The congregations, including The Falls Church in Falls Church and Truro Church in Fairfax, argue that they are entitled to keep their land and houses of worship because the congregations overwhelmingly voted to disaffiliate with the Episcopal Church.
The diocese argues that church members who disagree theologically are permitted to leave the congregations as individuals, but have no right to take church property with them.
The disaffected congregations, now members of a breakaway group called the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, or CANA, say the 1867 law is on their side. It states that a majority vote will determine whether a congregation can realign and retain its property when a church faces internal division.
Episcopal leaders argue that the state law does not apply in this case because there has been no formal division recognized by the Episcopal hierarchy.
“Episcopal leaders argue that the state law does not apply in this case because there has been no formal division recognized by the Episcopal hierarchy.”
================================================
Wasn’t there a ‘good faith’ dialogue and an agreement between the dissenting parishes and the Diocese of Virginia?
Dindn’t the diocese involve itself in designing a ‘process of separation’ between itself and the dissenting parishes?
If I backed out of a business deal the way in which Bishop Lee has backed out this process that he was ‘part of,’ I would, at the very least, be considered ‘untrustworthy.’
The division law 57-9 of Virginia was written so that churches can divide “amicably”. Who has a right to define division? The TEC “doesn’t recognize division has taken place” despite the fact that twenty of the largest parishes voted overwhelmingly to break away. So they are allowed to fantasize that division hasn’t happened, and so the law doesn’t apply???
I hope that the judge sees the ludicrousness of this assertion.
How much is the CHurch of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) spending in this fight?
The Falls Church and Truro Church don’t need Nigerian money.
The demographics of the area in which these parishes are situated is truly amazing, both in terms of wealth and of high level executive/legal ability and authority.
AnglicanFirst–The Diocese’s extensive negotiation of the protocol is what we would call prima facie evidence of a division within the church. This is why TEC is banking so heavily on the heirarchy argument, which tacitly says that +Lee has no authority to declare, by words or actions, that there is a division.
How can TEC use the hierarchy argument here yet deny such an order exists before the AC? The PB has power in legal issues but not doctrinal? Is that a misunderstanding on my part?
They argue out of both sides of their mouth. Not unheard of.
#6 the roman – you foolish person — you expect logical consistency from TEC? Faithfulness and fidelity?
Anyway, they would probably say it is pleading in the alternative: “I didn’t beat my wife, your honor, and if I did, she had it coming to her.”
#5 — this is very perceptive — your succinct comment should not be missed. Thanks.
The sons of Korah might also have argued there was no split in the desert…for about 5 seconds until the ground split and swallowed them alive.
An interesting argument. That way the church could keep the property by denying that there is a split. This effectively nullifies the law. It’s an argument that is too cute and that’s why I don’t think the Judge will buy it. It lets one of the parties unilaterally determine the result in its favor.
There is no question but that the diocese of Virginia made preparations for a division of property see
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw/tec_to_nigeria.html
There seems to be a larger trend at play here, where first the diocese tries to remove ownership from congregations and now the national church tries to remove ownership from the diocese! No honor among thieves.
1. AnglicanFirst:
As I recall, you are correct. But, if memory serves, the good faith came to an end when the parishes involved voted to leave TEC. It was the parishes, not Bishop Lee, who “backed out of the deal.”
I’m not saying that a mutually-satisfactory agreement would necessarily have been reached. I’m just saying that dialogue ends when there’s nothing left to talk about, and that moment was reached the day the parishes voted to leave TEC and keep the property.
Klaxon – you are completely, 100% wrong on the facts. The deal permitted such a vote. The vote was part of the deal. Lee backed out when he refused to accept the result of the vote.
WOW, So under this Va law, does that mean that my church can split for what ever reason we feel, Say being upset about the 1979 prayer book, women priesthood, and of course many other probelms that we may disagree about. Funny that we go to a law that was made so that we could divide from those anti slavery churches. Well at least we now have a real leader in Africa that belives in jailing and the killng of gays. Just wanted to add my 2 cents, and show like all the other comments here that its all about what we want and not christ love.
Phil, you may be interested in this fascinating exchange amongst various reasserters and Klaxon. It’s awfully revealing and may help with your future conversations with Klaxon:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/7553
plainsparson – can you show me the canonical or constitutional prohibition on a diocese leaving TECUSA? If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed, right? Isn’t that the logic of the Righter Trial?
vaguy2008. If there is a division in the larger church; then, yes, you can split from the church under VA law. The question comes down to these:
1. Who is the Church? Is it TECUSA, or the Diocese of VA or the local congregation or the Anglican Communion.
2. Who has the authority to say that a division has occured or is occurring? Does it require a statement from the ABC, any primate, the PB, the Bishop of VA?
I submit that the “division” is at the communion level and the fact that many provinces are out of communion with TECUSA and that the Bishop and Diocese of VA set up a protocol for parishes to leave the diocese is [i] prima facia [/i] evidence of a division.
TECUSA is not a hierarchal church. The diocese doesn’t pay for the property nor pay for upkeep nor does it own title to the property. The presiding bishop has no authority of diocesan bishops and the diocesan bishops have limited authority over parish clergy. Our polity is a constitutional republican one where ultimate authority is rested in the elected representatives (delegates) to a legislative body.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#14. Vaguy2008 wrote:
[blockquote] WOW, So under this Va law, does that mean that my church can split for what ever reason we feel…[/blockquote]
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. The reason for this is quite simple: it keeps the courts (i.e. the state) out of deciding issues of religious doctrine. For example, back in the late 1800’s there was a huge split in a denomination over membership in secret societies (the Masons etc.) and Bishop Milton Wright of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ broke with the denomination and many churches went with him, forming a new denomination, the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, Old Constitution. Why should the state decide which faction was right about freemasonry?
[Background from the excellent book, The Bishop’s Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright By Tom D. Crouch]
But your question really wasn’t about Virginia law, was it. You were just looking for an excuse to slam someone…
Thanks, Sarah. If the same level of incoherence is going to result, a future conversation may not be a good idea – but that other one was certainly … revealing.
I did appreciate pendennis’ questions about what exactly had changed as a result of the vote that “drove people out.” I’ve asked the same question myself, in the past, and the reality is, of course, “nothing.”
TEC says that it is a hierarchical church and must consent through its national governance structure to any division under the statute. As evidence, TEC points in its brief to the fact that it consented to the “division” of the Diocese of Virginia twice, once into two diocese and then again into three. This argument is absurd because once the geographic dividing line between between the sub-divided portions of the original diocese is established, parishes were not allowed to “cross” that line through a congregational vote under the statute. For example, when the original Diocese of Virginia was split into northern and southern components in 1892, Truro Church could not have voted under the division statute to have itself declared as part of the new Diocese of Southern Virginia. Likewise, when the Diocese of Southwestern Virginia was subsequently broken off from the Diocese of Southern Virginia, a parish in Chesapeake could not have voted itself part of the southwestern diocese. (In fact, I do not believe any parish votes under the division statute were recorded in connection with the two diocesan subdivisions.) TEC’s argument renders the division statute meaningless and contradicts complaints about “border crossings” and the sanctity of diocesan units that it has been making to other Anglican provinces.
I’m trying to recall that old saying of advice to lawyers: It goes something like this:
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When the law is on your side, argue the law.
When neither is on your side, ?????
Anyone can help me on this?
#20:
“Pound the table.”
So these churches are banking on an 1867 law designed to make certain that factions not wanting to worship with blacks can split and keep the property. Now nice. Wonder what ++Akinola thinks of that? Things in Anglican Dissident Land get more bizarre every day.
13. Phil:
Concerning my recollection that the “good faith” dialogue and agreement between Bishop Lee and certain Virginia parishes was terminated when those parishes voted to leave TEC and retain church property, you wrote:
I guess I’ll have to quibble with your estimation that my percentage of error is 100%.
The “agreement” was prepared by a Special Committee appointed by bishop Lee, and distributed to the parishes in 2006. On December 1, 2006, Bishop Lee wrote to those parishes, saying of that proposed agreement, “. . . neither the Executive Board nor the Standing Committee has endorsed or approved it. . .”
and
“You should not assume the Episcopal Church will endorse or approve the steps outlined in that report”
and
“The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church may well wish to retain its property interests”
and
“I remind you that absent a negotiated settlement of property, an attempt to place your congregation and its real and personal property under the authority of any ecclesial body other than the Diocese of Virginia and the bodies authorized by its canons to hold church property will have repercussions and possible civil liability for individual vestry members.”
( http://www.thediocese.net/press/pressroom.shtml )
Considering this warning, given before most of the churches voted (I think a few had already voted, thereby ending the “dialogue” before Bishop Lee’s letter, I’ll have to award myself a percentage of error a little closer to 0%.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord. But if you must, go.
#20
“…abuse your opponent”
#20: Actually, the joke goes like this:
“If you are short on the law, argue the facts; if you are short on the facts, argue the law; if you are short on both, abuse your opponent.”
Interesting how #3 and #22 troll in distorting facts to play a race card. For the record, the Church of Nigeria has no stake in the property – of course everyone knew that.
First, it appears that the law passed in 1867. I may be going out on a limb here, but I’m pretty sure the confederates were not in control of Richmond by that time.
Also, Lee’s letter came out on December 1, 2006. The 40 days of discernment process for the big CANA churches began September 17, 2006 and ended October 27, 2006, and the vestrys voted mid-November. According to reports, Lee had already told them verbally it was the way to go. Speaking of the Dec. 1 letter, the readers of it also probably concluded that Lee thought “I believe the report is a useful way forward, which I support…,†that they would work towards a “mutually acceptable outcomeâ€, and that Lee had “encouraged the Executive Board and the Standing Committee of our diocese to pay close attention to whether congregations that wish to depart have followed the steps outlined in the report and have engaged faithfully in negotiations that meet the needs of each party in each unique situation.†And, after the vote, it has been reported that Lee appointed a property committee to negotiate the sale fo the property which was then disbanded in January 2007 some time. I’m sure someone can provide a link to the facts concerning that.
Thanks, Parishioner. But surely, the good barristers for the Diocese of Virginia would not abuse their opponent, would they?
Meanwhile, “BREAKING NEWS” in California:
Case: S155094, Supreme Court of California: as of 2007-11-14, the Opening brief on the merits has been filed by Eric C. Sohlgren, counsel for St. James Newport Beach, et al.
Br_er Rabbit: re: #28: Never in a million years!