(RNS) A Virginia judge ruled on Friday (Dec. 19) that three parcels of land belong to parishes that have broken away from the Episcopal Church, handing conservatives an important, if tentative, legal win.
An 1867 state law, passed as Virginia congregations separated over slavery, allows a parish to disaffiliate from a denomination where a division has occurred while maintaining legal control over parish property.
Judge Randy Bellows of Fairfax Circuit Court ruled Friday the three parcels of land in Northern Virginia, which include church buildings, are covered by the “division statute,” as it is commonly known.
In April, Bellows ruled that a “division of the first magnitude” has arisen in the worldwide Anglican Communion and its U.S. branch, the Episcopal Church, over homosexuality.
Friday’s ruling ends the first chapter of an expensive legal battle.
The Diocese of Virginia, which is challenging the breakaway churches’ ownership claims, has spent $2 million on legal fees thus far, and has pledged to appeal Bellows’ decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
“One Virginia judge has looked at this case,” said Henry D.W. Burt, secretary of the Diocese of Virginia, “now seven Virginia justices need to.”
In 2007, 11 congregations in Northern Virginia voted to secede from the Episcopal Church because of the denomination’s support for gay rights and other liberal developments. The congregations have reorganized as the Anglican District of Virginia.
“We hope that the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia will realize that it is time to stop this legal battle,” said Jim Oakes, vice-chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia. “In these economic times, we should be focused on helping our communities and spreading the gospel, not spending millions of dollars on ongoing legal battles.”
But the Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia maintain that parish property is held in trust for the diocese and the denomination.
People may leave the church, they maintain, but the steeples stay.
Moreover, they believe that Virginia’s “division statute” is unconstitutional because it infringes on a church’s right to have its own rules.
“Within the Episcopal Church,” Virginia Bishop Peter Lee said in a statement, “we may have theological disagreements, but those disagreements are ours to resolve according to the rules of our own governance.”
The Rev. Charles Robertson, canon to Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, said “We are not surprised — or discouraged– by the adverse aspects of today’s decision…We shall now seek review of this case by the Supreme Court of Virginia and are optimistic that that court will reverse the trial court’s interpretation.”
By Daniel Burke
Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted December 19, 2008 at 5:51 pm
As I’ve said before (and without any hard evidence for my belief) this seems like a divorce to me. The people and the denomination make up the church and contribute to the life of the fellowship there. It should be divided in some way that makes both contributions acknowledged.
posted December 19, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Good luck with the other seven judges, and the Supreme Court of VA, people.
posted December 19, 2008 at 7:21 pm
It sounds like they might have a tough time winning a case like that in Virginia but I’m no lawyer. As I’ve said before, the law should determine and if the law sides with the conservatives that’s a little disappointing but so be it.
posted December 19, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I drew the same analogy, Confess. Now we know that mostly in divorces the woman gets the home, so who would that be in this case (and no, I’m not sexist:-)?
posted December 20, 2008 at 12:08 am
Confess & Tom, I agree that this is very much like a divorce. However, assuming gender lines for division of property is no appropriate even in a divorce. Making that assignment here is also inappropriate. After all, the biblical image is that the Church/Nation is the bride and God is the groom. Which is “the CHurch” is exactly what is in question. Regardless, as in a divorce, it may be better if the asset were sold and the proceeds split. Or some other more reasonable and equitable division of the assets is more likely. However, I have not gotten the sense that anyone wants to be reasonable – much like a divorce. That is why mediation is necessary. In this case it will take at least 14 ears to hear tolerably all of the arguments, demands, and expectations.
I would not want to be one of the judges. These domestic battles get very nasty and incredibly personal for everyone involved.
posted December 20, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The diocese was in negotiation with the departing parishes and both parties had signed agreement not take it to the courts. In 2006, Ms Katherine Jefferts Schori was elected presiding bishop, and the bishop informed the churches that the negotiations might be in trouble because “there is a new sheriff in town.” Sure enough, there was a phone call from Ms Schori’s lawyer and the next day the diocese withdrew from negotiations and filed suit (see ). The diocese, instead of being compensated for the parishes, has now spent millions. (It is estimated that $5 million has been spent on both sides.)
Ms Schori’s “my way or the highway” leadership style resulted in the diocese of Nevada having the worst population adjusted decline. She takes these same “skills” to the national level, and the denomination is now the fastest declining.
posted December 20, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Actually TEC and the Diocese may have spent 5M but the ADV congregations have paid significantly less.
posted December 21, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I agree that they should accept whatever judgment from the court, put appealing is perfectly sensible, the whole reason we have differing levels of the judicial branch is because they have differing, and superceeding purposes, the trial court’s job stops at determining whther or not the diosce has, by current laws, the right to do what they’ve done, not if those laws should in fact be in place given current time frame and situation, that level of judgment falls to the supreme court, and rightfully so.
So I think the appeal is something they should not be criticized for, it is only fair, and personally I think the 1800′s division clause is unconstitutional. If ever parish could keep land after succeeding, then it would pretty much legalize robbery, something which I thought Christians were against, but that’s just me.
If you break-away from someone, you leave THEIR property as well. If you throw someone out of your house that doesn’t mean they get to lob-off the room they were living in and take it with them, and though these people left of their own choosing, same concept applies.
The 1800′s law may have made sense then but now I think it is time to change it.
posted December 21, 2008 at 7:42 pm
EXCELLENT
posted December 22, 2008 at 11:39 am
I hate to side with the conservatives here, but I would imagine they do have every right to the property. As I understand it, pastors (not sure of the correct honorific for this denomination) are assigned to churches & have no legal rights to them. Likewise, the churchgoers have no claim to the property or the land it is on. I don’t see why that would change just because the pastor & his followers side together to declare ownership. It strikes me as being similar to a Walmart manager & a group of customers claiming ownership of a store branch – the manager may work there and the customers may shop there, but that doesn’t really amount to a legitimate claim to the deed.
posted December 22, 2008 at 11:42 am
Boy, did I ever read this article backwards – I guess I wasn’t siding with the conservatives, after all.
posted December 26, 2008 at 4:03 am
The 1867 Division clause seems perfectly applicable in the current case.
In 1867, churches had differing views on slavery. Something that while not being apart of any Anglican statements of faith, is something that doctrinally divides people on some very basic christian beliefs such as “All men being made in the image of God”, and against the Old Testament view of the purpose of slavery. This divide was seen as enough to show that the parishes had right to remain as parishes, originally from the same denomination, but due to CHANGES OF BELIEFS within the denomination, the different parishes had rights to exist seperately, that means land and all.
This clause is more clear cut in the current Virginia cases, as the wider communion has SPECIFICALLY changed CORE beliefs, and the seperated parishes are more Anglican than the wider U.S. communion. They should have the right to continue practicing the original beliefs of the Anglican church, that they were practicing prior to the Episcopal Churches legislative deviations.
It is nothing like a Walmart manager and employees trying to claim it as their own. They are but stewards. There are similarities, in that the wider church helps fund the local churches, helps provide ministers, and governance. BUT, the wider church is called a communion, because it is the communion of all the local churches, The wider church is only the sum of its parts, nothing more. It is not a financial institution, but a gathering of mutual believers. Other churches post the reformation, set up their organisations to reflect this. This would not be an issue in a Baptist, or Presbyterian church, because they are set up to reflect this truth.