I was reading with interest your Lambeth weblog (to which I had been directed by the weblog of Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the diocese of South Carolina), and found that on Day 18, where some marvelous and encouraging steps toward consensus and agreement had been made regarding the proposed moratoria, that in your indaba group also:
“we are told that in the lawsuits in America between parishes and their dioceses it is the dioceses who are the defendants and the conservative parishes who are the accusers”.
I am sorry to tell you that you have apparently been lied to.
I would direct your attention to this summary document:
http://anglicandistrictofvirginia.org/content/view/79/41/
which discusses (albeit in a press release on behalf of the eleven parishes being sued by the Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church) the facts of the case(s) and the determination of the court on two occasions. Perhaps the most pertinent bit of information from that is its first sentence:
“The 11 churches sued by The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia celebrated today’s Fairfax County Circuit Court ruling that confirms the constitutionality of Virginia Division Statute (Virginia Code § 57-9). The 11 churches named in the lawsuit are members of the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV).”
On the website on which that background document is found, you will also find links (in the right-hand margin) to many of the associated court documents. Major newspapers in the adjoining regions, including the Washington Post (Washington, DC), the Washington Times (Washington, DC), and the Richmond Times Dispatch (Richmond, VA) have carried numerous articles as well as editorials concerning the cases, which are widely accessible via the internet. I am sure that you will be able to locate these with no trouble but if you would like I could certainly find some of them and send links to them along to you. It is likely that additional articles will appear in those and other newspapers, as the case will likely be appealed by TEC (and, unfortunately, the diocese). Some of the sadder details of the story can be discovered by reading a few of the introductory documents, including the fact that TEC intervened in and demanded an end to the process of amicable negotiation being followed by the diocese with the parishes, shortly after the investiture of K. Jefferts-Schori.
It is unfortunate that various officeholders in TEC persist in spreading untruths about the basic facts involved in these cases.
I am sorry that they attempted to deceive you, and hope that this will be of help to you in assessing their dependability in various of their other claims and statements.
Please do feel free to contact me regarding this.
Thanks to blog reader LINC for passing this long. It is really very sad to see this kind of misinformation being spread by the same TEC leaders who themselves complain of misinformation! Let me say it again–be a Berean (do you know the reference). Make sure to check the documentation carefully yourself–KSH.
In the interest of being scrupulously fair: this just referrs to the Virginia situation, is it possible there are other parishes/dioceses where the reasserters are suing?
No this is not just pertaining to Virginia. My own Parish made offer to the diocese to buy our building at a fair market price and here’s what happened the diocese EVICTED us then SUED us.
I am glad that the record has been set straight on this point, but it’s possible that the people who misinformed the Bishop were misinformed themselves. I don’t think we should call people liars unless we know that they were deliberately speaking falsehood, and we don’t know that in this case.
Don Armstrong responded to a similar issue in a blog comment elsewhere (I think a SF? video clip with +O’Neill in it), explaining that the CO diocese initiated legal actions which resulted in the parish suing but in a defensive action – sorry not to take the time just now to find this. It was however a situation susceptible to mis-interpretation in the way apparently done in the above-mentioned indaba group.
Professor Jacobs,
The commentator did write: “I am sorry to tell you that you have [b][i]apparently[/i][/b] been lied to.”
It could be they were misinformed, nevertheless, I think after all this time, the appropriate response, a la Bob Dylan circa 1966, Manchester Hall, is to say
And then to turn to the band and tell them to play it really loud (or words to that effect).
😉
William P., the letter also says, “I am sorry that they attempted to deceive you.” No qualifiers there.
What’s important here is that the facts of the matter — TEC’s strategies of persecuting and prosecuting dissenters from the reappraising party line — are revealed. That can be done without name-calling. While I follow Dylan in most things, I think it’s pretty plain that Christians shouldn’t call other people liars if they don’t even know those people’s names. St. Paul trumps even the sainted Bob in such matters!
#6 – you are quite correct – all around. Thank you.
I certainly hope the bishop reads and heeds this….altho the inaction and ‘coziness’ of Lambeth 2008 have left me sickened. You can’t tell me that this guy couldn’t understand (if he wanted to) TEC’s monstrous works. Of course he could have become informed: HE CHOSE TO NOT BECOME INFORMED, AND THAT IS WHY THE AC IS SO SICK!!!
And not likely to recover!
In a proper assembly with some manner of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_parliamentary_procedure ] parliamentary procedure[/url], bishops who were in good faith and correctly informed would have had ample opportunity to inform the assembly of the truth, either during debate, or, more obliquely, through a well-structured [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_information_(motion)] Point of Information[/url].
subscribe
Yes TEC and Dioceses (in Canada it is the same) are doing the suing. But folks, they have no choice. They have been forced to protect the capital of the church for the future, or at least that’s the spin.
It is just the opposite Machen argued so long ago (in [i] Christianity and Liberalism [/i], that we (Christians) needed to fight to protect the legacy of the saints who came before us from those in his day who gave rise to the likes of today’s mainline and TEC liberals (who are in fact peddalling another religion).
There is a [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/08/trigger-happy-church.html]post on this subject[/url] by the Anglican Curmudgeon which gives at least a partial answer to St. Cuervo’s inquiry (#1) above. He lists only two instances in which TEC or a diocese did not start the lawsuit, and even in those cases, their actions in laying claim to the church property triggered the filing of lawsuits to dispose of their claims. In suits asking for monetary damages, TEC or the diocese has always been first to assert the claim—and quite often seeks them against individual rectors and vestry members.
I think it would also be good to accumulate information about the laymen who have been sued by TEC – numbers, where, what charges, etc.
The information has been gathered from numerous sources. The reality and truth is that it is the Diocese as demanded by the Presiding Bishop who are initiating these lawsuits and not the parishes. It is TEC who believes that the property is theirs by right of organization whether the invested nothing in the building and maintaining of the property. It is a power play and a last resort to keep some remaining in TEC because they believe it is harder for people to leave if they must leave their beloved Church that was built by their families and where their loved ones are buried.
There is some reality to this but as TEC continues to persecute the reasserters even this bond is not enough. People are leaving and it will speed up now that GAFCON and Lambeth have given greater clarity to matters.
This bishop has not simply been lied to he has decided to believe the lie and accept a warp version of the reality.
Just to be clear: my gut tells me that 95% of the lawsuits have been filed by dioceses against reasserter parishes. But I haven’t done exhaustive research on the matter so I just don’t know.
I was only wondering if, maybe, +Lichfield was referring to some cases that I didn’t know about. I’m trying to “be generous” and give someone the benefit of the doubt. The weakness of the letter to +Lichfield is that it only points to the Virginia cases. (Although I doubt it) there could well be other cases out there where the othodox have pre-emptively sued to keep their property. It would have been much more work (but it also would have resulted in a much stronger letter) if the letter writer would have extensively researched all of the lawsuits that have gone on in TEC in the last 5 or 10 years and documented that, in no cases, were the reasserters suing.
The Dio of San Diego has sued 3 parishes here, including the rector, wardens, and vestry of one of the parishes. If you need proof, you can see a copy of the suit [url=http://www.holytrinityob.com/documents/Courtcase.pdf]here[/url].
Let us not forget about the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin headed up by apointed +Lamb by +KJS suing us and our Bishop John-David Schofield:[url=http://diosanjoaquin.org/dfc/newsdetail_2/43]found here[/url]
And it’s The Right Reverend John-David Schofield, SSC, not Mister Schofield!
Red herring alert!
Haven’t we been over this too many times.
Whomsoever is captioned as a plaintiff or a defendant is very fact specific.
Is the sued party the ‘victim’ or is the plaintiff the ‘victim’? Again, this is a very fact specific and turns out differently case by case. The captioning as P or D is fundamentally meaningless.
Peace,
-wwm
Maybe like God hardened the heart of Pharoh…he’s done the same with TEC? Otherwise, I don’t understand how on earth some of these folks can make statements of obvious denial like they are.
The original post says “I am sorry to tell you that you have apparently apparently been lied to,” and cites the “Anglican” Diocese of Virginia website as a source.
A better reference might be the court documents themselves. They show clearly that it was the departing churches that filed the first lawsuits. According to the stamps on the court documents, the departing Falls Church congregation filed a lawsuit on December 6, 2006, seeking to take the property as it left. The first counter-suits filed by The Diocese of Virginia are stamped January 27, 2007.
Now unless one has an orthodox interpretation of time that I don’t appreciate, December 6, 2006 is before January 27, 2007. The “Anglican” Diocese of Virginia can put whatever spin it chooses on its reasons for filing the lawsuit, but the fact is they were not hauled into court by the big, bad Diocese of Virginia. The departing congregation went to court first. It is not a lie to say so.
Another fact is that one departing Virginia parish — All Saints in Dale Cit Virginia — reached an amicable property settlement with the Diocese of Virginia, and no lawsuits were necessary. All Saints acknowledged the Diocese’s claim on the property, and the Diocese agreed to rent it to All Saints at no charge for five years. The Diocese also released any claim it might have on an undeveloped, but very valuable, piece of property where All Saints plans to build a new church.
Before one accuses fellow Christians of lying, take a moment to check the facts.
Don,
The documents you referred to were not lawsuits, they were the filing of the vote persuant to the division statute. If you look at Baby Blue’s website you will see a link for the standstill agreement where the Dicoese made it clear the congregations would be able to file the votes. The lawsuits that were filed were actually first filed by the Diocese of Virginia. The Diocese also backed out of the Protocol for Departing Congregations that had been negotiated with representatives from both the Diocese and potentially departing congregations. This was to allow the amicable settlement much like All Saints Dale City for the congregations choosing to leave. However, the new PB made it clear in her deposition that was plaed in November at the Trial of the division statute that she made it clear to Bishop Lee that she could not allow that to happen that he would need to litigate to retain ownership of the property. The churches never filed a lawsuit, they filed a congregational vote. The Diocese filed the first lawsuits. So those are the facts just tos et the record straight. Had the Diocese followed the prootcol that it developed and the Standing Committee and Executive Council accepted and the Bishop approved then there would be no need for lawsuits.
Now while I was wrong before – and Prof. Jacobs clearly pointed this out – it is clear from the trouble that Don Brownlee in number 22 took, that he is either knowingly lying or is an idiot. The court documents clearly state that the Diocese of Virginia is the plaintiff and all the local congregations and the hundreds of volunteers they list are the defendants. To try and claim otherwise shows stupidity or – worse in my opinion – outright deception.
Mr. Sullik: I am neither knowingly lying nor an idiot. I am not displaying stupidity nor engaging in outright deception, and it is unfortunate that we cannot have a discussion about this without sinking to those sorts of comments. I ask again, is that how Christians talk to each other? Would someone know you are a Christian by the tone of your remarks?
You are correct, in the court documents filed by the Diocese of Virginia, it is the plaintiff and the departing congregations are the defendants. I did not say otherwise. The point I was trying to make it that if the question is who went into court first — which, as I understand it, was the original question — the answer is the departing congregations.
Don Brownlee
I am reminded of a quotation from Shakespeares’ Macbeth with regard to Incorrect Claims ;” …the fiends that lie like truth..” Nuff said!!
Mr. Brownlee – if you would tell the truth, my tone would not be so harsh. To be brutally frank – this kind of prevarication and equivocation drives me over the edge.
Let me be clear, the following is taken from Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Day and may be found on-line here: http://tinyurl.com/5ltx2d
[blockquote] “Prevaricate” and its synonyms “lie” and “equivocate” all refer to playing fast and loose with the truth. “Lie” is the bluntest of the three. When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying he or she was intentionally dishonest, no bones about it. “Prevaricate” is less accusatory and softens the bluntness of “lie,” usually implying that someone is evading the truth rather than purposely making false statements.
“Equivocate” is similar to “prevaricate,” but it generally implies that someone is deliberately using words that have more than one meaning as a way to conceal the truth. [/blockquote]
The quote from Bishop of Lichfield set forth above is “we are told that in the lawsuits in America between parishes and their dioceses it is the dioceses who are the defendants and the conservative parishes who are the accusers”.
This is totally different from what you frame: You acknowledge it is the faithful congregations which are the defendants and the Dioceses which have filed the lawsuits but then say this was not what the Bishop said. For you, whoever walked in a courthouse first is the plaintiff and whoever walked in second is the defendant. It makes no difference to you who actually filed the lawsuit. You are equivocating and prevaricating. It is clear you are not stupid, so yes, you are lying.
When the departing congregations filed a statement with the circuit court, it is what the law requires. It is a filing – not a lawsuit. In the Standstill agreement between the DioVa and the confessing congregations, it was acknowledged by both parties that this was a requirement of the law and was permissible. In no way is it a lawsuit. It is a filing – like when you file your taxes.
This is a huge problem when dealing with people like you who transform words to mean whatever you want. It is like dealing with Dodgson’s Humpty Dumpty – if you are going to twist words to mean something totally different, you should give the rest of the world some warning.
[blockquote] When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
-Through the Looking Glass.[/blockquote]