little legal ammunition to support the idea that departure creates property rights and it is, thus, a matter of not too much longer that the exiled Episcopalians will be able to return. The seceding group built their claim to property, and their lawsuit against the Diocese very substantially on that statute. I don’t see any way that the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision could be appealed (federal constitutional issues were assiduously avoided by the Court). That leaves those who departed with very little to fall back on in the courts. I also assume (because I know many of these people as friends) that a large number of parishioners either did not have strong views on the merits of secession, but kept worshipping at the church after the occupation because they have worshipped there for years and find it a pleasant and comforting venue for worship, because they like the youth programs, and because they felt assured that there would be no disruptions as a result of the seizure. Once Episcopalian clergy and parishioners are back (which I now think will be relatively soon), these attributes will continue to keep the pews reasonably well filled. “presupposing” on my part, sure. But certainly not an unreasonable projection. Time will tell, of course.
Another point to consider, re your comment No. 7, is that the situation in Virginia has strong local and Diocesan content. The Diocese, unlike some in other states, did not purport to take itself out of the national church (I still can’t figure out under the canons and governance structure of TEC how a diocese can do that – but that’s another issue), and the local Episcopal congregation, at least in the large Falls Church scenario, has shown healthy growth since it was exiled from its buildings. I expect (again, presupposition on my part) that growth to accelerate once this disruptive property stratagem is put to rest.
As I understand it, the case returns to the trial judge who will now use “neutral principles” to determine who owns the property. Didn’t this judge point out in his ruling that entities which actually own local property take care to place the deeds in the name of the entity (Roman Catholics, Mormons, among others)? I doubt that this will be resolved “relatively soon.”
It is a sad truth that many people are loyal to the building rather than to the teaching represented within it. So NoVAScout may be correct in saying that some of the Falls Church people would stay there if the TEC diocese were given the property — but I also think that many would leave.
There may very well be enough bodies of a liberal social bent in the “Peoples Republic of Northern Virginia” to feel drawn to a TEC reinhabited Falls Church. I am not so sure, however, that bodies in pews will translate into enough money to maintain the structure and programs. Even though the geographical area is chock full of highly paid federal government employees, studies have shown that committed, orthodox Christians (and like persons of other faiths) out contribute the typical liberal mainline Protestant church attendees/members. Only time will tell, but I can speak from experience serving on many church finance committees, that very often, the most outspoken liberal, social justice advocates in congregations were among the least generous givers. I have often wondered if this may be due to their assumption that the government will take care of people and taxes will pay for social needs, obviating the need to tithe.
IMHO, the whole affair points out the critical importance of knowing exactly where a church hierarchy stands in terms of individual congregation property rights, and taking immediate, vigorous action to block any proposed changes that will modify these rights and attempt to centralize control of church property within the hierarchy. Think how different things might have been if the so-called Dennis canon had been strenuously opposed from the very beginning. It might never have passed and faithful Anglicans would not be forced to spend much time and many dollars to try and separate from an apostate denomination and take with them the property they paid for.
All of the facts on the ground are still on the side of the 9 congregations. Justice will prevail
RE: “Which is why your side lost, right?”
Yeh — those guys in Virginia should just give up right away and not appeal! ; > )
RE: “I doubt they will be “preserving Episcopal property for future generations.†They cannot afford it.”
Daniel — the libs in TEC still don’t grasp the significance of the chasm between their gospel and the Gospel which the leavers believe — so they continue, diocese by diocese to make the same old mistake of believing that bunches of people will return if the TEC liberals can win back the property. They just won’t get it until it is demonstrated parish by parish, diocese by diocese, over the coming decade. You can see a sterling example of that with NOVA Scout on this very thread.
It’s fruitless to debate it with them — that’s why they’re libs, after all — they don’t think this debate is all that important and of course conservatives understand it to be communion-breaking.
Ten years from now they’ll know — and some will have the honesty to admit the truth of the chasm . . . and others will still be saying “they’ll be back — and we don’t care — and we don’t miss ’em — and they’ll be back.” ; > )
When Hell freezes over.
Nos. 10: What does “liberal social bent” have to do with it? This is religion and worship, not politics. I have no way of telling with empirical certainty, but I assume that Falls Church Episcopalians (many of whom I know outside the Church) span a wide range of the political (and theological) spectrum. That some are quite liberal in their beliefs and some quite conservative and many are somewhere in between doesn’t seem to in any way dampen the excitement of their worship together.
Re the comment in No. 11 (which also seems to suffer from this liberal/conservative fiction), if your first point is that there will be an appeal, I am hard-put to know how that would work. The highest court in the Commonwealth has interpreted a state statute. Absent a federal constitutional issue, where does one appeal that? My sense of this is that this is the end of the line for the Division Statute as it affects these pending cases brought by the departing groups. How would you put together an appeal and to which court would you direct it?
10: “Think how different things might have been if the so-called Dennis canon had been strenuously opposed from the very beginning.”
In Virginia, not so much. The only reported Episcopal property case in Virginia — won by the diocese — was pre-Dennis Canon.
11: “All of the facts on the ground are still on the side of the 9 congregations.”
Now that’s just delusional enough to be funny. Ask your lawyers, Rev. Adams — they know better.
12: “Yeh—those guys in Virginia should just give up right away and not appeal!”
They did appeal. And they lost. The US Supremes don’t reinterpret state statutes. In other words, stick a fork in what was by far their best legal hope — it’s done.
I took the “facts on the ground” comment to mean that some of the departing groups are physically occupying the disputed premises and have been using assets as if they had title to them. But, surely, physical force should not be enough to decide ownership.
Two words sum it all up for TEC on this case – Pyrrhic victory!
As Sarah rightly calls NoVa Scout on — the assumption that the people will stay with the buildings rather than the church — is a common one. In California the Bp. of LA kept speaking about the business of reconciliation with the congregation once they took over St. Luke’s of the Mountains property, but after their big victory celebration with multiple bishops, clergy and laity from all around the diocese was over and the dust settled, they turned out to have a handful of people, none of whom had been worshipping there for the past four years. In no way will they be able to support the property. I expect the property will go up for sale in about three years from taking possession and the endowment is depleted. They may last an additional year or two if they sell the rectory.
I thought it was intentional posturing on the part of the bishop, but then I realized he was operating under the same self-delusion that NoVa Scout is — the building is the draw. As Sarah pointed out, in congregation after congregation, diocese afteer diocese this has not been the case. In a church as strong and biblical as TFC, this will prove even more the case. Besides, the programs and wonderful worship will go with the church. There will only be a liberal replant left behind. Those types of declining churches exist all over northern Virginia. There will be no need to travel from all around the area to the new revised TFC if that is all one wanted. That can be found in every neighborhood.
David H, post 15,
When you said “Ask your lawyers, Rev. Adams—they know better” did you mean that lawyers know better because they have gained authority over Bishops and Clergy in The Episcopal Church?
If TEC has come to the point of assigning authority over Bishops and Clergy to lawyers, it seems to me that it would be inaccurate to use the word Episcopal as a description of the church.
RE: “They did appeal.”
Yeh — and they should only appeal once, on only one aspect. *Then* they should give up right away. ; > )
Seriously DavidH — I understand you need to be a supporter of the rest of your kind. But you just make a lot of people smile.
RE: “which also seems to suffer from this liberal/conservative fiction . . . ”
Nope — no fiction. Just the facts. One side believes one gospel, and the other the Gospel.
The two can’t, ultimately, be in the same organization together since they don’t share the same goals. It’s much like having skeet shooters in the tennis club to shoot skeet next to the tennis courts. Doesn’t work — and the tennis players move elsewhere, since they’d really like to play tennis. Not shoot skeets.
But there — revisionists don’t like to admit to the chasm. So it’s understandable that NOVA needs to keep up the illusion and some shred of a covering.
So Gospel believers are “conservatives” and non=believers are “liberals”? Sounds simplistic and impossible to apply analytically to me. But it is worth something to know that Sarah regards me as a “conservative?” I have always felt that way myself, but she owns the labels around here.
RE: “in what was by far their best legal hope” . . .
And oh yeh — nobody’s saying that what you purport to be “their best legal hope” will be appealed.
Seriously — roll eyes, DavidH.
Roll ’em all you want Sarah. Your comments regarding the law side of things make no sense and don’t exactly come from a position of knowledge about Virginia law. They did appeal. They can’t appeal this issue any more. They will appeal again on other issues. They’ll have far less of a shot of prevailing on those issues.
I don’t expect the CANA folks to give up at all, so unlike NoVA Scout, I think there’s another 2 years or so left to the Virginia litigation. Could Virginia law change significantly such that the CANA folks prevail? Sure — anything’s possible. But again, 57-9 was their best shot. If you talked to the CANA folks’ lawyers off the record, they’d tell you that too.
It is too bad these parties can’t settle. I wish they could.
“a supporter of the rest of your kind”. You continue to demonstrate your mastery of the drive-by comment heavy on the personal judgment and light on the facts. As I’ve said before, I’m glad you have fun with that.
bettcee, I don’t really understand your comment — I don’t think that’s a natural reading of what I said at all.
DavidH – It may be, as you suggest, that CANA will keep fighting. My point was more that the bulwark of their theory, 57-9, is hors de combat at this point. There are other subsidiary issues, but my sense, having looked at the deeds on some of the parcels involved, is that the outlook is not cheery for those who departed, but who believe they should get the property on the way out.
RE: “They can’t appeal this issue any more.”
Yeh—those guys in Virginia should just give up right away and not appeal! ; > )
RE: “They will appeal again on other issues.”
No — wait. Those guys in Virginia should just give up right away and not appeal!
RE: “You continue to demonstrate your mastery of the drive-by comment heavy on the personal judgment and light on the facts.”
Nothing drive by about pointing out that your own bizarre “stick a fork in it” language — [i]on practically every single case ever tried in the past six years[/i] — is freighted with your need to support your fellow revisionists. Nothing drive-by about it — and it’s factual too.
RE: “As I’ve said before, I’m glad you have fun with that.”
Well then we’re both glad and we’re both having a great time. I relish it and look forward to it — always nice to know that two people who don’t share the same faith can still enjoy themselves ath the same pastime.
It seems to be getting lost here that there are a not insignificant number of ‘institutional conservatives’ remaining in the Dio of VA. For instance, the remnant TFC congregation is far from a bunch of liberal loonies.
Are these ‘institutional conservatives’ across the Diocese the activists that some here might want them to be? Almost by defintion, no.
Respectfully,
-ms
Legal review for the non-lawyers:
Matters of state law statutory interpretation are decided by the highest court in that State/Commonwealth. Only if that highest court’s interpretation raises Constitutional issues is the Constitutionality of that statute appealable to the Federal Supreme Court. Even then, it is only the Constitutional issue that is reviewable by the Federal Supremes, at their discretion, not the statutory interpretation provided by the state/Commonwealth’s highest court.
Regards,
-ms
No. 27: For some people, the narrative is more manageable if it is crammed into the straight jacket of “liberal revisionists” slithering away from “Conservative” righteousness. That the Virginia story has no relationship to this kind of child-like, cartoonish view of things sometimes provokes outbursts from a few people who are heavily invested in the labels game. The difficulty with these facile labels is that they inevitably stand in the way of understanding and constructive thought about a vexing problem that has had very damaging impacts on churches, from the national down to the parish level.
NoVA Scout,
Maybe you could understand the theology better if you realized that most Conservatives are simply Christians who resist the Revisionist’s penchant for trying to change the Biblical Truths of Christianity.
Sarah, 26, wrote: [blockquote]Nothing drive by about pointing out that your own bizarre “stick a fork in it†language—on practically every single case ever tried in the past six years—is freighted with your need to support your fellow revisionists.[/blockquote]
Care to support any of that? Didn’t think so — it just ain’t true. I don’t say that every case is over (I’m very realistic about both the state and length of litigation), and I’m not a revisionist. You make these types of allegations all the time, you never support them, and even other commenters who aren’t tagged by you with the “revisionist” label and who don’t like my legal point of view have observed that your drive-by labeling and dismissals aren’t based on facts.
[blockquote]always nice to know that two people who don’t share the same faith[/blockquote]
Sigh. Same old same old. We do share the same faith. We don’t share either the same legal point of view or reasons for that point of view. (Ironic that you seem to be stuck on treating religion and legal positions as the same thing, after criticizing TEC’s equating lawsuits and mission.)
Bettcee (30): I have trouble following your comment. I do not recall saying that I had any problem understanding any particular theological point, let alone “the theology”, whatever that is in this context (In fact, there are some theological issues I struggle with and still have a lot of study time to invest in. They just aren’t particularly germane to my comment). My point was more about human psychology and the tendency to try to group people we dislike or with whom we disagree into simplistic categories that create alienation and that discourage substantive dialogue. On a theological level, I’d put myself in the bottom half of the upper quarter of lay theological awareness and scholarship. I aspire to doing better, but I spend most of my non-daytime job time in the theology cubicle.
Theology is not particularly relevant to my comment, however. I’m fairly conservative in many ways myself. I have never found that rubric very useful in a theological context. Perhaps if you elaborated. . . ?
A comment of mine last night has mysteriously disappeared.
[i] Comments directly addressed to other commenters take the thread off topic and are deleted. [/i]
Elf Lady
Bettcee: Not sure what you’re saying, but my problem is not with theology or “the theology.” I have a lot more to learn in that area (day job holds me back a bit) but would guess that I’m pretty near the front of the class among laymen in that field. My comment was more about the psychology of the situation. I assume, by the way, that you use the term “Conservative” in a religious sense. One of the problems I seem to see a lot of lately is people transporting secular political terminology into religious discussions.