So, wait…did my side win?
God bless.

Joey this is outstanding I was praying for these guys to win against the big church. Great fight and a even better win if they uphold the original law. I suspect they put this law in just in case the church was tempted to bully again.

Joey, I did not realize you are an Episcopalian.
cknuck, the law was put in place to protect the Virginians against the northerners and the northern church.
Re-read the article….this is far from over.
Peace!

Yeah that’s just about right JohnQ. It’s great protection and brilliant insight.

When there is money and property involved, all sides “fight to the death”. I sincerely hope that the national church gets to keep it’s property. The guys who split can find other accomodations…in Nigeria…isn’t that where their Archbishop is?
It’s not over yet….
An 1867 law may need a little updating.

I’m not an Episcopalian; I just meant “my side” as the conservative schismatics. (…Is that a word?) I really have no idea, legally, who owns the churches; most of the courts have found in favor of the national church, but I kind of cheer for the conservatives, not just because I happen to agree with their theology, but almost just from a “big vs. small” perspective—I mean, really, does the ECUSA _need_ these buildings?
God bless.

This is not exactly David v. Goliath. It is more Saul v. the Philistines. The pastors leading the retreat of the congregations are not all that interested in the well being of their church. For the most part they bathe in the attention.
Tonight I am staying in a motel right around the corner from the Falls Church. It is an impressive facility. The Episcopal Church invested heavily in the church construction and renovation. I wonder how much the congregation invested. It is also an historical building. This will be quite the tangled web, and I expect any decision by a lower court will be appealed.
A crazy “king” v. an invading army. No winners worth backing.

Not only does the congregation pay for the property and its improvements and maintenance but they are also require to pay money to TEC, they’ve paid for the building serveral times over, for over paid clergy of TEC and their retirement plans. Many of their kids have grown up in the church, married in the church and died in the church, give them the darn church for heaven’s sake. If they don’t believe in the new direction the church is going in and the bible backs them up then they seem to be standing on the foundation of the Christian movement that built the church. I’d bet the church founders would back them up.

“I’d bet the church founders would back them up.”
No doubt they are in heaven (well, some of them) cheering them on as we speak.
Or wait, God knows what’s going to happen, right? Does He spread the word or give holy hints or run a lottery on things like that? Or are all the folks there way too busy singing his praises every moment of every hour to even be aware of this kind of thing?
Uh, dws.

cknuck-
You make it sound as though you think that 100% of the congregates want to leave TEC. Not the case. A good percentage are still loyal to TEC. Why should they and their kids suffer because some of the local priests and the bishop want to break away?
Peace!

I wish more congregations who feel compelled to break away from denominations over theological issues would have the courage of their convictions and be willing to walk away from any property disputes that result. It would say a lot about how important they believe the issues to be, and yet would show respect for the institutions they are leaving behind. And after all, the church is people, not property.
On the other hand, I wish that liberal denominations that preach tolerance would have the courage of THEIR convictions and practice it towards their dissenting members in property matters like this. If they could find a way to let the dissenters continue to worship in the buildings that their offerings have built and maintained over the years, it would back up their claims of sorrow and regret over the divisions that have arisen. Tolerance doesn’t mean much if it is only extended to those who agree with you….

BrJr-
You like cknuck make it appear as though all the members of these congregations wish to leave TEC….that is not the case.
So you both seem to be suggesting that the people who wish to continue as Episcopalians should just let those that want to break away (and join prejudice-supportive leaders from other countries) take the property that is held in trust for all Episcopalians? So, those that want to continue to be Episcopalians should have to go out and obtain new churches to continue their worship when the original churches are Episcopal Churches…not African Anglican or South American Anglican churches?
Is that really what you are suggesting?
After all, it is the dissenter who wish to leave TEC….no one is asking those that dissent to leave.
Peace!

I hope the local churches win this battle. The Episcopal “Church” is a schismatic body that, frankly, needs to die, so that real Anglicanism can regain a solid foundation in America.

For reference, here is the Virginia statute which Judge Bellows determined is applicable in the instant case:
§ 57-9. How property rights determined on division of church or society.
A. If a division has heretofore occurred or shall hereafter occur in a church or religious society, to which any such congregation whose property is held by trustees is attached, the members of such congregation over 18 years of age may, by a vote of a majority of the whole number, determine to which branch of the church or society such congregation shall thereafter belong. Such determination shall be reported to the circuit court of the county or city, wherein the property held in trust for such congregation or the greater part thereof is; and if the determination be approved by the court, it shall be so entered in the court’s civil order book, and shall be conclusive as to the title to and control of any property held in trust for such congregation, and be respected and enforced accordingly in all of the courts of the Commonwealth.
B. If a division has heretofore occurred or shall hereafter occur in a congregation whose property is held by trustees which, in its organization and government, is a church or society entirely independent of any other church or general society, a majority of the members of such congregation, entitled to vote by its constitution as existing at the time of the division, or where it has no written constitution, entitled to vote by its ordinary practice or custom, may decide the right, title, and control of all property held in trust for such congregation. Their decision shall be reported to such court, and if approved by it, shall be so entered as aforesaid, and shall be final as to such right of property so held.
(Code 1919, § 40; 1972, c. 825; 2005, cc. 681, 772.)
http://tinyurl.com/5ho4om
Paragraph B obviously does not apply in this instance: no parish in the Episcopal Church is “entirely independent of any other church or general society.” I think that must refer only to nondenominational churches.
The constitutionality of this statute is open to question, and a hearing is scheduled for May, as stated in the story above. And, if I understand rightly, the Big Question – which group rightfully owns the property, the Episcopalians or the Schismatics? – is up in October.

Nate -
Not that I agree, but I’m pretty confident you meant to say that the Episcopal Church is an apostate, not schismatic, body. It’s the CANAites who are schismatic, whether orthodox or no.
BrJr -
I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. In my diocese, we have had one and only one parish leave on account of the recent troubles, and they did relinquish the building and grounds. I lost some friends when they left, but it spoke very well of them that they walked away, and walked away singing.
As to the second: nearly every “liberal” parish or diocese in TEC does practice tolerance – no, more than that: hospitality! – to dissenting members in property and other matters. All are welcome, to come, to stay, to go, to return. All are welcome, all, all, all! to quote Abp Tutu).
I have brother and sister Episcopalians who I love and share fellowship with, whose theological and social opinions make me cringe – but they are my brothers and sisters and I love them as they love me. We all are called to welcome Jesus, however he may appear.
It’s when and only when they tell us that they are no longer brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church do we say, “Okay, bye! And don’t let the door hit you in the on the way out.” We’re certainly not going to tell them to take the door with them when they leave the Episcopal Church, and it’s arrogance itself to expect us to!
If your son or daughter decided that their opinions are so different from yours that they can no longer tolerate being in the family, that’s bad enough. But if they then said that, because they can no longer tolerate you, they expected you to move out – you’d think they need to get their heads examined! And you would be right.
And that’s why the schismatic CANAites, theolologically superior or no, don’t get the building.

Well said, DeaconScott.

The diocese holds the deed to the church in trust for all Episcopalians. The fact that the peoople who want to leave have worshipped there, and paid for some support of the facilities is really irrelevant, as are the opinions non-Episcopalians who think our church should die out for some a brand of Christianity they deem legitimate to take over. I pay rent on an apartment that goes to maintain the property I live, and pay the salary and retirement of the complex manager; I still have no legal claim to the building if I decide to leave, I don’t hold the deed.
I’ve used this analogy before and I think it stands. To draw a parallel between TEC and Wal-Mart, the entire church would be the corporation, a store a diocese, the front end a parish, and cashiers parishoners. Ultimately, the owners of any store and anything in it is the corporation itself, the entire church; but everything is managed, for simplicity, at the store, or diocesan level. If a bunch of cashiers get po’ed and want to leave, they have every right to do so, they don’t get to take their cash registers with them. The fact is the only schismatic parishes making a stink are the ones where the property is worth millions of dollars. Other parishes with the same convictions have left the property behind

Depends on what you mean by “schismatic,” DeaconScott. The elites in the Episcopal Church have pretty clearly shown that they’re not too interested in what the rest of the Anglican Communion thinks of what they’re doing, which pretty much makes their actions schismatic. On one definition, the insistence on going your own way despite what the traditions says is precisely what it means to be schismatic, and those who separate from such people are not themselves schismatics.

Nate -
I really beg to differ. TEC is an autonomous (“autocephalous” is the technical term, actually) church, a member of the Anglican Communion of churches. As such and guided by the Spirit, she governs herself, badly and well, foolishly and wisely.
As may be said of all the other churches in the Communion. We respect their boundaries and wish they would respect ours. We have, when asked, invariably stated that we cherish our membership in the Communion, and have done all that we can as quickly as we can, to maintain and strengthen those relationships, and deeply regret that our actions have strained them so.
But no, we do not regret the actions themselves. We are going the way we believe the Holy Spirit is leading us, and we have very good Scriptural, traditional, and reasonable reasons for believing so.
But is not we who are rejecting anyone: it is we who are are rejected, by some. Curiously enough, we are rejected precisely because we refuse to reject; have begun to stop rejecting and marginalizing others.

Nate-
Who are you referring to when you write “The elites in the Episcopal Church….”
Our leads are not self-appointed. Our bishops don’t just appoint themselves to the position and take the title of bishop. Our presiding bishop does not appoint himself/herself.
Unlike the RCC, our leaders do not appoint other leaders.
Our bishops are voted on and then confirmed.
Should the Anglican Communion throw us out….and/or leave us out….it would not be a “schism” but rather a breaking of the communion. As DeaconScott pointed out…we are an autonomous group that belongs to the Anglican Communion…not a division of the the Anglican Church.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Anglican Communion but has not authority over the Episcopal Church. Any requests made by him are simply requests that TEC can choose to follow or not follow. They carry no authority.
Peace!

“BrJr-
You like cknuck make it appear as though all the members of these congregations wish to leave TEC….that is not the case.
So you both seem to be suggesting that the people who wish to continue as Episcopalians should just let those that want to break away (and join prejudice-supportive leaders from other countries) take the property that is held in trust for all Episcopalians? So, those that want to continue to be Episcopalians should have to go out and obtain new churches to continue their worship when the original churches are Episcopal Churches…not African Anglican or South American Anglican churches?
Is that really what you are suggesting?
After all, it is the dissenter who wish to leave TEC….no one is asking those that dissent to leave.
Peace!”
I am assuming that a voting majority of members of these congregations (as defined by the bylaws of the church – which members agree to abide by when they become members) have determined not to continue their affiliation with the Episcopalian Church of America, but do want to continue to be a part of the global Anglican Communion.
In my area, there are many Episcopal churches whose facilities are underused and who could badly use an influx of members. (Some parishes are already merging because of these dynamics.) If that is the case in Virginia, the loyal minority could be encouraged to move to such nearby parishes with the goal of revitalizing them. Or the existing congregation could split into two bodies that would agree to share the existing building. Or a reasonable buyout agreement could be made for the dissenters, treating them as shareholders, not merely as employees or donors.
The impression given in the news reports it is the real estate value of these properties that is of interest to the diocese. Would they even be able to keep the churches open if a large majority of their congregations left? Or would they merely be selling the churches to be used by another denomination (or developer) anyways?
My point is that there would seem to be compromises that could be made regarding property that aren’t being attempted. To me (an outsider), the all-or-nothing approach being offered to the dissenters appears spiteful and punitive. It does not come across as respectful and tolerant of others with deeply held differences. I don’t know and can’t judge the actual motives of the diocesan hierarchy. But I can make a judgment about how it appears to me.
And I did say that I would prefer that the dissenters would respectfully walk away when they are presented with property disputes. They don’t do their cause any favors by trying to use the courts to let them have their cake and eat it, too. A building is just a building. Let it go and start fresh.
Either side could say that a building isn’t worth fighting about. Neither side is willing to do so. I’m suggesting you can’t serve both God and mammon, and it looks to me like *both* sides are choosing mammon in this particular battle.

Ananymous -
You are clearly laboring under some significant misapprehensions regarding the Episcopal Church.
It varies from diocese to diocese and parish to parish, but in most places, “members” of a parish are people who are known to the Rector to have attended services in the past year, and to have contributed “time, talent, and treasure” in some way. Period.
And people do not “agree to bylaws” when they enter TEC. People are Baptized and Confirmed (or, if already Confirmed in another part of the wounded Body of Christ which practices Confirmation, like the Romans), they are received. The exact “agreements” may be found on pp 302 – 205, and 307 – 310 of the Book of Common Prayer. An electronic text may be found at http://tinyurl.com/5ywz53 . You can see that these “agreements” have nothing to do with “bylaws,” but with salvation through Christ.
(NOT incidentally, it is my understanding that the majority of members of The Falls Church and of Truro Church who voted to leave TEC were never members of TEC at all, never having been baptized, confirmed, or received into TEC: they were members of the parishes, but not of TEC. So they, the individuals, really aren’t members of the Anglican Communion in the first place! Which makes their actions, and gall in demanding the assets, all the more astonishing.)
And of course the real estate value of these properties is of value to the diocese! Real property is an asset, and assets are of value to any for-profit or not-for-profit corporation such as a church, just as it is for anyone. To a church, all the more so, for these assets not infrequently have been given by faithful members, long departed, who have gone before us, who have entrusted them to us.
So these properties, which parishes hold in trust for the diocese, and the diocese for the national church, are of value. We have fiduciary obligations to those who have gone before and those who are yet to come, not to squander the property or permit it to be stolen from us.
In the event that we cannot use the property as it was intended, we will sell or lease it to other churches. As you correctly pointed out, we do that, sometimes creatively sharing space and clergy with ELCA or other denominations. And we would be happy to sell or lease it to these “Anglican” churches, if they had any business being on this continent.
So, as you say, they can have their cake, and they can eat it, too, but they can’t have OUR cake. It’s simply astonishing that they would think they could, or should. We’ll share our cake with them – we do that every Sunday with whoever comes, you know – but if they find us to be as intolerable as it seems they do, why would they want it, much less expect it?

God is out teacher…..
It’s interesting that this problem arises as it does. The Episcopal/Anglican heirarchy complains that schismatics have no right to take church property. It must be nice to look so firmly forward in history ignoring the fact that the Church of England was originally a schismatic church itself, separating from the Roman Catholic church for no more powerful reason than that King Henry wanted to divorce his Catholic queen in favor of a younger more fertile model. Maybe one should check the precident of the Anglican church’s own example visa-vis Roman Catholic church properties taken with the breakaway Church of England.
Did the church “walk away” with nothing and build all new churches and leave the Roman Catholic cathedrals intact?
Personally, I’d just walk away if I no longer agreed, but then I haven’t donated millions to build looming great cathedrals, so I wouldn’t have the sense of ownership the schismatic Anglicans do.
Very interesting process to watch. Don’t know who to root for.
Tom

Tom -
Actually, the popular version of the history of the Church of England which you summarize above, sadly, is inaccurate in several significant ways.
The origins of the Church of England are lost to history. Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine to found the church in England, but when he got there, he found the church in England! Some say it was imported by monks from Ireland, but no one really knows. Curiously, the ways of the church differed from those of the western church (of Rome) in several significant ways, including the use of the Julian calendar.
In any event, the English church began as independent from Rome. In 664, Saint Hilda convened the Synod of Whitby, at which the predecessor of the King of England, Oswy of Northumbria, decided that the English church would come into communion with Rome, and share the calendar, and so on. Not quite a thousand years later, another English king reversed Oswy’s decision.
And Henry did so, not because he wanted to “divorce his Catholic Queen for a younger … model” (as you crassly put it). Henry was a Catholic until his death, as are all members of what is now known as the Anglican Communion, just as are all members of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions.
But the “more fertile” part is accurate. At that time, it was believed that conception and the gender of children were due to the the mother, and it was dynastically necessary for the King to have a male child. The Wars of the Roses had only just ended with the victory of Henry VII, and his son could not let the line die out. Another war of that kind – which, without a male heir, would have been unavoidable – would have simply destroyed England. As King, Henry could not allow that to happen.
So he had to get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, his wife, his brother Arthur’s widow. Divorces were not uncommon among the ruling classes of the time (sorta like Hollywood in the 30s and 40s). Henry petitioned the Pope, but at the time he was the prisoner of Emperor Charles V, Catherine’s nephew, and was not in a position to piss him off.
The King was in a double-bind: he had to do something, and could do nothing. So he did a new thing – or rather, re-did an old thing.
So Henry, who began life as a wonderful king and excellent theologian, did a number of things, both very good and very bad, and some of them obviously damaged his soul deeply. Some of his reasons for doing things were far less than noble, but some of them were very noble. And not all the reasons for Clement VII’s inaction were noble.
But in any event, the real founder of the independent Church of England was Elizabeth I, not Henry.
Just wanted to correct some popular misconceptions. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to do so.

DeaconScott:
Thanks for the history lesson about the Church of England. I too thought Henry VIII was it’s founder, if you will, because of his need for a male child.
Also learned from you and JohnQ that TEC isn’t “run” by the Anglican community.
I enjoy learning new things about different churches.

DS, thank you. That was very informative and quite different from the popular account. I wonder where that popular account came from.

nnms -
I think that this bit of history is generally taught to Americans in fifth grade, and not again. And history is generally dumbed down for fifth graders.
What’s surprising is that so many grown-ups persist in thinking that the fifth-grade version is the whole story. The fifth-grade version of nothing is the whole story!
DS

All of this wrangling over property i.e., money, puts both sides in a bad light and seems as non-Christian as can be. The Virginia congregations seem to care more about the buildings and their attachment to them than they do about their beliefs, while the Presiding bishop’s comments — that she would rather have the buildings desanctified and turned into secular places are really beneath contempt. If TEC values its property over peace, let them have it. Christ and the apostles preached in the outdoors, in the synagogues (don’t recommend trying that these days) and the first churches gathered in private homes. Maybe the traditionalist Episcopalians should surrender their property, and leave the riches to the worldly TEC. After all, didn’t somebody once say something about how it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to pass into heaven…? Shame on both sides, in my humble opinion.

HC -
Let’s say a bunch of your uncles and cousins came to you and said that, because you worked on __________’s campaign for President and adopted a baby from ___________, you are no longer a member of their family. How would you feel? What would you do?
And they then went on to say that, because you are no longer in the family, they were going to take the trust fund you have set up for your children’s education (to which they had contributed) and give it to your nieces and nephews, their children. What would you do then?
Would you really? Well, that’s beneath contempt: shame on you!
DS

Generally when there is a discontented party, the discontented party leaves and does their own thing. Thus the discontented group should leave and “do their own” thing, IMO. That’s how many churches and other organizations have started…leaving group “A” and becoming group “B” with a slightly different name, like the Presbyterians and their 2 differnt groups…don’t remember the names.

The term, Joey, is separatist, and separatists never win, because they always divide the church into smaller and smaller less capable organizations. It is sad to see the moderate middle way of the Episcopalian church being overturned by divisive conservative elements. Separatists believe that excluding others will cause them to convert. The old proverb “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar” is apt. They maintain their own beliefs at the expense of watching the rest of society leave them behind. Eventually generations later, the separatist church will come around to believing everything that they originally condemned, but this will only be after decades of lost opportunity of exampling and spreading Christian love to the world.

Jesus didn’t come so that there would be a general consensus, He said that He would divide even unto family. It’s not about being big or powerful its about what is right and the Episcopal church has turned away from what is right just as the Bible says concerning some churches.
Salvation is about separating one’s self from the world. Why? Because given to our own devices the world is going to hell.

No, they are closer to what’s right than the conservatives.

cknuck -
I’m going to do it again.
You said: “He said that He would divide even unto family.” I think I know the quote to which you are referring – and if I’m right, you are misinterpreting it very severely – but I’d like you to supply the citation, please.
And whatever you do, bear in mind John 13:34-35, followed up by 14:15-16, and 14:20-24. Note especially 15:4-11. Indeed, almost all of the Final Discourse.
That is a Jesus’ central message (as distinct from his central action, which he was just about to accomplish), and striking indictment to those who sow schism; perhaps to you.
Your friend,
DS

cknuck: It is fortunate that some in the church, in this case TEC has members that believe all are created equal, including women as priests, gay and lesbian people, etc. Those that disagree can start their own church, to continue to discriminate against part of the world’s Christians.

Deacon Scott, Thanks for the study I really enjoyed searching out the scriptures you noted, but our Lord did not stop there that is only part of it check out 15:18 to 27 and then that which applies here is in 16:1&2. I have no doubt the Lord loves us and wants all to know Him, but I also have no doubt that many are lovers of themselves and will do out of church and in church what pleases them, even if it is offering up a mutilated hormone drug filled man as a woman and calling them Pastor or priest, or a sexually confused leader who indulges in homosexuality. That will and has made churches divide. Even though we disagree and I often with strong words, I still think your heart is good and you are my brother.

ck -
Thank you for your kind words. Meanwhile:
Answer the question: supply the citation I asked for.
If you think “‘I have said these things to you to keep you from stumbling. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed the hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God’” relates in any way, I don’t see it – unless by “these things” draws us back to the citations I gave (and the rest of the Discourse), in which case, you need to look at it much more closely. You seem to be stumbling.
But yes, there are indeed many in the church who are seeking to mutilate Christ’s Body on Earth, the church. The schismatics do so every day, and Christ groans again with every attack, from Nigeria, Uganda, Argentina, South Carolina; every fresh affront to the unity to which God calls us all. See John 17:20-23.
And there are many outside the church who do the same, which is why the schismatics who are attempting to destroy the church must stop, and allow us to return to proclaiming Christ’s redeeming work.
You and your brothers-in-arms insist on diluting that message by harping constantly on issues about which Our Lord never said anything, about which no other NT writer said anything (with exactly one exception, which was as an aside), and about which very nearly nothing was mentioned in the OT.
There are lots of things the OT and NT writers and Our Lord himself cared deeply about, and homosexuality simply ain’t one of them. Bearing false witness is one, abusing and tolerating abuse of the poor is one, self-righteous rejection of those God loves is one; homosexuality just isn’t.
I have no idea what you are referring to by “offering up a mutilated hormone drug filled man as a woman,” and I’m not sure I want to know.
If by “a sexually confused leader who indulges in homosexuality” you refer to Bp Robinson, I sincerely expect that “sexually confused” is the last thing he is. He could, perhaps, have been described so during those years he was attempting to deny the reality of his orientation, but that time is long past.
He knows who and what he is; he knows who and what God made him, and God made him a gay man and priest and a bishop. God knows what he’s doing, and I’m really tired of people telling God he’s wrong.

I disagree DC insomuch as whenever a man uses his body other then what it was designed for it is an affront to God. While Jesus never spoke of homosexuality He certainly did give a description on how man and woman are supposed to relate and if you are going to operate out of what He did not say there is a lot of immoral ground yet to cover that is in your version permissible. Because He never said man have sex with other men then He endorsed it? That my friend is a matter laughable.
I’ve heard Gene Robinson speak and he actually was rather boastful of his bisexual activities and is content with the pain he caused those who believed him. Most homosexuals responses are “well his family is alright with it” as if no one was hurt and then there is the response “if he could have just felt free enough to be himself he wouldn’t have had to marry,” nonsense! I do not get the sense of a man who did anything but what he wanted to do when I listen to him.
Homosexuality is nonproductive, and destructive period and it brings destruction to the church while it’s advocates look on with blind eyes.
Because Jesus didn’t mention it does not legitimize it, when you study the teachings of Jesus you will find He did not leave a people group out, homosexuality is a sexual preference even by definition, there is not a gene not a blood type or anything else God made to prove anything other then it is the direct result of sin.

Somethings never change, huh, cknuck? How in the world has the church survived all the homosexual activity done before and during the time of Jesus and after? Homosexuality has always been around and will continue to be around. You’re so sure that it brings destruction to the church. The only destruction will be done by the folks that refuse to accept the fact that folks are born either heterosexual or homosexual. Didn’t God make everybody? TEC has accepted their belief that God did indeed make everybody. Those that disagree are leaving, and that could be considered “destroying the church.”