A judge in Fairfax County will hear evidence starting today in the church-property dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and a group of congregations that left to affiliate with the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
The case involves 11 Northern Virginia congregations in which the majority of members voted to break with the Episcopal Church — the U.S.-based wing of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The votes occurred because of disagreements about what one of the group’s leaders called the Episcopal Church’s “blatant rejection of the authority of Scripture.” The consecration of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire in 2003 brought the disagreements to a boiling point.
“That made us take a look at what was going on — and we were appalled,” said Jim Oakes, vice-chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia, which formed to unite the breakaway congregations and others with similar beliefs. “What that told us was we couldn’t even agree on the ground rules for discussing the issue.”
The Anglican District of Virginia belongs to a larger organization called the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, which describes itself as a missionary branch of the Church of Nigeria.
After the votes, the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia filed suit to retain the property occupied by the departing congregations. Their stance is that “Episcopal Church property, while held by local trustees, is held in trust for the benefit of the Episcopal Church, the Diocese of Virginia and Episcopalians throughout the generations,” according to a statement from the diocese.
The TEC view of the law is clever lawyer spin. Obviously in a division – it is not the ones staying that say when a division has occured – it is the ones leaving. Henry VIII announced a division not the Pope. Got to admire the chutzpah of TEC’s counsel though.
It’s good that the judge will examine whether there is a division at the global communion level as well as the national and diocesan level. TEC argues that the global communion is really no more than a religious social club and nothing resembling a church body. If so, why would TEC put so much emphasis on the polity and processes of the global communion, most notably Lambeth invitations and the recent JSC report? (See here.) TEC is walking a pretty fine line here.
Take it from this VA lawyer, my review of the briefs in this case tells me that anyone who thinks either side in this case has a slam dunk is kidding themselves.
. . . thy will be done . . .
Peace,
About the only prediction I’ll make is that regardless of what the trial court decides, there will likely be an appeal. What a shame that things had to come to this.
Is there such a thing as a Christian lawsuit? It hurts to walk away from a church property after giving untold dollars to maintain or build structures, but after all these are merely physical objects. To my mind, those who fight to possess a physical structure may wind up spiritually dispossessed. Both sides lose, neither side wins. There is no moral high ground except to walk away, sell the property and divide the assets.
I agree with mousestalker. Both sides will appeal as far as they can.
But is it unchristian to defend yourself and the parish against an unchristian lawsuit? That is the position that the 11 CANA congregations find themselves in.