January 10, 2007

That's My Church!

EpiscoShield.gif

Lock and Load: Virginia Diocese won't renew 'standstill agreement' with dissenting members.

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia announced today that it will not renew the 30 day standstill agreement with the clergy and members of congregations who voted to leave the Episcopal Church to associate with the Anglican Church of Nigeria. The terms of the agreement were set to automatically renew unless one party notified the others seven days prior to the expiration of the agreement. The Diocese notified these congregations today of its decision not to renew the agreement, which is set to expire on January 17. The leadership of the Diocese of Virginia -- Bishop Peter James Lee, the Standing Committee and the Executive Board -- will meet after the expiration of the standstill agreement to determine their next course of action. Specifically, the Standing Committee must decide the status of the clergy of the departed congregations. In turn, the Executive Board must consider whether the property of these Episcopal churches has been abandoned. The standstill remains in effect until January 17 and the Diocese will continue to honor its terms and take no legal or canonical actions prior to its expiration.

Bishop Lee and other leaders of the Diocese continue to consider the full range of pastoral responsibilities to those faithful Episcopalians in the congregations who chose to remain loyal to the Diocese and The Episcopal Church.

Well, not that I thought they would stand down anyway, but now it's o-fficial.

So what's the next step? Ya got me. On the one hand, I've chatted with people on both sides over the past month and it seems that the legal issues surrounding the claim of property abandonment are a lot more complicated and legally closer than I had previously understood (or, as I gather, is being represented to loyalist parishes). Fortunately, I have no expertice in the field of Virginia property law, so I am excused from having to offer an opinion on what legal action might be in store or its eventual outcome.

As for the status of the rebel clergy, I can only assume that the ECUSA can do pretty much whatever it wants. So should we stand by for the symbolic garotting to begin?

Probably. But then there's the overarching strategic issue that High Priestess Jeffords-Shori and her followers can't afford to overlook. If the Diocese goes after the rebels hammer and tongs, what kind of message is that going to send to other 'Palies, both here in Virginny and elsewhere? The party line, as you can see from the clip, is that all the Church is doing is trying to ensure the well-being of "those faithful Episcopalians in the congregations who chose to remain loyal to the Diocese and The Episcopal Church." Well, there may be something to that, but how exactly would launching, say, personal liability claims against individual clergy and vestry members (as has been threatened) aid in that cause? I just can't help thinking that aggressive action against the rebels will leave Bishop Lee's words sounding more like those of Governor Tarkin: "Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this Battle Station."

It's a mighty delicate line. Will Bishop Lee be able to walk it? I suppose time will tell.

Incidentally, that's why I was wondering about that WaPo article the other day, the gist of which was that the rebel parishes weren't really 'Palies anyway. Isn't it a standard wartime propoganda practice to try and make the enemy seem as "other" as possible? Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but there's a tremendous amount at stake here and, given that, a little press manipulation doesn't seem so far-fetched.

Posted by Robert at January 10, 2007 04:20 PM | TrackBack
Comments

My prediction: The bishop will show up unannounced (like tomorrow) at the parish deemed more of a trouble out of the two. His envoy will show up at the precisely same time at the other. Both will have supports teams comprised of lawyers, computer experts, and locksmiths. Police presence optionable --maybe some sheriff or deputy to make sure all runs smooth. The rectors will be asked to hand over keys etal and a swift transfer of power will happen. Parishoners hearing the news via cellphones will quickly gather in the parking lots. Most will be in tears and in prayer circles. The next Sunday a new interim will preach in the pulpit and all sorts of new supporters from D.C will be in the pews. The former parishoners will be gathered together in a high school.

Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 10, 2007 05:04 PM

I agree with Mrs. P, except the part about the high school, as the High Priestess is going to have dissenters burned at the stake.

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 10, 2007 06:01 PM

I thought the protperty abandonment approach was tried, and found wanting, in the recent California case. I'm thinking it's injunction time if I'm the vestry.

Posted by: The Colossus at January 10, 2007 06:39 PM

Steve-O, I have to agree with you. I just found this over at Kendall Harmon's under Still More From Katherine Schori Jefferts:

"That’s nothing new. There are congregations and even dioceses in this church that, because they’re peeved with particular decisions — and they’re decisions across the map; all sides are going to withhold funding from the national church. It’s a sad commentary on an understanding on both denominational polity and a sense of stewardship. Money that’s given is meant to be given as an expression of gratitude, not as a tax, although people sometimes see it that way... We are often in this country still highly individualistic. What’s mine is mine, and don’t touch it. That’s not a Christian virtue. There’s a rather surprising story in the book of Acts, in a Christian community that was clearly holding goods in common, and a couple in the congregation, in the gathering, said they were going to sell their property and give the money to their community, and it didn’t happen that way, and the way the story is told is actually quite humorous."

The couple of who KJS speakes was Ananias and Sapphira in the Book of Acts. They did hold back some money from a sale of land yet acted like they had given all of the money from the sale of the land to the Church. When Peter called them out on this deception, they were both struck dead by God.

She's going to crush them...


Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 10, 2007 07:43 PM

You can get a guide to Church Property Law here. http://layman.org/ It covers the Presbyterian, Methodist and Episcopal issues. The Layman is an evangelical Presbyterian publication but covers all of the property cases including the Palie ones. It disclosed the fact that the PCUSA had drawn up a legal strategy to keep the property of dissenting churches. Seems the ECUSA is following the same plan.

Posted by: DJH at January 10, 2007 11:00 PM