Breaking news from the Diocese of Virginia

[angli_fan]

[from Daily Episcopalian]

Today, January 18, 2007, the Executive Board of the Diocese of Virginia took a step forward in preserving the mission and ministry of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church for current and future generations of Episcopalians and adopted a resolution concerning the property of 11 Episcopal Churches where a majority of members -- including the vestry and clergy -- have left The Episcopal Church but have not relinquished Church property and have continued to occupy the churches and use the property owned by the Diocese.

Specifically, the Executive Board declared the property of those churches – real and personal – to be abandoned in accordance with the Canons of the Diocese.

...The 11 churches where property has been declared abandoned are:
Church of the Redeemer, Chantilly
Church of the Apostles, Fairfax
Church of the Epiphany, Herndon
Church of Our Saviour, Oatlands
Church of the Word, Gainesville
Potomac Falls Church, Sterling
St. Margaret’s, Woodbridge
St. Paul’s, Haymarket
St. Stephen’s, Heathsville
Truro, Fairfax
The Falls Church, Falls Church

Bp. Peter Lee also addressed the Diocese of VA in a letter:

...For years diocesan leadership has worked to accommodate the views of the leadership of these churches. We have resisted attempts to deny them seat, voice and vote at the Annual Council when they stopped funding the budget of the Diocese. They have enjoyed access to our diocesan-managed medical and dental benefits. They have enjoyed other diocesan resources like grant funding for church planting, mission work and congregational development, Shrine Mont and Roslyn. I have met dozens of times with the leadership of these churches and with their counsel in an effort to find common ground on matters of theology. Three times I invited the retired Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey to conduct confirmations and receptions when my episcopal presence was either specifically refused or would have been a source of tension for the membership. I endured being told that the parents of confirmands would not want me to lay hands on their children at confirmation and I have received other personal attacks including death wishes in letters, reports and public statements.

I have tried to find a way forward in our dispute over property that would keep us from having to resort to civil courts. No longer am I convinced that such an outcome is possible, nor do I believe that such a move at this time is dishonorable. Rather, I believe as does the leadership of our Diocese and of our Church, that the actions taken to secure our property are consistent with our mission and with our fiduciary and moral obligations to the Church of our ancestors, to the church we serve today, and to the church of those who will follow us.

The votes to separate from The Episcopal Church negated all the work we had done in good faith over the years to accommodate the views of the leadership of these churches and focused our attention on the only two remaining factors: the status of clergy and the status of property. The work of the Property Commission, which assembled immediately after the votes to separate, brought together the years of efforts at accommodation and the previous year of discussion over matters of property and clergy status. As that work was brought into the Property Commission’s view and shared with the Executive Board, Standing Committee and with counsel for the separated churches, it became clear that no position other than relinquishing our claim to Episcopal Church property would be satisfactory to those who have left. There would be no serious effort at reaching a fair market price for property. There would be no discussion of the issues on a case by case basis. There was repeated desire to wrap issues of clergy status, including matters having to do with clergy pensions, into the discussion of church property, an inappropriate bundling of unrelated issues. It became clear that the process of negotiation would be unduly cumbersome and would risk further a second alienation of those loyal Episcopalians who had already been disenfranchised by the vote of the majority of their former members.

Recently, attorneys for the dissidents sent a letter threatening action against me and any other diocesan officials who “set foot on” or “trespass” on Episcopal Church property. By contrast, your leadership has not moved to change locks or freeze assets. Rather, once again, we have moved to accommodate these dissidents at the expense of our faithful people.
Following the votes of the majority of members of these congregations, the counsel of these now non-Episcopal congregations filed reports with the clerks of the courts in their jurisdictions under a statute in the Code of Virginia that they think gives them the right to Episcopal Church property. We have intervened in that action. We are supported in this by The Episcopal Church on a national level. It is with a heavy heart that your leadership has moved in this direction, but it is not without a long period of efforts at accommodation and negotiation.

Read the whole thing:

blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/01/breaking_news_from_the_diocese.html#more

[anglicansablaze]

Does Bishop Lee have a plan for filling those empty buildings with new congregants if he attempts to seize them and if, after the protracted court battles, the courts rule in favor of the diocese? Or does he plan to sell the buildings to fund the operations of the diocese. In Mayfield, Kentucky is an empty building - the former church building of St. Martin's in the Fields. It is not ideally located - in the middle of an old subdivision, at the terminus of a dead-end street, restricted accessibility, no visibility so it has limited use as a prospective commercial building. The church was closed and what was left of its congregation merged with another Episcopal church. The church apparently died what may be described as a "natural" death, perhaps hastened by developments in the Episcopal Church in the past 15 years. It was a viable church when I lasted visited this part of Kentucky over 10 years ago. Successfully seizing the property to my mind is a Pyrrhian victory. What does it accomplish?

[srigdon]

Robin,

One thing it does do is deter other potential hostile takeovers of parishes by people - possibly by people from more conservative denominations - who want to take churches out of ECUSA.

We all know how the character of a parish/diocese/denomination can be drastically altered from a marginal majority to a supermajority. The majority (conservative or liberal) brings in a pastor/bishop who is not tolerant of opposing viewpoints and makes life hell for such people - drives them out and attracts people of like opinion. It is arguable that the liberal majority is doing this with the national church and Bishop Schofield has been doing it in San Joaquin for a generation.

So, to sum up, Bishop Lee's tactics do deter other schismatic actions, or at least make anybody think about the personal (and possibly legal) consequences of actions to take a parish out of the diocese. Down here in San Diego, individual vestrymen got sued. It's a real pain to have to go get your own lawyers, not knowing if the parish will pay for your defense.

I'm sure, Robin, that you don't like this sort of strategy, but I'm just trying objectively to assess it - not making an ethical case for it. And as for having congregations ready to occupy the buildings, I'm sure you're right. But it might have been different had those parishes been built over time with leadership willing to deal with our current problems in less dramatic ways. There probably are substantial populations in Virginia which could populate those churches - but it would take time to get them.

Sidney

[anglicansablaze]

Sidney,

I think that churches like the Virginia ones which are transferring to the jurisdiction of CANA in Virginia do not see any future for themselves in the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has gone to far in its present direction and they see no likelihood of a reversal of that direction. The ascendancy of Liberal Catholicism in the Episcopal Church is not an isolated phenomena and it did not just happen yesterday. If you are a Reformed Anglican, the prospects for you to be able to practice your faith in the Episcopal church with a congregation and a pastor that share the same faith as you are very bleak.

Likening this transfer to another Anglican jurisdiction, one that is much more orthodox from a Reformed Anglican perspective than the Episcopal Church, to a hostile takeover is really not a good analogy. I do not think that an accurate anology exists for what is happening in the business world. The Virginia churches are fleeing a province of the Anglican Church that is unfriendly even hostile to their beliefs for an Anglican jurisdiction that is friendlier. Suggesting that what is happening is a hostile takeover is to put a particular spin upon what is happening, to blame the Anglican jurisdiction to which they are fleeing for what is the fault of the Anglican province from which they are fleeing. It has become the trend in the Episcopal Church to blame the victiom and those who extend help to the victim instead of taking responsibility for being the victimizer. It is a form of denial.

Unless they are new church starts receiving the bulk of their funding from the diocese, the Virginia churches have in all likelihood paid for the buildings even though the diocese may hold title to them. Or they have been paying off the debt on the buildings. If Bishop Lee cannot fill the buildings with new congregations, he must either sell them or leave them vacant. If If he sells them, who will most likely buy them, another church? If he does not sell them and the churches that once occupied them have not payed off the debt on the building. the diocese must assume that debt, placing a greater financial strain on the diocese.

he Dennis Canon and the diocesan canons that were adopted in imitation of that canon were designed to discourage churches from seceding from the Episcopal Church over the issues of women's ordination and prayer book revision. They are a fairly recent development in the history of the Episcopal Church. Generally, churches constructing a building fund the construction themselves from loans. They generally do not receive money from the diocese for the building's construction. Some dioceses may invite from the churches in the diocese donations for a one time gift to a church constructing its first building. It is a gift, however, and not a loan.

Where a church wishes to transfer to another Anglican jurisdiction, a more workable solution is to required the church to assume complete responsibility for any debt remaining upon a building and to repay the diocese that the church is leaving any monies that the diocese has loaned to the church for the building. Gifts, however, should not be viewed as loans.

The departure of these churches should not be viewed as a bad thing. Those churches that remain will be the ones that embrace a common vision which will actually greatly benefit them and the diocese. The loss of the buildings and other property that the departing churches may take with them will not weaken the diocese or its constituent churches. Rather it will relieve the diocese of any responsibility for them.

The Diocese of Kentucky has an empty church building in Mayfield, Kentucky. The church was closed in 2005 and its tiny congregation merged with that of another church 20 miles away. The buidling is deteriorating from neglect and the lack of an occupant. I do not know if the diocese has any buyers for the building. What is Bishop Lee going to do with eleven buildings?

[NELib]

Well, I don't know about the other locations, but Falls Church and Fairfax are growing areas and even with the current real estate downturn, you could make a lot of money converting them to condos. Though with both properties historical, and at least Falls Church containing a graveyard, it is hard to see how the Diocese could sell them other than as use for a church. I doubt the Diocese could fill them with more revisionists. They could get 50 people or so to attend for a while, but the fact is that Northern Virginia, like much of the Northeast, already has more episcopal churches than it needs. Many (not all) episcopal churches in NoVa are 3/4 empty on Sunday mornings (and effectively do little more than hold services).

Nor do I think the litigation will do much to draw new members to the episcopal church. As for the evangelistic efforts of the Diocese of Virginia, I think it had already seen most if not all of its missions depart before the end of last year, since they had little property to lose. "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You - Please Review Your Umbrella Policy". Though I have also wondered if the Standing Committee should be reviewing their personal liability coverage as well. It seems to me that their actions with the Virginia protocol raise some questions.