From BabyBlue Online:
I've learned this afternoon that the leadership of the Common Cause Partnership is meeting this week to discuss the mission and vision of a new orthodox Anglican structure in North America. . .
Please keep these leaders in prayer as they meet at the Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, Virginia.
So sad to see.
When I first moved to D.C. after college, I attended Christ Church (actually taught Sunday School there) for several years. I guess it's ironic that when my husband and I became engaged and wanted to get married in my home church in Charleston, the rector there said that would be fine, as long as we did our pre-marital counseling at The Falls Church with John Yates - who knew that according to the Diocese of Virginia, we were still on Christ Church land??
From the Washington Times [boldface mine]:
Christ Episcopal Church of Alexandria, one of the most venerable parishes in the Diocese of Virginia, has joined a historic lawsuit against several Northern Virginia parishes attempting to leave the denomination.
Members of the 235-year-old parish were informed Sunday at a parish meeting that the diocese will represent them in the largest property dispute in Episcopal Church history, taking place at the Fairfax County Courthouse. The multi-trial case will resume Oct. 14.
Circuit Court Judge Randy I. Bellows has dealt three consecutive defeats to the diocese and the denomination in their battle to retain millions of dollars of property held by 11 churches that fled over issues of biblical authority and the 2003 election of the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
The diocese will cite 18th-century cases to argue that the Falls Church, a 276-year-old congregation that is the oldest of the departing parishes, cannot lay claim to its property on 5.5 acres in the city of Falls Church. Attorneys have produced two 18th-century land deeds that say Christ Church possesses the property.
The deeds, dated March 19 and 20, 1746, say the land was owned by "Truro parish," the designation for Colonial churches in Pohick, Alexandria and Falls Church. The diocese unearthed two U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1815 and 1824 saying that Christ Church, founded in 1773, is the successor to Truro parish and that the Falls Church was a ward of the Alexandria congregation.
The diocese's attorneys say they can prove that Christ Church still owns about 2 acres of what the Falls Church occupies. That part of the property includes the "historic" Falls Church - a brick building completed in 1769.
In order to argue this case in court, the diocese needed Christ Church's permission to act as its proxy. Although the diocese notified opposition attorneys on Sept. 5 that it would represent Christ Church, it was not until Sept. 22 that the vestry, or governing board, was told of the matter. The vestry approved it Sept. 24.
Parishioners were not so accommodating. On Sunday, some worried that Christ Church's involvement - however distant - in a lawsuit could make its finances precarious. The church has a $135,000 deficit, and only 507 of its 2,459 members - or one-fifth - actually give.
"There were quite a few people who were stunned and said, 'We don't need this,' " said one former vestry member who asked to remain anonymous. "[Parish leaders] didn't give it much time.". . .
From BabyBlue Online, a list of upcoming events:
October 8 - TEC/Diocese of Los Angeles vs Anglican Congregations (Appeal before the California Supreme Court)
October 14 - TEC/Diocese of Virginia vs CANA, Virginia (significantly scaled-down to focus on whether the VA Division Statute also applies to three smaller properties)
Oct. 20-23 - TEC Executive Council, Helena, Montana
Oct. 21-22 - Anglican Awakening - Akron, Ohio
Nov. 4 - Election Day, USANov. 7 - Diocese of Pittsburgh Special Convention - Pittsburgh, PA
Nov. 7-8 - Diocese of Quincy Annual Synod, Quincy, Illinois
Nov. 13-15 - Anglican Awakening, Amesbury, MA
Nov. 14-15 - Diocese of Ft. Worth Convention, Bedford, Texas
Dec. 1-3 - Common Cause Partnership Council
Dec. 15-19 - Windsor Continuation Group Meeting, Mustang Island, Texas
Jan/Feb 2009 - Anglican Primates Meeting, Bahamas
From the Diocese of Virginia [boldface mine]:
The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia announced today that the trial scheduled to begin October 6 will focus solely on the issue of which properties occupied by the CANA congregations are actually subject to their 57-9 petitions.
Though loyal Episcopalians have expressed grave concerns about the validity and fairness of the voting procedures used by the CANA congregations, the Diocese will forgo judicial review of that process to focus on those issues that will most effectively and quickly return Episcopalians to their church homes and result in the overturning of the 57-9 "Division Statute."
The Diocese is preparing to mount a vigorous appeal that addresses the serious legal and religious questions and implications that have arisen from this unfortunate situation. The Diocese will explore fully every option available to restore constitutional and legal protections for all churches in Virginia.
In a trial beginning on October 6, the Court will examine precisely which property is subject to the Division Statute petitions filed by CANA congregations. The Court will determine several issues either before or during trial, including whether the congregation attempting to take the property actually owns the property they seek under its 57-9 petition, whether deed restrictions require the property to remain with the Episcopal Church, and, in one instance, whether a last-minute transfer of property was valid. Once these issues are decided, the Diocese will appeal the Court's rulings on the applicability and validity of the Division Statute.
"In the Episcopal Church, congregations exist because they are in communion with the bishop of a diocese, through recognition by diocesan governing bodies," said the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, Bishop of Virginia. "They cannot unilaterally disestablish themselves or remove themselves from a diocese, and take Episcopal property with them, using the secular court system to validate their actions."
The Diocese is steadfast in its goal of returning faithful Episcopalians to their church homes and restoring the full and time-honored protections of the First Amendment and the Virginia Constitution for religious freedom.
"The court proceedings of the past several months have shown that the Division Statute, which exists only in Virginia, is uniquely hostile to religious freedom and our faith. We are resolute in our commitment to pursue every avenue in seeking the return of Episcopalians who have been exiled from their church homes," said Bishop Lee.
The Diocese again noted the regrettable necessity of these proceedings. "While we have hoped that the CANA congregations would propose a reasonable alternative to litigation," said Henry D.W. Burt, Secretary of the Diocese, "the Church must vigorously protect the legacy of those faithful generations who have gone before for those who will follow."
Check out BabyBlue Online and her reports on the annual CANA council:
Have arrived in Akron for the CANA Council and it's a packed house. In fact, the session on the Prayer Book was so jammed that people were standing out in the hall listening to the session led by Bishop Martyn Minns because all the seats and floor space was filled to capacity.
There are lots of sessions going on - from sessions focused on evangelism, social justice, and mission partnerships, to church planting, healing, raising up the next generation of leaders, and an instructional session on the Eucharist service. . .
From the Living Church:
The 11 Anglican congregations in Virginia involved in litigation with The Episcopal Church received a favorable ruling Wednesday in Fairfax County Circuit Court. Judge Randy Bellows said The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia failed to timely assert their claim that the 11 churches that left The Episcopal Church in 2007 contracted around or waived their right to invoke a Virginia Division statute.
Judge Bellows also ruled that the statute, which concerns the rights of congregations to keep their properties when a majority of members votes to leave their denomination, does not violate the contracts clause provisions of the U.S. and Virginia constitutions as applied to the church properties. . .
From BabyBlue Online:
The next round in the litigation between The Episcopal Church/The Diocese of Virginia and the congregations in Virginia that voted to separate following Bishop Lee's protocol and the statute 57-9 (which has been found to be both applicable and constitutional on all counts but one that has yet to be ruled) is today in the Fairfax Court House.
Judge Randy Bellows will be hearing arguments concerning the property clause of the U.S. Constitution and 57-9. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia has re-entered the case to defend the constitutionality of the statute. In addition, the Diocese has now thought up a new strategy and that is to assert that the eleven congregations "waived" 57-9 - which is sort of odd since they've never mentioned that before now. Guess we'll see what that's all about.
Again, please keep the events today in Judge Bellow's court in your prayers. I understand that millions have been spent over the last month or so by the diocese in preparation for today. Please keep your powder dry and your prayers unfurled. . .
Via email, the weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson for August 8 [boldface mine]:
Dearly Beloved in Christ,
Lambeth is now over. Many of us are studying not only the documents of Lambeth, but the detailed analyses that are being produced by various sources, and then sitting back and saying, "OK, what is really going on, and how does this play out in the next year?"
Reports came in from Lambeth that a number of TEC revisionist bishops were spreading misinformation in their Indaba groups about the state of litigation in the United States. Their claim was that the orthodox churches and dioceses "were suing them," and the blame was really to be put on the orthodox. This is untrue, but it has been proven that if a lie is told often enough, people begin to believe there is something to it. Let us look at a few examples of lawsuits in the US.
In California, the bishop of Los Angeles is suing the orthodox churches, as is also the case in the diocese of San Diego. The Los Angeles orthodox churches won in the lower court and were reversed in a Court of Appeals, and the case is now before the California Supreme Court. The point to take away is that Bishop J. Jon Bruno initiated the lawsuit, demanding even the children's Sunday School crayons (no, I am not joking, you can read it in the public record), and for anyone, especially a California bishop, to assert that they were sued first is a deliberate untruth.
In Virginia, Bishop Peter Lee had worked out an arbitration procedure that would have allowed the churches and the diocese to negotiate an agreed-upon settlement and avoid litigation. The churches proceeded with their parish votes and the registration of the vote tallies with the local Court Houses, as per the 1867 Virginia law that applied to church splits. When the TEC Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori heard about it, she advised Bishop Lee that "there is a new sheriff in town." Lee was told that if he didn't sue the churches, TEC would sue him. Bishop Lee uncharacteristically buckled under the pressure, and without advance notice, launched the lawsuits. For him to say that the Virginia churches sued him would be a gross violation of the truth also.
Somewhere in the United States, a parish may have asked for a declaratory judgment to settle issues of property title, or may have, once they were sued, filed a counter suit in defense, but it has been the model of the orthodox churches not to use the courts to attack bishops, dioceses, or TEC. The very aggressive stance that TEC has taken was first formulated by leadership within the Presbyterian Church in the US, and it appears that TEC Chancellor David Booth Beers is following the Presbyterian game plan to a "P."
As I mentioned above, there are lengthy reviews of the Lambeth documents available, but as an extremely brief summary you must notice that those who prepared the Indaba Reflections Document prepared it as a "reflection," not as a "mind of the Conference." It was not intended for the document to be the primary outcome of the conference, but simply a narrative to track what people and groups were expressing. Finally, the Reflections were not to our knowledge voted on or formally adopted by the Conference, nor was the document intended to be a resolution that called for specific action.
However, the Archbishop of Canterbury took the document and re-characterized it according to his agenda for the future, with the implied endorsement of the entire Lambeth Conference - although it was only a small group's compilation of "reflections." If they didn't know what they were producing, Dr. Williams certainly knew what he wanted, and it did serve his purposes.
Dr. Williams would like us to believe that almost everyone wants the three moratoria on same-sex blessings, gays in the episcopate, and border crossings to be effected. No vote on this was actually taken, but on his word we are to believe this. Dr. Williams would also like us to believe that there is "a strong consensus on the need to examine how the Instruments of Communion will best work." Already voices in TEC are shrilly announcing that they have no intention of having any moratoria on anything, and some have suggested that the General Convention of TEC in the summer of 2009 will overturn any agreement to refrain from consecrations of gay bishops.
Another of Dr. Williams' points is that some sort of covenant is desirable, although the extent of its power will have to be determined. The breakdown will, of course, occur when we get to the specifics of the covenant's contents. Will it be adequate as a covenant to prevent prevarication, and will there be actual consequences for those that either break the covenant or don't sign it?
Dr. Williams believes that most favor a Pastoral Forum as something that would help the situation and he is looking for detail on how it will be formed. What is not discussed is his lack of resolve for actually incurring painful consequences. His abysmal performance with the Panel of Reference and the lack of funding available will be crucial factors. If he needs to ask TEC for money for this, you know in advance the outcome has been bought.
Dr. Williams is already $4 million US dollars in the hole for shortfall on the just-ended Lambeth Conference. He has reportedly asked Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori for permission to raise money from TEC in the United States to help cover the debt. Next year he proposes having the JSC and the ACC and the Primates all meeting in one year. Will there be a budget shortfall next year, too? If so, who would cover it?
Dr. Williams is a master at building things designed not to work, such as the Panel of Reference, and now, the Lambeth Conference. All of this is to keep us together while we listen to his encouragement, promises and announcement of another meeting in six or nine or twelve months. In much of the Anglican world, however, everyone is a bit wiser now, and we realize the cause for his procrastination is that he secretly agrees with the gay agenda and hopes that if he can avoid an actual split, in time we will all come along. It is, after all, happening in England, and why can't everyone be like the Church of England, which lets the secular government tell it what is moral and proper? The latest bizarre story is the Bishop of Exeter, the Rt. Rev. Michael Langrish, giving his blessing for a "gay wedding" between Canon Rodney Bomford and his gardener Paddy O'Neil. The marriage couple held a "stag and hen party" at a local pub and apparently the "bride" dressed up in a pink top hat and had a sash.
Letters that Dr. Williams wrote as recently as 2002, when he was appointed as Archbishop, reveal his real beliefs, and they help us to understand why he cannot and will not act to bring the Anglican Communion into good order and faith. His comments, which several British newspapers have now seen and reported on, refute the Anglican Communion's traditional teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. He goes on to express his hope the the Anglican Communion will at some point change its position to be open to gay partnerships.
He is quoted as saying, "The Bible does not address the matter of appropriate behavior for those who are, for whatever reason, homosexual by instinct or nature." His reported academic brilliance may be as the "emperor's clothes;" this type of remark does such violence to the plain reading of scripture that it should disqualify any such speaker from any level of Holy Orders.
The concept that homosexuality is natural is fully unproven, but, like other types of propaganda, if repeated enough times, some will begin to believe it. For a moment, for the sake of argument, suppose that homosexuality is natural. It then joins many kinds of behavior that are "natural" but forbidden in the Kingdom of God. We are called to put aside the natural in order to put on the supernatural. Violence is very natural for human beings, yet we are called as Christians to turn aside from violence. An eye for an eye is natural, but forgiveness as God forgives us is the model we are called to. When scripture says that men are not to lie with men as with a woman, what part of that is not clear to Dr. Williams? It is an encompassing statement, permitting of no nuancing; it has no footnotes about only applying to heterosexual males who are doing something that they really don't want to do anyway. It uses inclusive language - men are not to do this. Other passages refer to women, lest they feel slighted by omission. Scripture is uncomfortably clear on most of the difficult things such as sex and money, so why is it that the "Primus inter Pares" of the Anglican Communion, who is reputed to be a brilliant scholar, cannot read, mark, learn and inwardly digest these scriptures? Hmm.
If you want to know where all of this is going, read what Rowan had written when he didn't know it would be in the London Times and the Telegraph. Then connect the dots. It does make me wonder if in fact a Queen's option still exists. This revelation about Dr. Williams tells us much about how his use of these post-Lambeth bodies will advance not only his stated agenda, but his now-more-visible underlying agenda.
Let us pray for the Anglican Church, that God's will (not anyone else's) be done. And let us pray for better times and for faithful leaders that the orthodox laity and clergy can truly trust, look up to, and follow.
Blessings and Peace in Jesus Christ,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
BREAKING NEWS: Judge will issue ruling on constitutionality of the Virginia Division Statute 57-9 on Friday, June 27.
From Stand Firm:
The Attorney General's Office for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia have all filed their post-decision briefs in advance of the scheduled May 28 hearing on who owns the property of the 11 parishes that have departed the Diocese of Virginia.
The Attorney General's brief is a defense of Virginia statute 57-9, the so-called "division statute" on which part of the Virginia parishes' cases rest, the applicability of which Judge Bellows ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the parishes a few weeks ago. Bellows will issue his ruling on the constitutionality of the statute at a date following the May 28 hearing.
The Attorney General's brief is here [480Kb PDF]. . .
From the Anglican Communion Network:
Bishop Robert Duncan requests prayers for the Anglican Province of Uganda. He received word this morning that there was a fire last night at the Buddo Girls’ School in Kampala where 19 girls and two adults died. The fire appears to have been deliberately set. Mama Phoebe (wife of Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi) is presently in Virginia. They will be leaving tonight from D.C. with a 12 hour layover in London. Please pray for the families of the victims, for Mama Phoebe and the Rev. Helen, for Archbishop Henry and for all those involved.
A number of Anglican Communion Network parishes, under the care of Bishop John Guernsey, are members of the Anglican Church in the Province of Uganda.
From George Conger:
An American state court has handed the Episcopal Church a major defeat in its battle for control of the property of breakaway congregations in Virginia, rejecting its argument that there was no “division” in the Episcopal Church.
In an 88 page opinion released on April 3, Fairfax County Judge Randy Bellows held that a Nineteenth century law governing the disposition of church property in the event of a church schism applied to the dispute between the Diocese of Virginia and CANA—the American jurisdiction of the Church of Nigeria.
The Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia last year brought suit against 11 congregations of the Anglican District of Virginia seeking control of the breakaway parish properties, including the diocese’s two largest congregations—Truro Parish and the Falls Church in suburban Washington.
Judge Bellows rejected the Episcopal Church’s contention that the CANA secessions were a local matter. He held “it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the diocese, [the Episcopal Church], and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude.”
“The rapidity with which [The Episcopal Church's] problems became that of the Anglican Communion, and the consequent impact-in some cases the extraordinary impact-on its provinces around the world,” he said. . .
From AnglicanTV, Jim Oakes speaks with Kevin Kallsen about the recent decision by Judge Bellows regarding the property dispute between CANA and the Diocese of Virginia (and The Episcopal Church).
Hey, check these out!
Talk about a collaborative effort. A timeline of events:
[Bellows] said "it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude."
"Blinking at reality" is perhaps the best expression that anyone's used to describe the mendacity of Episcopal Church leaders. First, it confirms there is a reality that exists--not just some pluriform truth that is nothing more than a function of clever word use and dictated perception by whomever is in power. Second, it suggests the reality is one that the Episcopal Church well knows--since a blink is but an interruption of sight, and a very brief one that rarely distorts perception. Finally, although a blink can be voluntary or involuntary (i.e., an attempt not to see or a conditioned reflex of closing one's eyes), it neither changes reality nor precludes one from truthfully reporting that reality. In short, one who blinks at reality is one who lies without any excuse.
"TEC: Blinking at Reality"
Somebody better be making the T-Shirts! Profits could go to the ADV Defense Fund.
Check ‘em out! Any profits will go to the ADV fund.
. . . It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God's
When mercy seasons justice.
William Shakespeare
The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1
Unfortunately, we're not seeing this "attribute of God himself" in today's Episcopal Church. Perhaps a quote from Julius Caesar is more appropriate: "Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war."
From the Living Church [boldface mine]:
Diocese of Ohio Litigation Ends 'Peaceful Way to Coexist'
The Diocese of Ohio recently filed a declaratory judgment with the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, asking that it, the diocesan trustees, and a minority of members at five dissident congregations be declared the rightful owners of church properties where the congregations voted overwhelmingly to leave in 2005.
The March 26 filing came just a month after an article in the Akron Beacon Journal described how the relationship between the five dissenting congregations and the diocese was an exception to the personal acrimony and litigation prevalent throughout many other dioceses of The Episcopal Church. In another break with standard practice in most other dioceses, Bishop Mark Hollingsworth, Jr., of Ohio did not depose the clergy when they requested transfer of their canonical license to the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
In the Beacon Journal article, Martha Wright, communications officer for the Diocese of Ohio, had said, “We are looking for a faithful resolution to the property issue involving the congregations that have elected to leave the diocese. The priests in those congregations have asked to be released from their orders and their requests have been granted, but we have not taken any action where property is concerned.”
Ms. Wright told The Living Church she was not aware in February of any plans to file legal papers at the time of her interview with the Beacon Journal. But she denied that the decision to pursue litigation at this time represents a new approach in dealing with the five congregations.
“The Episcopal Diocese of Ohio is seeking to resolve issues of property ownership and use with respect to five of its parishes in a mutually respectful manner,” she said in a written statement. “In order to move toward a long-term resolution, the Diocese of Ohio has asked the Court of Common Pleas to decide the parties’ respective rights with respect to the property.”
Bishop Hollingsworth declined to elaborate on the statement provided by Ms. Wright. . .
Via email [boldface mine]:
Beloved in Christ,
This week I want to start with the good news. Judge Bellows, who is trying the Virginia litigation between the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia (EDV) and the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), has issued a ruling, finding in favor of the departing parishes with regard to the Virginia 1867 Division Statute. As one of our readers commented, "...the Court found that a division within the meaning of the Virginia Division Statute occurred in a church or religious society to which the CANA Congregations were attached. It is now a court finding that there is a division within the worldwide Anglican Communion, The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia." This is a most important and favorable ruling for the orthodox Anglicans in Virginia, and if it holds up through the Appeals Court process, important for the orthodox in many other states as well.
When other judges read the opinion, even though the overall statute at stake may not be directly relevant to another state, the body of evidence and findings within the case and the 88 page ruling are informative and useful. You can find the full ruling on our AAC website. The next stage of the same trial will deal with a second challenge that the Episcopal Church (TEC) has raised, and that is the constitutionality of the Virginia statute - whether it unconstitutionally interferes with the right of churches to order their own internal affairs. This right of churches is not absolute, however, for obvious reasons. An organization calling itself a church could decide to do things internally that violate public safety or contravene reasonable state law. You cannot, for example, reconstitute the Old Order Aztec Church, complete with daily human sacrifice, even if the victims are willing.
If churches and religious denominations wish to own property which is tax exempt because it is used for religious purposes, and have their offering income be tax exempt, and their donors receive tax exemption for those donations, then churches have already intertwined themselves to a degree with the government. This is seen as permissible because no one church is favored, and the benefits are available to all of the organizations which are formed as churches. In the same vein, it would seem that the Virginia statute, which is applicable to all churches and denominations that might find themselves in this situation, does not encroach on the U.S. Constitution's non-establishment clause, because it does not favor any one church. We will follow the development of the arguments in this case with great interest.
One of the sad things is that the litigation - initiated by the EDV under pressure from Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori - is not only using up valuable EDV mission dollars but is also forcing the ADV to spend corresponding amounts. Although the ADV has been raising its money as the case proceeds, the EDV has been borrowing the money for its legal offensive, and has now gone through approximately two million dollars. If there were promises of financial aid made to Virginia to push them into the litigation battle, apparently they have not materialized. Other TEC dioceses take note: it's not what she says, it's whether she gives you the money to litigate up front and lets you bank it in advance - otherwise you might wind up like Virginia and Los Angeles, paying for it all yourself. For those dioceses which haven't yet commenced litigation against departing parishes, you may wish to seriously consider mediation, and make some money instead of spending huge amounts you don't have.
While we are speaking of legal issues, Katharine Jefferts Schori and her chancellor, David Booth Beers, have been put on notice by an attorney representing Bishop William J. Cox, with a letter demanding that she publish a correction of her announcement concerning his deposition. Since she failed to achieve the canonically required majority of "the whole number of bishops entitled to vote," the vote was invalid. In legal terms, it was null and void. The letter goes on to require several things: first that Schori cease defamation of character of Bishop Cox by saying and distributing assertions that are not true and are injurious to him; and then right the wrong by withdrawing the pronouncement of deposition and publishing it in the same manner that she did the deposition. If she doesn't (or perhaps, when she doesn't), the implications are clear. The letter was a legal demand letter which precedes further action. This is one to watch also.
On the West Coast of the USA, the battle of San Joaquin is still in the formation stage. There appear to be three Standing Committees: the one that belongs with the Diocese of San Joaquin/Southern Cone; the Standing Committee that claims it never resigned and never left TEC; and the Standing Committee that Schori cobbled together as part of her "rump" Diocesan Convention of San Joaquin/TEC reconstituted. To our knowledge, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori is the first Presiding Bishop to run roughshod over Canons, both diocesan and national, yet at the same time invoking them as gospel whenever she finds one that is useful to her. Since eventually the orthodox will leave TEC, become revisionists themselves, or die of old age, those who will eventually be left to enjoy this legacy of tyranny are the revisionist bishops, clergy and laity themselves. Pity them, for they shall finally inherit the poisoned fruit of their labor, and it will be bitter unto them.
Not only have Schori and her TEC assistants set up a Potemkin Village San Joaquin Diocese, claiming it to be the real thing, but they have now taken over the website of the real Diocese of San Joaquin/Southern Cone. Since the website was hosted by an Anglican organization, the Society of Archbishop Justus, which is friendly to TEC, they reassigned the address to Schori's group. Can they really do this? They did. If your website is hosted by any group friendly to either TEC or the Anglican Communion Office (ACO), you might wish to investigate moving to an orthodox-friendly site, or to a neutral independent provider. It is a nasty thing to wake up and discover that your internet identity has been stolen.
Adding insult to injury, the London Anglican Communion Office (ACO), which operates hand in glove with the TEC top leadership, is quite naturally listing the Diocese of San Joaquin as VACANT, to underscore Schori's contention of a deposition. It is understandable when one considers how much money flows from TEC to the ACO to keep their doors open and the lights on. Previously when we checked, one of the major ACO staffers, Fr. James Rosenthal, is actually being funded by TEC using Missionary dollars. If Jim is a missionary, we might inquire what is his message, and who is his target for conversions? Is this what TEC Mission Dollars were intended for? It appears in many ways that the Anglican Communion Office is 'TEC East'.
In the international scene the issue of free speech and freedom of religion are becoming issues in the Western world. Who would ever have thought that an English bishop would be convicted by a court for REFUSING to employ a practicing homosexual in his diocese's youth services? The Bishop of Hereford was fined 47,000 GBP (a bit over 90,000 USD) and made to attend a re-education course. We might wonder how long we can read the Bible out loud in church, especially certain passages that deal with sinful conduct. How long can we preach the 2000-year-old message from the pulpit before we are handcuffed and dragged away?
Maybe not as long as you think. Bob Unruh, writing in WorldnetDaily, reports that the Canadian government has ordered a Christian ministry which teaches doctrine and the differences between Christians and cults shut down because its reference materials were "critical" of the beliefs of those who are not Christian. The organization, MacGregor Ministries, has had to move to the USA and be re-created under the name MM Outreach Media Ministries.
With the European and British governments passing onerous legislation supposedly banning "hate speech" (but in reality banning Christian free speech about sin and its consequences), it becomes illegal not only to say certain things, but to write them, publish them, post them on the internet, etc. Is it now possible that something written in one country halfway around the world, where it is protected and legal, may be read in another far distant country and cause someone to be offended, and thus become an infraction of the law? Is the law broken where something is done or where it is received, or both? Are you ready to go to jail over free speech and free expression of the Christian religion?
And across the pond in England we are aware that the General Synod will be meeting just before the mini-Lambeths, and Lambeth itself. We have heard rumors that the Presiding Bishop of TEC and a few other liberal USA bishops might "independently" be planning trips to "accidentally" be in the neighborhood of the General Synod. Not on purpose of course, but then things being what they are, if any of them might bump into an English bishop that they know... well it would, under those circumstances, only be neighborly to ask her or them to say a word or two, to bring greetings from TEC-land to the Synod. Are these rumors true? In the past we have found that their reliability is better than half, but we shall have to wait and see. Any volunteers for Katharine spotters?
Now finally, the American Anglican Council has been assisting the Global Anglican Future Conference and Pilgrimage (GAFCON) with registration and other administrative tasks that need some attention, and we are pleased to see the number of paid registrations adding up, hotel reservations filling up, and planning shaping up. Nigeria has checked in already with its full allotment paid for by monies raised within Nigeria. Scholarships are being sought for bishops in other provinces who can only raise part of their costs to attend, and if you are able we encourage you to assist this gathering of orthodox bishops, clergy and laity who will help shape the future of Anglicanism in the century ahead. You can do this on the AAC website or at this link.
Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President & CEO of the AAC
From EpiscopalLife Online [boldface mine]:
Statement from the Office of the Presiding Bishop follows:
We are obviously disappointed in yesterday's ruling by the trial judge against the Episcopal Church and the Diocese that involved one Virginia statutory issue in the case. While we believe that the Court's conclusion that Virginia's unusual "division" statute applies to the current situation in the Diocese, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is incorrect, there will time enough in the future to seek review of that decision if it becomes necessary. In the meantime, we shall present to the Court at the scheduled argument in May our contention that if the statute means what the Court has held, it plainly deprives the Episcopal Church and the Diocese, as well as all hierarchical churches, of their historic constitutional rights to structure their polity free from governmental interference and thus violates the First Amendment and cannot be enforced.
We also note that this decision does not bar the contentions of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese regarding control over the property of the departing congregations that will be presented to the Court in the fall.
Don't ya know ECUSA hated to acknowledge this! From EpiscopalLife Online [boldface mine]:
Constitutional challenges, conflicting claims to Episcopal Church property remain unresolved
A judge ruled April 3 that it was appropriate for 11 Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) congregations to file property claims under a portion of Virginia state law that is triggered when there is a so-called "division" of a church or religious society.
Fairfax County Judge Randy I. Bellows did not rule on the property issues themselves or whether the Virginia statute violates the Episcopal Church's or the Diocese's First Amendment rights. He said only that the CANA congregations, some of which include former members of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, could file their claims under Section 57-9(A) the so-called “Division Statute” of the Code of Virginia.
"We are obviously disappointed in yesterday's ruling by the trial judge against the Episcopal Church and the Diocese that involved one Virginia statutory issue in the case," the office of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said in a statement.
"While we believe that the Court's conclusion that Virginia's unusual 'division' statute applies to the current situation in the Diocese, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is incorrect, there will time enough in the future to seek review of that decision if it becomes necessary."
Jefferts Schori's office noted that "this decision does not bar the contentions of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese regarding control over the property of the departing congregations that will be presented to the Court in [October]."
The Diocese of Virginia said in a statement posted on its website that "it is simply wrong" to allow those who have left the Episcopal Church "continue to occupy Episcopal Church property while loyal Episcopalians are forced to worship elsewhere."
Bellows held in his 88-page letter of opinion and order that the conflict constitutes a "division" in a "'church or religious society'" within the meaning of Section 57-9(A). . .
I have no idea if this ruling helps the case in California at all - I hope it does. I know these property issues are state issues, but I'm sure the lawyers look at how other states interpret the structure of the Episcopal Church.
From BabyBlue Online:
Here is a brief summary of the conclusions from the Letter Order:
Findings and Conclusions:
A. As used in 57-9(A), the term "church" or "religious society" does apply to the Diocese, the ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion.
B. As used in 57-9(A), the term "attached" applies to the CANA Congregations, in that they are "attached" to the Diocese, the ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion.
C. As used in 57-9(A), CANA, the American Arm of the Church of Uganda, the Church of Nigeria, ADV, ECUSA, and the Diocese are all "branches" of the Anglican Communion, and CANA and ADV are "branches" of ECUSA and the Diocese.
D. As used in 57-9(A), a "division" has occurred in a church or religious society to which the CANA Congregations were attached, at all three levels of the Diocese, the ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion.
VI.) Conclusion:
ECUSA/Diocese argue that the historical evidence demonstrates that it is only the "major" or "great" divisions within 19th-century churches that prompted the passage of 57-9, such as those within the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches. ECUSA/Diocese argue that the current "dispute" before this Court is not such a "great" division, and, therefore, this is yet another reason why 57-9(A) should not apply. The Court agrees that it was major divisions such as those within the Methodist and Presbyterian churches that prompted the passage of 57-9. However, it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude, especially given the involvement of numerous churches in states across the country, the participation of hundreds of church leaders, both lay and pastoral, who have found themselves "taking sides" against their brethren, the determination by thousands of church members in Virginia and elsewhere to "walk apart" in the language of the Church, the creation of new and substantial religious entities, such as CANA, with their own structures and disciplines, the rapidity with which the ECUSA's problems became that of the Anglican Communion, and the consequent impact-in some cases the extraordinary impact-on its provinces around the world, and, perhaps most importantly, the creation of a level of distress among many church members so profound and wrenching as to lead them to cast votes in an attempt to disaffiliate from a church which has been their home and heritage throughout their lives, and often back for generations.
Whatever may be the precise threshold for a dispute to constitute a division under 57-9(A), what occurred here qualifies. . .
From The Lead [boldface mine]:
I along with the two other most senior active bishops in the House of Bishops were asked by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to review the evidence and give consent to moving forward with the inhibitions of the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin on the charge of abandonment of the communion of this Church. I gave my consent for the inhibition of Bishop Schofield. It is clear that by his actions and their result he has abandoned the communion of this Church. I did not give my consent for the inhibition of Bishop Duncan at this time. The Diocese of Pittsburgh, which Bishop Duncan leads, has not formalized any change to their membership within the Episcopal Church. I do not take either of these actions lightly, the giving or withholding of consent to these inhibitions. I fear that Bishop Duncan’s course may be inevitable. But I also believe that it is most prudent to take every precaution and provide every opportunity for Bishop Duncan and the leadership of the Diocese of Pittsburgh to turn back from the course they seem to desire and instead to remain in the Episcopal Church.
The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee
Bishop of Virginia
Posts
All Comments
