WHEN A CHURCH congregation breaks with its denomination, the two sides rarely part with a mutual “Go with God’s grace.”
The acrimony is particularly acute in a church divorce now playing out in Fairfax County. The Episcopal bishop of Virginia has declared 11 churches to be abandoned properties. Some congregants threatened to charge diocesan officials with trespassing if they entered the sanctuaries.
The dispute is partly about money. The land and buildings are worth tens of millions of dollars. But it is also about doctrine. Members are angry their leaders ordained an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.
Well, I don’t remember the “state” jumping through hoops to “interefere” in the church’s business. I’m pretty sure I remember the PB of ECUSA asking the state to intervene….
Also, of course it’s somewhat about “money”..Money that parishoners have given over many years to promote the Gospel, and do Christian work, and the buildings and land, and the “money” which those things represent that TEC wants to use or sell for their secular agenda..
Gloria in SC
“The ruling indicates the judge may not simply bow to Episcopal canons that conclude the property is controlled by the hierarchical authorities of the church.”
Well, since we don’t have an estalished church, that would seem appropriate.
“Instead, he is headed down a path leading to an examination of land deeds and internal church laws and constitutions.”
Is this an argument that there is something wrong with examining deeds? And has this person read the decision? The judge decided not on church laws and constitutions, but on the definition of “division” in Webster’s. I thought the editorial was arguing examining internal church laws and constitutions was bad. If so, the statute avoids it and the judge avoided it.
“This is no perfunctory title search, but a broad probe into the governance of the Episcopal Church. While much of the case may be based on arcane rules about the role of parish trustees and procedural votes on secession, there will be plenty of opportunities for judicial robes to catch on theological snags.”
Again, the judge is trying to avoid that. It is the episcopal church that is trying to say its theology trumps the property laws.
“The lawsuit rightly has leaders of other hierarchical denominations concerned that rules established over years, even centuries, could be challenged and nullified in a courtroom.”
You mean like overturning the Virginia statute, 57-9, that has been around since reconstruction?
I think this editorial is confusing.
“I think this editorial is confusing. ”
It is hard to be clear when the article fails to be logical. The judge is merely trying to answer the question “who is running the entities which hold these titles”. This writer showed no comprehension of that basic fact, nor of the obvious conclusion that making no decision gives a default victory to one side or another. The piece is simply a whine.
The use of the term “thicket” shows exactly the source and sponsor for the article. The DioVA/TEC introduced the term “the religious thicket” in their arguments in court.
The editorial writer is sadly confused and may be presumed to have sipped at the TEC/diocesan kool-aid. The judge’s decision actually avoids the “thicket” of doctrinal issues and allows the trial to focus on the non-doctrinal, purely factual question of whether the procedures outlined in the statute were complied with.
“The judge and the attorney general should take this opportunity to reconsider whether they want secular courts telling churches how to run their own affairs” —Virginian-Pilot Editorial
But that’s exactly what ECUSA wants the secular courts to do: to disregard the departed congregations’ legal title to their property.
Ralph M [#4]: This editorial certainly reads as though ECUSA has been whispering sweet nothings in the editorial board’s ear.
Note that the U.S. Supreme Court has long referred to a religious “thicket” when upholding claims that particular governmental action (e.g., tax credits for parochial school parents) constituted an “establishment of religion.” Like “sectarian,” it is a loaded word in this context.
As I understand it the State did not choose to enter this matter they were asked to intervene (against a parish of the church) by the Episcopal Church.
There is no way to avoid a 1st amendment issue. Let’s assume that the judge rules for TEC. Then the 1st amendment rights of the parishes to set their affairs in order are violated. If the judge rules for the parishes, then the 1st amendment rights of TEC and DioVa to order their church according to church rules are violated.
Since harm will be done in either case, we must ask which harm does more to prohibit the free exercise less or which harm causes establishment more. I submit that the path that does the least harm and asks for the least amount of intervention by the state in to religious affairs is to look at the deeds and see who’s names are on them and whether the internal processes of the non-profit corporations (TEC, DioVA, and the individual parishes) were complied with.
TEC could have avoided all of this trouble by simply holding the title to all real property rather than by creating a trust by Church rules. Of course, that opens TEC up to serious liability issues.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
1 and 8, I’ll tell you what I remember: 11 parishes voting to leave and filing petitions in Court to be declared the owners of the property in question — weeks before TEC/the Diocese did anything in court. (Before you reply to this, go read the judge’s opinion again and note who he repeatedly refers to as the plaintiffs.) I also remember the AG filing to intervene. The same AG whose deputy used to go to a breakaway church and who’s running for governor and courting religious conservatives.
2, yes, I think they do mean overturning that model of good governance sponsored by a lawyer-legislator to help his clients, and that the Judge noted was apparently designed to aid congregations. It’s wonderful the state decided to help one particular set of religious groups over another. Kudos to Virginia.
4, as 7 said, TEC and the Diocese most certainly did not invent the term “religious thicket”.
5, do you mean the “non-doctrinal, purely factual question” of whether CANA and the ADV are branches of the Anglican Communion, TEC, and/or the Diocese? Or the “non-doctrinal, purely factual question” of what broken communion means? Or the “non-doctrinal, purely factual question” of whether individual congregations are “attached” to the Anglican Communion? Or the “non-doctrinal, purely factual question” of whether the Anglican Communion is a “religious society”? ….
It is obvious that this editorial is highly biased and uninformed. I doubt that the person who wrote this has actually read the opinion. Also the language suggests this may have been crafted by either The DioVA, TEC or the agency for public policy which has now hired the former secretary of the DioVA on it’s staff.
Friends, I have said this repeatedly: “He who has bought and paid for the land, built and paid for the church without assistance from the diocese or the church, and has the deed registered in his name owns the property.” Why is that so hard for The Episcopal Church to understand? Why is it that they can claim fiduciary responsibility and ownership of and for property when they have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the people who paid for that property and built the buildings so very long ago would ever let them claim to own it…..especially if they never said…..implicitly or otherwise……that they would ever consent to such a claim?
The Episcopal Church is basing its claim on an ASSUMPTION that these people would ever have given their consent……again implied or otherwise.
“TEC could have avoided all of this trouble by simply holding the title to all real property rather than by creating a trust by Church rules” [#8]
In theory, yes. But note that many parishes would in fact have REFUSED to grant title to ECUSA or the diocese. ECUSA was historically not an authoritarian institution in the way revisionists now make it out to be.
One can’t help but wonder what the Dio. of Virginia’s position would be if the buildings were cheesy and poorly constructed “churches in the round” built in the 1970s.
“The judge and the attorney general should take this opportunity to reconsider whether they want secular courts telling churches how to run their own affairs. They’ve already tramped too far onto sacred ground, but it’s not too late to tip-toe away”.
The judge and the attorney general have every right to interpret what is Virginia law/statute already on the books, whether it has to do with churches or not. This editorial, which seems to have no by-line(the current Bishop of Southern Virginia, maybe?) is harping on a separation of church and state, about which the Constitution says nothing in the first place.
I’d advise the anonymous author here to read the judge’s entire decision before commenting, and organize his/her thoughts in a more coherent way–what exactly is the point here other than baseless vitriol?
All of this could have been avoided with negotiations/buyout between the departing congregations and DioVA, but TEC nixed that and Peter Lee let them. Put the blame where it rightfully belongs….
It was TEC and DioVA that brought this matter to the court of the Gentile. The Virginia statute first requires that the fact that there has been a “split” be established. Without ecclesiastical prejudice the Court has found that a “split” exists. None of this requires delving into church doctrine or religion and you don’t have to be a Christian to make this determination. There ought to be some journalistic qualification for writing about religious affairs, this article is clearly amateur hour at the Pilot.