Truro Anglican Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia announced today a settlement that concludes five years of litigation that arose after Truro Anglican and other parishes left the Episcopal Church in 2006 to become part of what is now the Anglican Church in North America.
The settlement follows a January ruling in which the Circuit Court of Fairfax County held that all real and personal property held by the parishes at the time they left the denomination belongs to the Diocese.
If they can agree on respective Bisops from different Anglican jurisdictions visiting over the next 15 months, then there does not seem to be any good reason to hold on to the 5 year disaffiliation restriction imposed on PA and VA congregations. Can grace be extended on the train of this small piece of good news?
RE: “there does not seem to be any good reason to hold on to the 5 year disaffiliation restriction imposed on PA and VA congregations.”
Hey — for that matter, why not go ahead and rejoin TEC!?!? I mean — let’s really really extend “grace” since Johnston is now a “brother in Christ” and a nice friend of the rector of the parish he sued to extract their property from them.
When did “The Rev. Surname” become the normal way to refer to clergy. While it does avoid the “Mr.” / “Fr.” prpblem it does seem strange and very un-Virginia.
Why did Truro ever engage in this fight if we got to this? They should have asked the diocese for 15 months in January 2007 and not wasted theirs, the other breakaway churches and the diocese time.
I think I see something healthy here. Truro has not given up its commitments by any means, but I see something of God’s grace at work here in how Truro is bringing the current stage of conflict to a conclusion.
The settlement makes sense (though I am baffled why they don’t have a place to go to 5+ years after the lawsuit was filed). Truro needs a logistical way to get to a new place. But Bishop Shannon Johnston as “brother in Christ”. Is the the same Truro church that led the effort to leave TEC? This is the end result of the “40 days of Discernment”? If your such a “brother in Christ” with the Bishop why did many other smaller churches have to leave ACNA and you didn’t? Why cant you vouch for them with your “brother in Christ” and relieve them of that burden. Is this really the church of Bishop Minns? What happened to the leadership and people at the church over the years that was positioned at the center of this fight that it comes to this? What a sad day for reasserters to see one of their own compromise itself so much. Why can’t we stand strong?
They are dancing with the devil…and the devil will rub off on them!
Making nice with the likes of TEC at all is something like the Stockholm syndrome.
[blockquote] “Because the Diocese and Truro Anglican are part of different ecclesiastical bodies who share the Anglican tradition, they have agreed to follow a process during the term of the lease by which bishops may visit Truro Anglican with the permission of Bishop Johnston.” [/blockquote]
Does this mean that the relevant ACNA ordinary cannot visit his congregation except with Bishop Johnston’s permission? [blockquote] “…I am baffled why they don’t have a place to go to 5+ years after the lawsuit was filed” [/blockquote]
That does seem a very good question. Surely they planned for the possibility of losing? Their lawyers certainly would have told them that – any competent litigation lawyer knows that there are NO 100% certain outcomes in any litigation. So what was their plan for if they lost?
[blockquote] “Why did Truro ever engage in this fight if we got to this? They should have asked the diocese for 15 months in January 2007 and not wasted theirs, the other breakaway churches and the diocese time.” [/blockquote]
Another good question.
It seems like a rational and hopeful end to a story of enormous waste, misjudgment and hubris. The utter folly of the past several years should not prevent us from commending both sides for a sensible outcome.
RE: “should not prevent us from commending both sides . . . ”
Don’t get me wrong — I can certainly see why Bishop Johnston and the rest of the revisionists would see the need to shut the mouths of those who departed the heretical actions and leadership of TEC. It’s certainly a positive thing to shut up the critique of TEC from a publicity point of view. Trying to restore and salvage some semblance of a Christian facade is probably considered vital on the part of TEC heretics.
No question that the Diocese of Virginia would urgently feel the need to gain something there.
Thank goodness nobody else has yet entered such a “covenant.”
Truro joins the ranks of all those who talked a good game, who led the charge that all of us who have left the church of our childhoods and lovely buildings behind to worship in schools and warehouses followed, and now have folded themselves back into TEC not going the final mile, having lost money but without the real sacrifice they fooled the rest of us to undergo…now safely worshipping in their buildings and familiar surrounding, without being uprooted and replanted.
Will +Minns take away their CANA status? Will the ACNA make them provisional members. This is really horrifying to those of us who looked to Truro and followed them into the abyss, only to have them come to a halt right at the edge.
Think of Bishops Fry and Hathaway, the ACI, the Bishop of Central Florida…always there with a fiery word, and now lap dogs for Bishop Katherine, having stayed in the church with their status and pensions, while the rest of us suffer for the truth they taught us and to which they inspired us.
This is a real betrayal of all of us who believed their phony witness to faithfulness. I am frankly crushed and heartsick today.
subscribe
“It’s certainly a positive thing to shut up the critique of TEC from a publicity point of view. Trying to restore and salvage some semblance of a Christian facade is probably considered vital on the part of TEC heretics.”
Truro may be muzzled but there are plenty of others still speaking out. TEC is going to need a lot more fingers to plug all the holes in their PR dike.
I’m with you, Ralinda — even Bishop Johnston won’t be able to restore the facade of the Christian faith that he and others have willfully shredded.
Some “context” seems very helpful to understand what probably amounts to much less than a “settlement” of great import. I lived in Northern Virginia for many years and although not a member of Truro Church, I’ve attended some services there and to some extent have followed developments in the relevant litigation. I’ve read (and it seems entirely credible) that unlike most, if not almost all the other parishes in the relevant property litigation, there isn’t a TEC-congregation-in-the-wings ready to move into Truro Church following the present non-TEC congregation’s vacating the premises. Thus, the sale of this particular property may well be likely. It’s not very surprising if Truro Church simply didn’t make detailed plans with regard to alternatives in the event the litigation was decided unfavorably because it certainly knew of the nonexistence of a TEC-congregation-in-the-wings, and further knew that the TEC Diocese of Virginia might well wind up having to attempt to sell the property following Truro’s vacating the premises. So, it clearly seems to be in the interest of Truro’s congregation to have some time now to consider its “physical’ options, and the settlement at least provides that. Also, it’s apparently also likely in the TEC Diocese of Virginia’s interest to have some time to deal with the issue of what to do with this particular property, especially in the light of probably having experienced the loss in recent years of a fairly large number of its congregations and/or members as well as revenues associated therewith. The TEC Diocese may well have also realized by now the real cost–monetarily and in ways other than monetarily-associated with carrying out orders from the “top” of TEC to pursue litigation in lieu of negotiation with regard to the disposition of property of TEC congregations that have become disaffected–finding out first-hand that indeed, scorched-earth-driven litigation comes at a price (pays a wage).
I know that the topic of Truro’s settlement with the Diocese of Virignia has not been as hotly debated here as at Stand Firm, but tonight I finally felt freedom to chime in on the topic which is still burning up the comment threads at SF. Many regular readers here might know that even though I live and work in Africa, I have been blessed to call Truro my home parish since late 1988. So, this is a matter that touches me personally.
Should anyone care, my (long) comment can be found here.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/28698/comment-sf/#480774
It largely addresses the tone of the discussion at Stand Firm, and what I see as a quick presumption to accuse and assume the worst rather than “believing the best” (1 Cor 13:7) of Truro’s leaders. I might not have cross posted my (comment link) here, but Sarah has commented on this thread continuing the tone of attack from Stand Firm, and so some of my concern is relevant to this thread as well.
My prayers are with all I know at Truro tonight that the Lord might continue to guide them clearly in His Truth. If they have erred, may He correct them. If they are walking in the ways that please Him, may He encourage them and be greatly glorified. I’m too far away to know the ins and outs of the settlement, but a 23+ year history with Truro and its leaders means I have confidence to believe the best and that God will guide them clearly as they seek His face.