The largest property dispute in the history of the Episcopal Church, brought on by divisions over a homosexual bishop, is likely to turn on a Civil War-era Virginia law passed to govern churches splitting during disputes over slavery and secession.
Circuit Judge Randy Bellows will preside starting tomorrow at the Fairfax County Courthouse over a case brought by the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and the national Episcopal Church against 11 churches seeking to leave the denomination along with millions of dollars of property.
The 11 churches voted in December and January to leave the denomination and join the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) under the Anglican Church of Nigeria, citing disputes over biblical authority and the 2003 election of the openly homosexual New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson.
The case is informally referred to as “57-9” in many documents because the coming hearing is based on Virginia Code Section 57-9. This says when a diocese or a denomination experiences a “division,” members of a congregation may determine by majority vote which side of the division to join, along with their property.
“This case is literally historic, because it’s based on a statute enacted by the Virginia legislature during the Civil War,” said Mary McReynolds, one of 24 lawyers involved on CANA’s side of the dispute. “The Virginia division statute is unusual, and my understanding is there are not many situations in the country that allow this.”
This says they are calling David Beers as a witness. Should they do this – what are the limits to the questions he could be asked and forced to answer? What would his contribution be? Any lawyers have some insights
#1 Paul PA – Good question. First is the DioVa which is calling Beers as a witness. Since he is not acting as trial counsel for either the DioVa or ECUSA, it shouldn’t be a problem.
Here’s the first two comments to Rule 3.7 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct:
[blockquote]
[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the opposing party and can involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.
[2] The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party’s rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate- witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.[/blockquote]
So, they are going to invoke a statue passed by a state in the Rebellion? How appropriate.
Which rebellion are we talking about Boone, the failed one of the Civil War or the successful one of the Revolutionary War? Rebellion isrebellion, after all.
If you are inplying that laws made by States “in rebellion” are moot, that was never the terms of their surrender. Lincoln considered them never to have truly left the Union, thus they were still States with all power to enact their own laws as any other State.
If you are saying that the parishes have no more right to secceed that the States did I wonder if you copuld make the moral argument that the States had no legitimate right to do so, absent the issue of slavery. If slavery did not exist, and the issue was, oh I don’t know, a trade policy advantageous to Northern industrial States but injurious to Southern agricultural ones, could you argue definitively that the States were not free agents with the power to dissovle agreements freely entered into?
Furthermore, I’m not sure the legal question of the right of seccession has ever been adjudicated. Lincoln achieved the restoration or preservation of the Union , not through the Supreme Court, but through the army, hardly a persuasive legal argument.
#2 There are a lot of fascinating questions that could be asked of David Beers – if he is a witness what “internal” records could he be asked to produce concerning finances and ECUSA? Since his roll as an advocate and witness are so hard to separate – what would the court be inclined to allow? Clearly he has been an advocate both in other cases and in internal discussions. Why would he allow himself to go thru this?
Sorry, I meant Bob from Boone.
#3 – That’s odd, when I google the statute, it shows it was passed, or at least reenacted (I suspect the latter) in the 1919 Code. I mean, I know Virginia at that time was still pretty southern, but I had no idea it was still in rebellion then. Oh well, someone from a place called Boone probably knows that better than me.
Anyway, I suspect that the article is a little incomplete and that this statute is probably one of only a dozen or so major issues in the litigation, though perhaps the first to be tee’d up.
May the Christians carry the day over the Unitarian Universalists. (Speaking of Unitarians, head over to stand firm to read about the Unitarian polyamorists.)
The statute was passed in 1867, two years following the end of the war.
#7 – this statute is one of the major pieces of the litigation. There are other issues in the case, but they hinge on this portion of the Virginia code. The full text of the code is below:
§ 57-9. How property rights determined on division of church or society.
A. If a division has heretofore occurred or shall hereafter occur in a church or religious society, to which any such congregation whose property is held by trustees is attached, the members of such congregation over 18 years of age may, by a vote of a majority of the whole number, determine to which branch of the church or society such congregation shall thereafter belong. Such determination shall be reported to the circuit court of the county or city, wherein the property held in trust for such congregation or the greater part thereof is; and if the determination be approved by the court, it shall be so entered in the court’s civil order book, and shall be conclusive as to the title to and control of any property held in trust for such congregation, and be respected and enforced accordingly in all of the courts of the Commonwealth.
B. If a division has heretofore occurred or shall hereafter occur in a congregation whose property is held by trustees which, in its organization and government, is a church or society entirely independent of any other church or general society, a majority of the members of such congregation, entitled to vote by its constitution as existing at the time of the division, or where it has no written constitution, entitled to vote by its ordinary practice or custom, may decide the right, title, and control of all property held in trust for such congregation. Their decision shall be reported to such court, and if approved by it, shall be so entered as aforesaid, and shall be final as to such right of property so held.
(Code 1919, § 40; 1972, c. 825; 2005, cc. 681, 772.)
I don’t know what will happen initially – but I believe there are 5 votes on the Supreme Court to uphold 57-9.
Bob from Boone, are you a native North Carolinian? Your comment about rebellion would suggest not. I mean even NORTH Carolinians I know knew that the War of Northern Aggression was terminated in 1865.
Interesting parallel with the War on the Faith by the Northern Global (allegedly) Anglicans, though. Or is this just another version of laws are good when we like ’em and bad when we don’t? Sort of lifke General Convention resolutions about homosexuality and requirements for ordination and communion status, etc.
#11 — I think this is the initial test of the law.
Bob from Boone (#3) finds it appropriate that “a statue passed by a state in the Rebellion” will be applied here. I heartily agree; with ECUSA/TEC in a state of Rebellion against the Scriptures, Tradition and the rest of the Church catholic, it is poetic that such a law will be applied.
Paul PA (#5) indicates “There are a lot of fascinating questions that could be asked of David Beers…” Indeed, I imagine they’ve already been asked during the discovery process. It will be very interesting to see what is revealed during the trial. A lawyer on the payroll of an organization may be subject to being called at a trial — whether he has to disclose information communicated to him by the client is subject to the attorney-client privilege; whether he has to disclose materials prepared for him in advance of litigation is subject to the work-product doctrine. Both are somewhat complex, but I think, since the trial opens tomorrow, everything has been worked out.
BTW, the Judge in the case is a very sharp guy (I’m biased, I think all the Virginia Judges are really top notch — they tend to not be political creatures and are usually very skilled practitioners) – he was the attorney who prosecuted, among others, Robert Hanssen, John Walker Lindh and (former president of United Way of America) William Aramony.
Chris (#11) – your comment leaves me a little perplexed. I think it’s somewhat cynical, although I may be misreading it. I don’t think there will be any doubt about the constitutionality or validity of these Virginia statutes. What will be the key issue is whether the Virginia division statute should be triggered. Since the legislature hasn’t set a threshold test (say, 10% of the individual congregations separating from a denomination triggers the division statute), it will be up to the judge to make that determination (I believe – although there are some issues of law which are really facts which go to a jury, for example ‘what is obscenity’. Nevertheless, I’m getting on a tangent — I don’t remember whether this is a jury trial).
I’m not trying to be cynical – I think it’s likely this case will be appealed, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court. And there, I believe, the diocese loses in the face of 57-9. Justices Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy are not going to invalidate this statute……
#15 I certainly don’t know his current attendance patterns at church, but might not Justice Thomas have to recuse himself given his affiliation with Truro over the years?
While I might agree on the Federalism read on the current court, casting no aspersions, I wonder if their Federalism overcomes their possible desire to not put the government into the affairs of an arguably hierarchical church. In the end it might be as interesting in the end as Bush v. Gore.
His Peace,
why would a state law be appealed to the supreme court? I’m not sure I see a reason for federal involvement if the basis is this law
#15 – I think you’re being a bit pre-mature, the initial trial in the district court has not opened yet, the ruling of that has not been handed down much less the appellate court or the Virginia Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court might not even accept the case and if they do that would be years away.
# 14 William, this is not a jury trial. The judge will be making the decision. I agree with you that Judge Bellows is a top notch judge. he is well read in the issues of the case.
#18 – it is premature – but there is too much at stake for either party to not appeal, so I think that’s where we’re one day headed. #17, the Supreme Court hears cases on non federal law all the time, perhaps you’ve heard of Kelo v. New London Ct?
There is a 1970’s era case involving the Presbyterians that seemed favorable to the secessionists.
Based upon the daily fragmentation of the Episcopal Church I do not think a straight reading of the statute favors TEC.
RE: “The statute was passed in 1867, two years following the end of the war.”
Heh heh heh.
I’m sure that Bob from Boone meant the words “in rebellion” in a purely metaphorical and abstract sense. You folks are all so concrete, so literal, so . . . . dare I say it . . . fundamentalist.
There is a place beyond good and evil, beyond truth and error, on the plains . . . there . . . you know . . . beyond good and evil. Bob from Boone will meet us there.
A question for someone more familiar with the law then I am… will Truro et al need to demonstrate that there is a “division” in the church now, or that there was already a division back when they voted to disassociate from TEC? Because as I recall the situation back then, things were a lot murkier than they are now.
#16, It is my understanding that Justice Thomas and his wife attended Friday evening praise and worship services at Truro back when John Howe was rector. He was not a regular at Sunday services, but even so, it has been quite awhile since he was there. Actually, it might be better for Truro et al. if he did disqualify himself — he might defer too much to the hierarchy, given his current devout involvement with the Church of Rome — perhaps the same for the other four Catholic members mentioned by Chris, #15? But then Justice Brennan (Roman Catholic) never gave any deference to the hierarchical churches.
#17. Paul PA wrote: “why would a state law be appealed to the supreme court?” Another good question — because of the First Amendment issues — church-state –involved.
My understansing is that the legal dispute between the CANA parishes and TEC/Diocese of Virginia is divided into two stages, or three depending upon how things progress. First is the trial starting this week, which will determine whether the division statute (57-9) is triggered and whether there has in fact been a division. If the court answers this question in the affirmative, it will entertain arguments by TEC/the Diocese that the division statute is unconstitutional. I assume the argument will be that by validating the division, the statute and the court have violated the Constitution by effectively “establishing” a religious denomination. There may be Virginia Constitution claims as well. If the court finds that the statute is valid, the trial ends because the division statute supersedes any TEC/Diocese common law claims of ownership or trust beneficiary status under the Dennis Canon. If the court finds that there is no division (or there is a division but the statute is unconstitutional) the trial will proceed to the final phase, which is to decide on the merits of the property claim, looking at the deed, the Dennis Canon, etc.
#11’s comment is valid because this matter could (and probably will) end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, to decide on the constitutionality of the division statute and/or to decide on a constitutional claim with respect to any decision upholding the validity and applicability of the Dennis Canon. What is Justice Thomas’s relation to Truro?
7, each successive Virginia Code lists only the changes back to the last version of the Code. So the “current” code of 1950 lists changes only back to 1919. That doesn’t mean the statute was passed in 1919.
20, in order for the Supreme Court to take a case from a state’s highest court, there must be a dispositive issue of federal law. If the decision in this case is based on interpretation of state law, it cannot go to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the decision in this case is based on the constitutionality of the state law, it could, but only if the federal constitution is the only constitution at issue. (i.e. If the law were found unconstitutional under both the Va and federal constitutions, it would not be appealable beyond the Supreme Court of Virginia.)
I would bet money this stops at the Supreme Court of Virginia. There have been many many opportunities for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit church property law since 1979, and it hasn’t. And every year that goes by (it seems like), they accept fewer cases.
#24 Ross asks: “…will Truro et al need to demonstrate that there is a “division†in the church [i]now,[/i] or that there was [i]already[/i] a division back when they voted to disassociate from TEC?”
Good question — maybe Jeff in CA or w.w. could weigh in? or Steven (#9) or m.s. (#16). My guess is that if it is a dispositive issue, it would be back when the vote was taken(?) I dunno. I could see arguments either way.
Justice Thomas no longer attends Truro and this case involves much more than one parish. And he, like the other Catholics on the court, are Justices who are Catholic not Catholic Justices. They look at the law and interpret it (strictly) thus, and are not going to apply the hierarchical rules of their own church to another denomination because it fits their worldview. That’s what liberals do….
#24 Ross: The Diocese/ECUSA filings propose that in a hierarchical church the “division” must be done within the polity of the hierarchical denomination. e.g. Act of GC. Only then could the individual congregations vote under 57-9 which “branch” with which they would affiliate.
CANA congregations argue on the other hand that a plain reading of the word “division” shows that post 2003 a divison had occurred within ECUSA and that the Diocese/ECUSA reading of a hierarchical approval step is in error. CANA furthur argues that the “protocol” was an implied recognition by those in authority of the denominational division already in existence.
Both look to a favorable reading of the Methodist situation in the 1840s that it is argued led to passage of 57-9 some 20 years later.
Anyway, if my quick skimming of the judges order is correct, in the main, the November trial is over the “law issue” of whether 57-9 applies at all. Don’t misunderstand, on this ruling will likely hang the outcome of the case.
Here’s the judge’s list of what is before the court in the Nov phase, italics mine:
[i]”Here are the questions of law, and
22 they are really not in any particular order of importance
39
1 or organization:
2 One, does the term division — and, of course, I
3 mean that in the context of 57-9 — require a formal
4 declaration by the highest level of a hierarchical church?
5 The second question is whether the term division
6 is defined differently in 57-9(A) and 57-9(B).
7 The third question, does a church have to be
8 hierarchical to be subject to 57-9(A)?
9 Fourth question, in order to be attached — in
10 quotes, as that term is used in 57-9 — to a church or
11 religious society, does a local church have to be
subordinate to or controlled by a national church or
13 religious society? In other words, that question is
14 really asking what is the meaning of attached in 57-9.
15 The fifth question, in order for an entity to
16 constitute a branch — in quotes, as that term is used in
17 57-9 — does it have to be created or spun off from a
18 national church or a hierarchical church? What I am
19 getting at there is there is a lot of discussion in these
20 pleadings about the CANA churches’ characterization of the
21 churches having joined an offshoot — which is the word
22 used in the CANA briefs — and it appears to be the
40 [page break]
1 position of TEC and the Diocese that a branch has to be a
2 creature or divided from the — in this case, the
3 Episcopal Church. So that is the question, essentially,
4 what the term branch means.
5 The sixth question is does the term religious
6 society as that term is used in 57-9 include a
7 non-hierarchical loose affiliation of religious entities?
[/i]
dwstroudmd wrote:
[i] I mean even NORTH Carolinians I know knew that the War of Northern Aggression was terminated in 1865. [/i]
Well, the WAR may have ended then, but the [i]occupation[/i] went on quite a bit longer. 😉
#29 Arugueno: Let me be a hypothetical strict constructionist for a second: I read the 1st amendment to the Constitution, upon reading it I defer to the authority of the hierarchical church, I stop. Is that strict enough?
His Peace,
#27 – I suspected it was reenacted or recodified from a prior law in 1919. My point is that legislatures do such things deliberately. Laws do not recodify themselves, so the inclusion of the statute in a recodification of the law by the legislature in 1919 was presumably done for some reason other than to put a thumb in the eye of the yankees (such as they thought it should be the law in Virginia).
In fairness to BfB, the article quotes someone as saying “it’s based on a statute enacted by the Virginia legislature during the Civil War”, so I can see where he got the idea. Now, that appears not to be true by a few years, assuming 1867 is accurate, but we all know how quotes get into newspapers. But in 1867, I suspect the (presumably reconstructionist) legislature had something else in mind than protecting the confederacy. In fact, when you think about it, you wonder why a confederate legislature would bother passing such a law. So, again, label me skeptical – I suspect the legislature had something else in mind besides the confederacy in 1867 and 1919 when they passed the division statute.
Of course, in Boone the rebellion may have been still going on in 1867. They don’t call them the Boonies for nothing.
#32 said “upon reading it I defer to the authority of the hierarchical church, I stop”. Since we don’t allow an established church in the United States, how can a court defer to a a church and not require it to follow the same property laws as anyone else? That is not to answer your question, it is to point out what the question is – the free exercise clause is in tension with the establishment clause, so how should we resolve them?
Thanks to Seminarian and Steven for VA law updates. But I would suggest we might be reading 57-9 backwards. The statute refers to “trustees”, which could mean that the Dennis Canon viability has to be settled first. If TEC loses on that, the applicability of 57-9 may be moot.
FYI, both the ECUSA & CANA briefs reference the history leading up to 57-9 and its passage in 1867.
Adding to my earlier quote from the judge regarding the scope of the Nov phase, italics mine:[i]
15 Okay. Now, the scope of the hearing. . . .
19 First, obviously, has there been a division
20 within the Episcopal Church and the Diocese?
21 Second, is the Anglican Communion a church or
22 religious society as that term is used in 57-9?
. . .
1 Third, were the departing churches attached to
2 the Anglican Communion?
3 Fourth, is there a division within the Anglican
4 Communion?
5 I would say before I continue that I do not list
6 as subjects for the hearing the question of whether the
7 Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church or whether the
8 individual churches were attached to the Episcopal Church,
9 because that issue does not appear to me to be in dispute
. . .
10 Those issues do not appear to be in dispute. If they are,
11 then, obviously, you will tell me.
12 And then the last two questions is whether CANA
13 is a branch of the Episcopal Church and whether CANA is a
14 branch of the Anglican Communion.”[/i]
To me it seems to open the door to allowing argument that despite no action by GC, the “division” is recognized at the AC level as evidence by the Windsor Report and various actions of the Primates individually and collectively. Not a good sign for the DioVA/ECUSA if the judge agrees.
His Peace,
#s 26 + 30, thanks for the information.
I had to laugh at #32 – that’s my fear. 4 of the 5 Catholics will defer to hierarchy, 4 of the 5 “liberals” will rule against the “conservative” churches and Anthony Kennedy will be his usual pompous self and decide according to whomever he had lunch with in Salzburg. In short, a unanimous decision striking down the Virginia Division statute.
I belong to one of these churches that was stolen. The whole separtism movement was organized by a mere handful of influential leaders–and the rector, of course. Most of us wanted only to remain together. Most of us did not want to have to vote. But we were pushed, relentlessly, through sermon, discussions, seminar and theological arm-twisting to the point where an election was forced upon us.
We weren’t voting to join or not join an African church as much as we were voting to stay together. Voters had to engage in holy guesswork: my friends, the Smiths, will vote to stay, but the Joneses, whose daughter is my daughter’s best friend, have said they’ll vote to leave. What shall I do? In essence, the leadership forced separatism and tore apart friendships that had endured decades of disagreement through the application of shared pot luck and prayers.
It’s not simply a matter of wanting back the property that has been taken from me; I want back my brothers and sisters in Christ. There is no doubt–none at all–that many will return to TEC should the court rule in its favor. They didn’t _want_ to leave; they made the best choice they could.
For most of us, it was never about Gene Robinson, or the authority of scripture, or orthodoxy, or innovation, or women priests or the ’79 prayer book or Rite I or Rite II. It was about staying together. And we were denied that opportunity.
May God have mercy on the rector who spearheaded this separation, May God forgive the vestry that pushed it on the people.
And may God return this parish to its people–all of us.
Bill,
The statute does indeed refer to trustees. In Virginia churches were not allowed to incorporate until 2005 or 2006. Therefore all the property was held by trustees named by the congregation. In none of these instances are the trustees TEC or The Diocese of Virginia. These are individuals who are the trustees of the property. They still remain as party to the lawsuit since they hold the title to the property in their official capacity as Trustees.
RE: “And we were denied that opportunity.”
Really? Sounds as if those who voted to leave — the vast vast vast majority — will be able to stay together. So how you were denied the opportunity to “stay together” I can’t imagine.
I’m sure that God will have mercy on the rector, the vestry, and those who voted to leave the Episcopal church.
Sarah,
Yes, really.
The current noted history for the statute is: (Code 1919, § 40; 1972, c. 825; 2005, cc. 681, 772.)
FYI – there was a legislative attempt to define the term “division” a few years ago…clarity is good, right? However, it was squelched. A review of the archived diocesan web sites/newsletters of that time might prove interesting…
One fact of church life is that a church when it grows should split anyway — and seed a new congregation (either that or start a buliding campaign for a larger building — not somehting that every congregation can or wants to do). Surely, that is not a bad thing? So why can’t Klaxon look at the split of that church as something that would have had to have happened sooner or later.
In many cases, however, solid doctrine has to trump false unity. How can we form a mission statement when we can’t even agree on what constitutes the mission of the larger church (MDG’s or bringing people to Christ as primary)?
I’m sorry you feel loss at the situation. But there are instances (I’ve listed two) when unity cannot be maintained in good conscience. It becomes a sham, and one side or another must become hypocrites to maintain ‘staying together’. Do we want to force that for the sake of ‘staying together’?
[blockquote] 38. Klaxon wrote:
I belong to one of these churches that was stolen. The whole separtism movement was organized by a mere handful of influential leaders–and the rector, of course. Most of us wanted only to remain together. Most of us did not want to have to vote. But we were pushed, relentlessly, through sermon, discussions, seminar and theological arm-twisting to the point where an election was forced upon us.
[/blockquote]
When I started reading this I agreed with you fully, we did not want to vote on the election of a Gay Bishop especially since we were warned it would tear at the fabric of the church. However we were pushed, relentlessly, through political manuvering, sermons, discussions, seminar and theological arm-twisting to the point where an election was forced upon us.
[blockquote]38. Klaxon wrote:
For most of us, it was never about Gene Robinson, or the authority of scripture, or orthodoxy, or innovation, or women priests or the ‘79 prayer book or Rite I or Rite II. It was about staying together. And we were denied that opportunity.[/blockquote]
For some of us church is about religion (scripture, clergy, worship, sin/repentance/salvation, etc.), not just a social club. I’m sad that it seems all it is to you is a social club. Apparently since an overwhelming majority voted to leave, religion was more important to them.
Klaxon,
I too am sorry that you feel such a keen loss, but in some circumstnaces the church that was stolen was The Episcopal Church not the churches who voted to leave. The Episcopal Church is the one who has abandoned the faith once delivered to the saints and 2000 years of church history on biblical and Anglican teachings. While I also understand that you feel alienated from friendships, if you have friends that remained at the parish, I am sure that if they are your true friends they will remain your friends no matter what your decisions. Maybe you should reach out to them. I know this was a case recently when I made a difficult situation that would affect friendships. I reached out to the friends that I thought mattered and we still maintain our friendships even theough we are in different places as far as where we are. It’s just a thought.
#42 From the Diocese’s brief: “In 1867 the General Assembly enacted a procedure for confirming property rights in the events of such a division, which was the predecessor of 57-9. 1867 VA Acts Ch. 210 (pages 649-50).” I do not believe that the passage of the statute was in in 1867 is in dispute. Its prior history and modern interpretation certainly is in dispute.
Off topic, I’d love for a VA historian who knows something about the make up of the reconstruction-era 1867 VA General Assembly to fill us in on its dynamics.
Having skimmed much of the online material regarding the VA case, congrats to both sides legal teams for their solid research and preparation as well as their clearly apparent zealous representation of their clients in this matter through their well crafted legal documents. Well done.
Christ’s Peace,
#38, Klaxon, I understand your pain. My denomination here in America was stolen from me by people who I had no say in electing or consulting with. Indeed, my Bishop, Peter James Lee, had promised to follow the Faith handed down; he took the Holy Scriptures in his hands and swore an oath to follow the Word of God and to be true to Christ Jesus. Then he threw it all away so he could continue with this small group who was hijacking the Episcopal Church in America.
Now he is fighting tooth and nail — costs and principles be damned — to seize property he has not contributed one penny to. He wants to leave thousands of people without sanctuaries, vestments, hymnals, Bibles, and chalices. Moreover, he is seeking to end viable outreach ministries to the homeless and needy; to terminate missions in the U.S. and in foreign lands. Last, and in my opinion, the most despicable, he want to steal the very tables, chairs, crayons and paper used by our kids in their Sunday School classes.
I have watched as our parish has been decimated by Bishop Lee’s actions over the past 20 years and, although I have prayed for the man over that entire time, I am concerned that he has turned his back completely on the least, the last and the lost. Just yesterday as I was leaving the Sanctuary, I touched some plaques commemorating sacrificial donations by parishioners who have been driven off by the Bishops and his allies.
May our Lord have mercy on all of us.
Klaxon: It must truly be lonely where you are, clinging to the minority who are unable to discern the truth of scripture.
#49: Klaxon is not your enemy. Even if (s)he was, how about a little more Christian grace to a believer who is clearly in pain? Disagree if you must, but kicking someone who is down is NOT a Christian virtue.
His Peace,
33 (pendennis), that’s not correct. The law was not reenacted or recodified, simply renumbered and reprinted, along with every other section of the Va Code. 1919 means nothing. Read my previous post.
To edit my previous post slightly, “dispositive” is not quite the right word with respect to Supreme Court review of a state case. “Essential” would be better. The test is whether there is an independent state law ground for the decision.
This may be way too basic for many of you, but in Virginia, you appeal civil cases directly from the circuit (trial) court to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Thus, there will be only 2 levels of court review (assuming that I am correct in the bet in my earlier post). There is no district court involved here (that’s federal terminology).
48, that’s amusing hyperbole. You’re also factually incorrect when you say that the Diocese has not contributed at all monetarily to these churches. (To be sure, your side is not the only side guilty of hyperbole.)
There will be no decision immediately at the end of the trial. Look for a decision in January, after further briefing. And whatever the decision is, the litigation will not be over (unless the judge decides both the applicability and constitutionality issues at once against the Diocese and TEC).
To repeat past comments, this litigation is very interesting but very sad.
#44 JustOneVoice:
Staying together was what was important to “them,” just as it was to “us.” In fact, before the war that was unleashed on us, there was no “them”; there was only “us,” trying to love and serve the Lord.
—————
#45 Seminarian:
Thank you for understanding some of the pain of those of us who did not decide to leave the church we love. I am thinking particularly of a friend, a widow, whose husband is interred in the churchyard. By fiat, she now must go to someone else’s church to visit his remains.
But we–my congregation–did not steal the Episcopal Church! We were members of a congregation of the faithful who worshiped together, loved and served the Lord as best as we could. We who did not vote to leave are not responsible for the consecration of Gene Robinson, the ordination of women, Rite II, the new hymnal, or any other perceived or real orthodoxological offense. Yet “here we stand” in a borrowed church building, because a priest and handful of church leaders were upset at TEC.
————
48. William P. Sulik
But those people were not my congregation! We are not responsible for “hijacking the Episcopal Church in America.” Your quarrel, clearly, is with Bishop Lee, not us.
———-
49. athan-asi-us
Your assertions are warrantless in every respect.
#39 said “For most of us, it was never about Gene Robinson, or the authority of scripture, or orthodoxy, or innovation, or women priests or the ‘79 prayer book or Rite I or Rite II. It was about staying together. And we were denied that opportunity.”
I am unclear how CANA denied that opportunity. So the congregation voted. Other than a label change from “Episcopal” to “Anglican”, I don’t see how they have changed a thing or made anyone leave. How are the services or the activities of the churches any different after the vote than before?
The folks I know who left one of the churches frankly didn’t like anything the church had done for the last twenty years or so and particularly didn’t like any African connection (you should hear they way they say “Nigerian”), all the young people not dressed up, and singing praise music. They were not looking to stay together, I can tell you. They would just like to have gone back to a smaller, quieter, Sunday morning place with more old hymns and shorter sermons, but mostly, I think, they were heavily invested in the label “episcopalian”. The only thing I think that would have made them more happy than being able to show off the episcopal shield would be for all the evangelicals and twenty-year olds to leave, which is what would have happened if the vote had gone the other way.
#39 said “For most of us, it was never about Gene Robinson, or the authority of scripture, or orthodoxy, or innovation, or women priests or the ‘79 prayer book or Rite I or Rite II. It was about staying together. And we were denied that opportunity.â€
And yet, Klaxon, these are the things which ruined your church. Just as I did everything I was supposed to as a homeowner and borrower, yet the subprime crisis – which was never a part of my life – has stolen 1/4 of the equity in my house. Fair? Heck, no. Life.
The days when people could sit in the pews and pretend the crisis was not happening is over.
#51. I’m not sure you are right. I’m not a Virginia lawyer, but I don’t think when laws are recodified it is done without action by the legislature. Just a Wikipedia search indicates that, at the direction of the General Assembly, a judge “drafted a proposed code that contained laws enacted through 1916, which was passed by the General Assembly with few amendments in March of 1918.” Now, I suspect that a lot of laws did get carried over without much thought while other laws got deleted or modified for various and sundry reasons. You may mean that the legislature may well not have thought one second about this particular statute at the time, which could be true. But it sure sounds to me like the 1919 Code was passed by the General Assembly in 1918 (not 1919).
Dear Klaxxon:
What is it about TEC that causes you to wish to remain instead of worshiping with your brothers and sisters in Christ in your congregation. I assume Truro is using the same prayer book has the same rector same hymnal – other than the policies of the national church and Bishop what caused you to vacate?
Klaxon,
I do not mean to minimize the pain you very clearly feel. Please understand that we in the “African” churches are feeling it as well. You write, “Your quarrel, clearly, is with Bishop Lee, not us.” I do not mean to suggest that you and I have a quarrel — I would much rather be in fellowship with those in ECUSA with whom I disagree. And those who are mere bystanders in this tragedy. There are good people who are being torn apart by this action. [Here I think of Fr. Rick Lord of Holy Comforter who wrote one of the most moving worship songs I have ever sung — to be frank, I can’t sing it all the way through without weeping. And there are so many others friends, acquaintances, people whom I admire from afar.]
I believe the record is replete with the calls and cries of those begging the ECUSA leadership to not proceed with the hijacking of a beautiful denomination; instead they ran it into the ground. As I indicated, what you are feeling is what so many who have been displaced by the ECUSA elite in the past few decades are feeling. This has been a horrible nightmare imposed on all of us by a flagrantly selfish minority.
Moreover, I believe if Bp. Lee had stuck with his protocol, we would all be in a much better place. But the Establishment brooks no dissent and we are all the worse for it.
#51, DavidH, I guess we’ll know about who is right when the books and records of both sides are opened at the trial. However, I agree with you, while there are some interesting aspects to this from a theoretical standpoint; the reality is that this is a horrible situation. It has been my hope and prayer all along — even believing that we are fully in the right and will prevail in the litigation — that the parties would reach a settlement. The Virginia Protocol presented to Bp. Lee was something that was negotiated by very good people on both sides of the issue and represented a positive way to proceed. I mourn that it was not implemented.
56. chips
Those who voted to depart and put new locks on the doors of the church buildings ceased to be my congregation when they voted to join an African organization. My congregation is Episcopal.
To try to explain to you why I wish to remain in TEC would be as pointless here as for you to explain to me why you wish to leave (if that is the case). We could argue homosexuality, theology and the primacy of scripture until the sun rises and probably get nowhere. I’m not trying to convince anyone my religious beliefs are superior. My conviction is that the behavior of my former priest and his handful of militant church leaders have caused great spiritual harm to those who did nothing to him.
I repeat: I did not vote for Gene Robinson, I did not lay hands on him, I did not thrust the ordination of women on TEC. I didn’t rewrite the Prayer Book. Et. Cetera.
As for Truro, I won’t make any assumptions, as I’ve never been there.
I got into this late. The comment about the 1970’s cases refers to two PC cases out of Savannah. They were either about integration or sound doctrine depending upon your side. The Supreme Court held for the local congregations in the absence of any church law. Then came the Dennis canon of 1979. As a footnote, both congregations failed to survive. Georgia courts have held that the Southern Baptist Convention is a hierarchial church. The best argument in Georgia is that the Dennis canon can not apply to pre 1979 congregations and that such would be a denial of due process and hence another trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.
RE: “Sarah, Yes, really.”
Wow — you were denied the opportunity to vote regarding “staying together” — which is what you claim that you were concerned about?
What an outrage! I’m appalled.
I had understood that the vote to “stay together” — which is what you say you were really concerned about — was open to all members.
Please explain.
In a later comment you state that just a “handful of church leaders” are “upset at TEC” . . . but the vast vast vast majority voted to leave TEC. You know . . . voted to “stay together.”
And then you state that you are a part of “those of us who did not decide to leave the church we love” . . . but you weren’t allowed to vote?
Color us all confused Klaxon.
I’m sure you can understand why it seems as if the real issue is that the vast vast majority did not agree with Klaxon. For whatever reason, the vast vast majority decided that they’d rather leave TEC, stay together and move on. Yet Klaxon did not.
And Klaxon’s mad over it.
So really . . . the thing you’d like is [i]the building[/i] — even if all the people who voted to leave TEC departed for another . . . [i]building.[/i]
RE: “To try to explain to you why I wish to remain in TEC would be as pointless here as for you to explain to me why you wish to leave (if that is the case). We could argue homosexuality, theology and the primacy of scripture until the sun rises and probably get nowhere.”
This I agree with. Those holding the two different and mutually opposing gospels in TEC really don’t hold a similar enough foundational worldview to even agree on the basics, definitions of key terms, etc, etc, enough to come to any agreements or even discuss things effectively.
Progressive Episcopalians and reasserting Episcopalians basically get nowhere in discussion of Christian theology. Another reason why it’s so understandable that the Virginia parishes have moved on.
#56 said: “Those who voted to depart and put new locks on the doors of the church buildings ceased to be my congregation when they voted to join an African organization. My congregation is Episcopal.”
Setting aside that this would define “staying together” as “the majority of the congregation leaving”, I think this again shows the main reason why the folks I know left the CANA churches after the vote. Not wanting to have anything to do with Africans. It is Virginia.
62. pendennis88:
I don’t understand most of your post. Neither I, nor any Episcopalians I know, has ever left a CANA church, as we never belonged to a CANA church. I’ll attribute this misunderstanding to Sarah’s recent observation that communication between those with foundationally differing worldviews is difficult.
So I must ask carefully: are you accusing those who remained Episcopalians of being racist? It seems so, but, again, this may be a misunderstanding due to our foundational differences.
Klaxon, what’s more important to you and your friends? Tea and Crumpets after Mass? Or preaching and teaching the unadulterated and eternal Word of God? Sure, we all need to be able to gather with friends and maintain those friendships……and Coffee Hour IS important for parish life……there’s no question of that! But you know that the Church is much more than that. Those of us who’ve chosen to leave TEC or who are leaving soon have done it because TEC has abandoned the traditional teachings of Anglican Christianity for a new “religion” which in so many ways doesn’t resemble the Faith of our Fathers.
64. Cennydd
You’re welcome to your opinion about TEC. You have your opinion, I have mine.
As I have said repeatedly, I belonged to a congregation, now split in two because of the anger of a single priest and small handful of church leaders, that wanted only to love and serve the Lord as best as we could. Where you get your ideas of tea and crumpets and mass, I don’t know; that’s yours, not mine.
My Epsicopal congregation continues in its effort to love and serve, as does, I’m sure, the congregation that now occupies the church property.
I find it odd–and I’m not laying this on you in particular–that the those who post on this board know so much about me. After only a few posts, they can tell that I am a tea and crumpet, innovative, racist scripture-mocking New Age devil worshipper who single-handedly put Gene Robinson on the throne and forces–forces!–congregations to flee the Episcopal Church.
If I had this power, I pray to God that it would be taken away from me.
64: As for me, I want both, all, glorious Anglo-catholic depth of liturgy with evangelical zeal for teaching and missions involving all generations. My Lord is great enough to do that and more. And, have a wonderful coffee hour filled with fellowship and friendship. Ahhh, the Episcopal Church of my youth. But, wait . . . it is alive and well in my parish in the Diocese of Virginia.
We miss you guys . . . really!
His peace,
55, pendennis, yes, to produce any new version of the Va Code, the legislature must act. But that act of authorizing a new publication is not a substantive reenactment of the statutes in the Code.
Va Code 57-9 was passed in 1867. It has been reprinted in new Code editions a number of times, but that means nothing.
Thanks for #39, Seminarian. Your comments provide another thread of why the Dennis Canon is likely unenforceable (if it was ever enacted). I don’t know of any state’s law that would allow unilateral amendment of a trust by a party not specifically authorized by the trust. However, I don’t know how many other jurisdictions utilize trusts to hold church property. So any precedent here may be of limited value. Even more so if VA finds the denominational split statute to be applicable.
Prayers for Judge Bellows and ALL who come before him in this controversy.
. . . thy will be done . . .
His Peace,
RE: “I belonged to a congregation, now split in two because of the anger of a single priest and small handful of church leaders, that wanted only to love and serve the Lord as best as we could. . . . ”
No, apparently the vast vast vast majority wished ” to love and serve the Lord” outside of ECUSA, and Klaxon is mad because Klaxon wished “to love and serve the Lord” inside of ECUSA and made the attempt of claiming that he was not given the opportunity of “staying together” . . . although it appears that he has abandoned that claim in the ensuing comments as if he had wanted to “stay together” and if that were the only issue, he would have simply voted to remain with Truro Anglican.
But of course . . . that is not the issue for Klaxon. Klaxon only wishes to “stay together” inside ECUSA.
It’s the inside ECUSA part that is the most important for Klaxon.
Thanks for the clarification Klaxxon. Apparently you believe in TEC’s theology (or at least do not oppose the theology) which is a good reason for staying with TEC. Though I doubt a majority of your fellow congregants do – which is why they left. Although it is not your fault that TEC has changed its theological underpendings the ocngregation opposes the change – one disgruntled priest could not lead 15+ congregations out in Virginia and scores nationwide. I am quite certain that TEC will find you a suitable substitute. Change is hard – TEC’s changes ran a lot of good people out of TEC.
Klaxxon – will you return to your former Congregation once it becomes part of an American Anglican structure (and drops its ties to those pesky Africans)
#65. I don’t know all the folks who left the NoVa churches. But I know some, and why they wanted to remain episcopalian, because they’ve talked about it. And if someone pronounces “Nigerian” with a hard “g”, well, I do draw some conclusions about that (plus I know their views from past conversations). I’m sure others voted not to leave the diocese because they actually agree with what the episcopal church is doing, the shellfish argument, Paul is all wet and all that, in other words honestly held but revisionist views. Like my parish up here, some folks are just really into the episcopal brand, and draw a lot of their self-image from that and associations with various institutions generally. To be honest, part of my family has been like that for a long time, and I used to be that way, too, but with grey hairs and experience, I’ve come to see that as just sad. The former age is past, and though I miss some things about it (and not to go into one of the sociological digressions that T19 is noted for), over-reverence for elitist institutions is not among them.
But you still haven’t answered my question. What has changed at the parish you no longer attend? Anything besides the episcopal brand on the signs? It seems to me there was plenty of opportunity to stay together. It is just that some decided it was more important to be episcopalian than to stay together. They chose to remove themselves from worship. You can even remain episcopalian and attend a non-episcopal church, by the way.
I don’t think there is any doubt that once the current evangelical rectors in NoVa retired, the diocese was going to not allow any evangelical replacements. Certainly no more Trinity grads. Many parishioners, though, wanted to remain evangelical and orthodox, and valued that over being episcopalian – including many, many cradle episcopalians. They voted for the purpose of doing so. The property ownership is in dispute, but if those parishioners lose their property, they will just continue as a church somewhere else. (Also, they were willing to allow an episcopal service with a supply priest from the diocese to be held at Falls Church until the litigation began and the diocese ceased negotiating.) Others think it was more important to stay episcopalian than remain orthodox, even if the parish shrunk by 90%. That is not, however, my definition of “staying together”, though, as I say, the Virginia episcopal folks I know would largely welcome that.
Sarah,
I do not “abandon” my claims; I simply cannot keep up with yours. Your claims are plentiful, specious and, in the case of this board, because of its unthreaded, linear design, difficult to keep up with, difficult to reference.
Nevertheless, this has gone beyond the difficulty of communication between people with differing worldviews. You seem bent on criticizing me based on your own conclusions about me. Since I am not privy to those conclusions, I cannot effectively defend against your claims.
I say, again: I have never, to my knowledge set foot inside Truro (I went to a funeral at an Episcopal Church in Northern Virginia in the early-nineties–perhaps it was Truro, I don’t know.)
I have never said that I “only wish[ed] to “stay together†inside ECUSA. I say again: I belonged to a congregation that wished to stay together. We did not want families and friends to be divided against each other.
I say again: it was only one priest and a handful of influential laity, who spearheaded the movement toward division, who wished to leave the Episcopal Church.
I say again: most of those who voted to leave did not do so for theological reasons: they did so because they were forced to make a choice they did not want to make. I say again: most of those who did not vote to leave did so because they were forced to make a choice they did not want to make. (Yes, I could have voted to go; equally, they could have voted to stay. Either way, the choice was due to the “worldview” of a single priest and his operators, not the parishioners themselves).
I say again: in the case of my parish, people generally did not vote to go or stay based on theology, dissatisfaction with TEC, primacy of scripture. Et. Cetera.
I say again: should the courts evict the CANA congregation and allow the Episcopal congregation to return home, many of those who voted to leave will return. I suspect they will be welcomed with tears of joy, and many of those tears will be mine.
73. pendennis88
Are you talking about racism? I would need more evidince than the pronunciation of “Nigerian” to draw such a conclusion.
True. And some folks are just really into the orthodox brand, and draw a lot of their self-image from that.
There is no parish that “I no longer attend.” I continue as a member of the parish I have belonged to for years, That parish never ceased to exist, not for half a second, although it was necessary to replace the leadership that had abandoned us, and find a new place to worship (because the locks on the doors of church property were suddenly changed).
The opportunity to stay together would have required the abandonment of cherished beliefs, both for those who voted to leave and for those who did not.
I did not remove myself from worship. I was locked out of my church.
You can even remain orthodox and attend an Episcopal church, by the way. You can belong to a parish that loves and serves the Lord despite differences in theology, beliefs about homosexualtiy, the ordination of women, the primacy of scripture. But the opportunity to do so is made difficult when locks are put on the door.
Klaxon – did you have a key to the parish (were you an employee or officer). I assume that the doors are unlocked on Sunday mornings and that all members regardless of their vote are still welcome to worship there.
“I would need more evidince than the pronunciation of “Nigerian†[with a hard “g”] to draw such a conclusion.”
Riiiight.
And count me skeptical with chips that the TEC remnant cannot join the worship on a Sunday morning because they lock the doors to bar you from entering.
76. chips:
I have no idea when the congregation that occupies the property locks or unlocks the doors, or who is welcome to worship there. My Episcopal congregation meets in a different building, generously lent by a church of a different denomination.
77. pendennis88:
Right.
I have not asserted this. In fact, I am sure the congregation that occupies the property would welcome any member of my congregation to attend their services. The pews are full of generous people, just as they were before the split.
Those members of the new African-affiliated congregation are also welcome to visit the Episcopal church. I think most of them realize that, and are comforted by the fact that, should the court return control of the property to TEC, they will be welcomed home without rancor.
RE: “You seem bent on criticizing me based on your own conclusions about me.”
Huh? The only “conclusions” I have drawn about you have to do with what you yourself have stated about yourself.
RE: “I have never, to my knowledge set foot inside Truro (I went to a funeral at an Episcopal Church in Northern Virginia in the early-nineties–perhaps it was Truro, I don’t know.)”
I never stated that you were a member of Truro, and note that this has absolutely nothing to do with what you or I have stated.
RE: “I have never said that I “only wish[ed] to “stay together†inside ECUSA.”
Right. You said this in your first comment — “we were denied that opportunity [of “staying together”] and then you admitted that you voted to stay ECUSA. I think the conclusions are pretty obvious, Klaxon.
You first made the claim that you were denied the opportunity of staying together. And yet later you admit that you voted to stay in ECUSA, thus leaving the majority of the congregation that voted to leave ECUSA.
Ergo. The only way you were willing to “stay together” was in a parish INSIDE ECUSA.
RE: “it was only one priest and a handful of influential laity, who spearheaded the movement toward division, who wished to leave the Episcopal Church.”
And I say again that the majority voted to leave. Just as you do not claim responsibility for Gene Robinson, you cannot force responsibility on “a handful” for the majority’s votes.
RE: “many of those who voted to leave will return . . . ”
I doubt it.
But honestly, neither of us can actually know this for a fact, until the courts give the property to the ECUSAns. Then we’ll see. My bet is that the split will continue, because it was more over theology than you wish to believe . . . which is understandable since you imply that you are fairly unconcerned about theology anyway, other than of course the “abandonment of cherished beliefs” like the idea that sexual practice outside of marriage and the “primacy of scripture” aren’t really all that important.
Despite your efforts at not indicating your theology, your statements are pretty clear. Issues like sexual morality and the primacy of scripture are minor details to you and certainly not enough of importance to divide people over — and that pretty much places you squarely in the revisionist camp, whether you wish to admit that on this blog or not.
Sarah,
We are incapable of communicating with each other.
Going way back to #28, William P. Sulik (I can’t resist an express invitation):
[blockquote]#24 Ross asks: “…will Truro et al need to demonstrate that there is a “division†in the church now, or that there was already a division back when they voted to disassociate from TEC?â€
Good question—maybe Jeff in CA or w.w. could weigh in? or Steven (#9) or m.s. (#16). My guess is that if it is a dispositive issue, it would be back when the vote was taken(?) I dunno. I could see arguments either way. [/blockquote]
The opening language of section 57-9(A) reads: “If a division has [i]heretofore occurred or shall hereafter occur[/i]. . . .” (italics mine). As I read it, that broadens the scope of when a division could occur to trigger section 57-9. However, as I read the notes of decisions on the section, this issue hasn’t been addressed by any of the few courts that have interpreted the section, so it’s just a guess based on the language itself.
RE: “We are incapable of communicating with each other.”
Well . . . we are certainly incapable of agreeing with one another!
; > )
[i] And this little elf says, AMEN. [/i]
#82, thanks Jeff.
Re: the “African” terminology. Klaxon, as I indicated, your pain is understandable, nevertheless, I am puzzled by so many who refer to the re-alignment with Bishops in the Anglican Communion as being an affiliation with an African Church. This seems to be, at the very best, elitist; at the very worst racist. Why does Peter Lee keep stressing this? Why do you? Why not just say your old church has affiliated with another Bishop in the Anglican Communion? The continued emphasis on “African” as though there were something wrong with this, is troubling. Do you regard the Bishops in African as being inferior to English bishops?
As for me, while I’m thrilled with being affiliated with the Global South, I’d take the life preserver even if it came from a French Bishop.
It is my prayer for you that you can one day find peace back in your old congregation. Alternatively, that your new congregation will grow and spread the good news of Christ crucified and resurrected.
grace and peace,
wm.
It was said:
[blockquote]Those who voted to depart and put new locks on the doors of the church buildings ceased to be my congregation when they voted to join an African organization. My congregation is Episcopal.[/blockquote]
and it was said
[blockquote]You can belong to a parish that loves and serves the Lord despite differences in theology, beliefs about homosexualtiy, the ordination of women, the primacy of scripture. But the opportunity to do so is made difficult when locks are put on the door.[/blockquote]
and it was said
[blockquote]it was necessary to replace the leadership that had abandoned us, and find a new place to worship (because the locks on the doors of church property were suddenly changed).[/blockquote]
But then it was said in reply to the post “And count me skeptical with chips that the TEC remnant cannot join the worship on a Sunday morning because they lock the doors to bar you from entering”:[blockquote]I have not asserted this.[/blockquote]
And then it was said
[blockquote]We are incapable of communicating with each other.[/blockquote]
At this point, I agree.
Nice summary, Pendennis! ; > )
But I really do think that we’ve [and that includes both sides] communicated quite nicely. — And that’s the real problem.
Two gospels. One organization.
I am still confused as to whether the issue for Klaxxon is Africa, the locks, or the theology. Africa is I believe a temporary state of affairs, the locks surely do not come into play unless Klaxxon is actually Bishop Lee, which leaves the theology and all of the CANA churches voted by at least 2-1 towards Orthodoxy. I think however Sarah that it is rapidly becoming more than one organization. 🙂
87. chips:
It may be possible that you and I can communicate. I don’t expect you to agree with me; I only expect to communicate, which was defined for me long ago in boot camp as the transmittal of a message, receipt of the message, and acknowledgement that the message is understood. With that in mind:
Re: Africa. I don’t know what the issue of Africa is. Someone else raised it–the issue or claim seems to be that if you pronounce “Nigerian” wrong, you’re a racist. I may be incorrect–that’s my best guess.
Re: Theology. I have raised no quarrel with anyone’s theology, nor have I raised the topic in any way except to propose that differences or “foundationally differing worldviews” may be too complex to adequately address here.
Re: Locks. Someday–I hope not–a majority may vote to leave your beloved church, but, instead of leaving, put new locks on the door and stay put, telling you that you that you’re welcome, of course, to come worship under the new regime. Should that sad day occur, you will understand.
RE: “Someday–I hope not–a majority may vote to leave your beloved church, but, instead of leaving, put new locks on the door and stay put, telling you that you that you’re welcome, of course, to come worship under the new regime.”
In other words, Chips, all the references to “locks” that Klaxon kept making throughout these comments and to being “locked out” were simply drama-cues patched into the rest of his words and were, essentially, irrelevant.
Sorry. His bad.
Perhaps now we will know not to take his words all that seriously.
Sarah,
You and I are incapable of communicating with each other.
[i] Then let this be the final email addressed to a specific individual. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Re: Africa. I don’t know what the issue of Africa is. Someone else raised it …
For the record, the first use of “African church” was in comment #38 – by Klaxon.
What I find particularly said in all of this is that those who have expressed, in essence that they fell there has been a hostile takeover of Episcopal property in Northern Virginia are not even talking about Jesus. It is about property, belonging to the right group, etc. What we should be seeing, though, is the real hostile takeover of sound Christian doctrine that saves and delivers men and women from all kinds of sins. The danger of changing doctrine to conform to the culture, is that the gospel of salvation in its fullness is negated.
I cannot believe that those bemoaning what has happened really believe that a rector here and there in the No. Virginia church is in a land grab. Think, rather, of what will happen to your children and grandchildren if the Episcopal Church keeps moving away from sound doctrine to univeralism and moral relativism. Look down the generations to what will come and not back to what it was when you were younger and children. THE CULTURE HAS SHIFTED AND IS TRYING TO TAKE THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WITH IT. Who would believe, e.g., that a law would be passed in California that in essence says the use of the names Mom and Dad and husband and wife are discriminatory.
For those of you in pain about the breach in fellowship, reconsider why this has happened.
Do you really want to sit under the teaching/instruction of those who assert that Jesus is not the unique path of salvation or that Scriputre can be cut and pasted?
If you keep doing so or “winking” at priests who do, you will find yourself shipwrecked at some point.
If the property goes, then the property goes. People will not be returning to sit under men or women though who would ill equip them to overcome sin in their lives.
The buildings will become like those in Western Europe…dead with a few faithful in them, but not replicating the vibrant Christian faith of the martyrs.
Those who planted these churches would turn over in their graves if they could hear the doctrines coming out of 815. KJS may not want to recognize there is a division, but then, Henry VIII didn’t get permission from Rome to found the Anglican Church. (not that his reasons were justifiable.) It has rarely been people from the top of a hierarchial church structure who have sanctioned schism. They have too much to lose.
I predict within 10-15 years, the Episcopal Church, will be supplanted if more faithful leaders AT THE TOP do not stand for the traditional faith.