Two of the largest Episcopal churches break ties
Posted December 17, 2006
By overwhelming margins, two of the nation's largest Episcopal churches have voted to leave their denomination. More than 90 percent of the voting members of The Falls Church and Truro Church -- both in the diocese of Virginia -- chose to break ties. The vote count was announced Sunday, Dec. 17. The vote could set off legal fireworks and a fight over millions in church property.
According to Washington Times religion reporter Julia Duin, eight parishes have now voted to leave the Virginia diocese. Two of the parishes are among the largest in the nation. If they go, the diocese will lose about 10 percent of its total membership and 17 percent of its average attendance. Canon Kendall Harmon, a conservative, has links to many of the latest news stories on this story. His blog address is www.titusonenine.classicalanglican.net For the Episcopal Church's take on the vote, go to www.episcopalchurch.orgBelow are two press releases. One from the Virginia churches. The other from Bishop Peter James Lee.
The Falls Church and Truro Church Vote Overwhelmingly to Sever Ties with Episcopal Church FAIRFAX and FALLS CHURCH, Va., Dec. 17 – The Falls Church and Truro Church reported today that both congregations voted overwhelmingly to sever ties with The Episcopal Church in the U.S. and join the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, or CANA. Of the 1,348 eligible voting members casting ballots at The Falls Church this past week, 1,228, or 90 percent, voted in favor of the first question, or "resolution," on the ballot about whether to sever ties. On the second and final resolution, 1,279 of 1,350 eligible members, or 94 percent, voted in favor of retaining the church’s real and personal property. Of the 1,095 eligible voting members casting ballots at Truro Church, 1,010, or 92 percent voted in favor of severing ties. On the second resolution, 1,034 of 1,095 eligible members, or 94 percent, voted in favor of retaining Truro’s real and personal property. Both churches used essentially identical ballots. The specific text of each resolution at The Falls Church follows at the end of this release. Each of these churches conducted their votes as part of a congregational meeting. They followed steps recommended by a "protocol" for departing congregations unanimously recommended by a Special Committee of the Diocese of Virginia and supported by Bishop Peter Lee. That protocol states that a "70% majority of the votes cast shall be necessary" to support separating from the Episcopal Church. It also states that if the vote to disaffiliate passes by the 70% majority, a second vote, also requiring a 70% majority, is needed for the "departing congregations" to be able to leave with their "real and personal property" at a price to be negotiated later. "This is a new chapter for The Falls Church and other congregations voting thus far and early next year," said the Rev. John Yates, Rector, The Falls Church. "While we look forward to continuing a productive role in the Anglican Communion, we harbor no ill will to our colleagues in the Diocese of Virginia. And we agree, as Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has indicated, that when two groups have irreconcilable differences, the pastoral thing to do is find a gracious way to separate." "Our churches conducted our congregational votes by following the straight-forward procedures established by the Virginia legislature," said Jim Oakes, Senior Warden of Truro Church. "Our churches have also held congregational votes in line with the protocol established by Bishop Lee’s Special Committee. We fully expect to amicably resolve all questions regarding the status of our clergy and our property." CANA is missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria and the Anglican District of Virginia. It will provide oversight and a U.S.-based structure for these northern Virginia churches leaving the Diocese of Virginia. "This has been an extraordinary journey," said Tom Wilson, Senior Warden of The Falls Church. "It was heartening to see so many of our people take part in this process and speak clearly where we stand. We look forward to our future as active members serving Christ in the Anglican Communion." The churches contemplate officially reporting their votes in accordance with the requirements of Virginia law. The text for each resolution at The Falls Church was as follows: Resolution 1: "Resolved, that a division has occurred within the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church, and the Diocese of Virginia; that The Episcopal Church has departed from the authority of the Holy Scriptures and from historic Christian teaching on the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior of humankind; The Falls Church shall sever its denominational ties with The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia and affiliated with the Anglican District of Virginia, an association of churches under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a branch of the Anglican Communion; and that the Vestry and trustees of The Falls Church are directed to take such actions as are necessary or appropriate to carry out these resolutions, effective immediately." Resolution 2: "Resolved, that if a majority of The Falls Church severs its denomination ties with The Episcopal Church and The Diocese of Virginia, the real and personal property of the Falls Church should be retained by the majority of the Congregation." ###
December 17, 2006
A Statement from the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia
Today a small number of congregations in the Diocese of Virginia announced that they have voted to separate from the Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Church of Nigeria and Bishop Akinola. I am saddened by this development.
The leadership of the Diocese of Virginia has labored for three years to seek another course that would have maintained the integrity of the church and the spirit of inclusiveness that has been a hallmark of the Diocese and the Anglican Communion. The votes today have compromised these discussions and have created Nigerian congregations occupying Episcopal churches. This is not the future of the Episcopal Church envisioned by our forebears.
I have called a special joint meeting Monday of the Executive Board and Standing Committee of the Diocese, with counsel, to consider the full range of pastoral, canonical and legal obligations of the Church and our responsibilities to those faithful Episcopalians in these congregations who do not choose to associate with the Church of Nigeria.
In the interim I have asked the leadership of these now Nigerian and Ugandan congregations occupying Episcopal churches to keep the spiritual needs of all concerned uppermost in their minds at this difficult moment in our Church history, especially continuing Episcopalians. I also have directed diocesan personnel to work with the leadership of the departing congregations and with those who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church to reach agreements for the shared use of the Church property for the purposes of worship and other needs until final disposition of the Church's property can be settled.
I want to be clear on this point: Our polity maintains that all real and personal property is held in trust for The Episcopal Church and the Diocese. As stewards of this historic trust, we fully intend to assert the Church's canonical and legal rights over these properties.
Today is indeed a sad day for the Church and for many in the Church. It is also a day of abundant hope that in our 400 years as Virginia's oldest Christian community, the Episcopal Church in Virginia will continue to serve Christ faithfully by serving his people.
###
Archived Comments
With 90 percent of the parishioners voting to secede, maybe the bishop should question why such a large percentage is in direct contrast with the positions taken by the church leadership. Praise God that people still vote accordingly to the scriptures and what is on their hearts.
Well, James H., I suppose if we're going to run the numbers, we might as well run them all. I don't know how many parishes are in the Diocese of Virginia, but I doubt that 7 amounts to ten percent of them, either in number of parishes or number of members. So, maybe your question should be, "If 90% of the parishes in the Diocese support the national church, why are the other 10% stirring up such a fuss?"
It seems that the small number of dissenters here want it both ways. They want to be Anglican, but they don't want to take direction from the national church. If they want to leave the Episcopal Church, fine. Let them go. And, unlike some others, I say let them take their property with them. This is not a business deal here, and the national church shouldn't be out there asserting every legal argument it has.
But if they do go, they ought to be honest enough to say that they are breaking their ties to the international Anglican Communion. This business about bishops in Africa claiming to supervise churches in America is crazy. The Anglican Communion, whether the dissenters like it or not, is a franchise operation. The Episcopal Church has the franchise in the United States. If they can convince the powers that be in the Church of England to pull the franchise that we've had since 1789, then so be it. Until they do, though, they're either Episcopal or they're not Anglican if they operate in the United States. It's their choice, but as I say, they can't have it both ways.
I think the bishops in the US have been way too tolerant of these African bishops coming in here and trying to take over. I mean, what would the world say if a bunch of American bishops went to Africa and started organizing their own churches there in a manner more consistent with the mainstream American churches?
The Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion, have traditionally been "big tent" churches with lots of room for differences of opinion. I mean, no one in the Diocese of Virginia is throwing these parishes out: They could easily stay within the Episcopal Church and believe as they believe.
This is ultimately, I think, a tempest in a teapot. A few churches will leave, and these will include a few large churches. Most Episcopalians, I'd say more than 90%, will remain, and we might find we like the church better without the other 10%.
And I have to stick up for Frank here. What he said above is true: He reports the news and doesn't play favorites. I don't like these negative stories on my church, either, but they are news and that news needs to be reported. As Frank points out, he's done a number of stories favorable to the church, too, just as he's done stories that are both positive and negative about other denominations. You can't blame Frank, after all, for reporting stories that are being reported in every major news outlet in the US.
Episcopalians donating houses in Haiti in honor of Bishop Sauls? Gee, I guess I missed that one. Is this the same Bishop Sauls that the Bishop of Haiti refused to have communion with because of his unorthodox views?
This whole situation saddens me, and I'm not even Episcopalian. Whenever I see a church, denomination, or sect going through these sorts of turmoils, I can't help but think of that time in the fifteenth chapter of Matthew when the Lord told his disciples:
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.Those are some very strong words coming from the Savior, but it is hard not to think of that passage when you see things like this happening. Here are people stumbling and fumbling around looking for direction and not finding it. Have these parishes fallen into the ditch, or has the National church fallen in and the parishes are attempting to get out by chosing another to lead them?
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
I feel for the church-goers who are only seeking spiritual guidance and leadership, but are finding confusion instead. One group is saying, "This is what the scriptures mean." Another group is saying, "No, this is what the scriptures mean." "This person has authority." "No, that person has authority."
Did not Paul say in his first letter to the Corinthians, "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (1 Cor 14:8)
It is quite sad.
Caleb, you really need to re-read the article and learn something about the relationship between the Episcopal and Anglican Communion. The two parishes in question account for about 10 percent of the US membership. The Falls Church parish alone also holds in excess of $25 million in properties. As for church relations, the Episcopal church is a part of the Anglican Communion. The churches in the U.S. followed church guidelines by opposing the positions the church has taken on non-scriptural issues such as homosexuality. Unfortunately, the church leadership does not accept the opinions of the membership but has re-worked its agenda to be politically correct in the U.S. The African Anglican Communion is much more in line with the beliefs of these parishes and more and shepherds the churches within their jurisdictions. What is contrary to the scriptural direction of God should not become church policy.
Editor's note: The departing parishes account for about 10 percent of all members in the diocese of Virginia (and 17 percent of all attendees) -- not 10 percent of total US membership.
Mark H., you're letting your evangelical roots show a bit there. Anglican theology is far more complex than "what the scriptures mean." Anglicans have never adopted the relatively modern sola scriptura doctrine, that is, that scriptures are the be all and end all of christianity.
We adopt the view that both reason and church tradition and teaching are on a par with scripture. The evangelicals are always looking for a "proof text" that effectively lets them off the hook by allowing them to blame their theology on the bible. We don't do that. We may be wrong, but we don't look for easy outs.
Sola scriptura modern? Try as old as the reformation itself. The reformation predates even the Anglican church and is the movement that sparked almost all modern "denominations".
Sola scriptura is used as an out by those Christians who do not know their scriptures.
As an orthodox Lutheram, I certainly do no use sola scriptura as an "easy out".
Anglican theology, like its older Catholic cousin, adds far too many of man's ideas for my liking.
In 500 years, man has done, among other things, the following to the church body:
- Broken the church into 30,000+ denominations who all think they profess the one truth
- Allowed female priests and female elders in direct violation of the requirements for these offices as outlined in Titus, and in 1 Timothy
- Added man-made ideas and incorporated them as official dogma
- On and on and on...
Frankly this is a tired debate. Our polity doesn't allow for congregations to vote themselves out, and then keep the property. People can go to church wherever they want--one of the many lovely things about being American--but ultimately the Bishop and the national church maintain control of property and teachings of the church. EVERY religious organization is led by humans, and bears that mark. WE we just are a little more transparent and accountable about that, in my opinion, than are congregationalist churches.
This is hard for some congregationalists to understand, but our polity has worked for a long time. It kept our church united through the Civil war (despite widely varying and contentious differences regarding slavery). It will keep us together despite current difficulties.
Anyone who has been a part of a fractious, fundamentalist-leaning religious community and has seen the way out can see the beauty of this set-up. There is no end to the infighting if some rarefied version of "orthodoxy" is held up as the ultimate value instead of following Jesus' command to serve the poor and the sick and the disenfrachized. The problem is, doing that you just don't get the rush you get by claiming yourself "right" and everyone else "wrong".
Caleb,
I guess I am confused. If a church basically teaches whatever they want and only references the word of God when it agrees with the philosophies they, themselves have come up with on their own; how can it then be classified as a church of God? (I cannot help but think of Paul's comment to Timothy, "Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof...") Would not such a church be more accurately classified as a church of men?
If you do not recognise any authority other than your own thought processes, then how can it be a surprise when whole parishes decide through their own thought processes to drop the affliation with the American church and instead align themselves with an African church? It would seem to me a logical outcome of your initial premise.
Help me out here, please.
Doug, I hate to break it to you, but the reformation is a "modern" event in the grand scope of the history of christianity. Fully three quarters of the history of Christianity from the birth of Jesus to this day happened before anyone thought of that doctrine, and today, 500 years after its conception, it has been rejected by Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglicans around the world, and the mainline protestant churches; the groups rejecting the doctrine probably account for 80-85% of all the christians in the world, leaving "sola scriptura" in the distinct minority.
The scriptures were always a part of christianity, but have traditionally been just a part. Giving them more prominence than they deserve is neither orthodox nor christian.
I find it particularly unappealing to base one's church doctrines on passages in Titus and II Timothy, two of the three books known as the pastoral epistoles (along with I Timothy). Scholars universally believe them to be non-Pauline, and they were written toward the end of the creation of the New Testament. They don't expound either the teachings of Christ or of earlier leaders, but largely exist to enforce the orthodoxy that had grown up by the time of their writing. To me, these texts have more in common with the early church fathers than with the rest of the NT.
The pastorals weren't considered canonical by many early church leaders, and I suspect we'd have been a lot better off to have left them out of the NT.
James H., thank you for your support, but as a lifelong Episcopalian and one who has served in the past on our Diocese's canon law committee, I tend to think I have some knowledge of the relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church.
What you're really saying in your post is that a minority of Episcopalians don't like the positions taken by the church's leadership on various social issues. The vast majority of Episcopal members and parishes (in Virginia, apparently 90% of the parishes and 83% of the members) either agree with the church hierarchy's position or don't disagree with it enough to fall out over it. That looks like a pretty big majority to me.
As I said above, the ten percenters, as I'll call them, really only have two intellectually honest choices: They can leave the Episcopal church and thereby forego their ties to the Anglican church, or they can stay and disagree (which no one objects to) and try to influence church leaders to view things as they do.
The Episcopal Church is a hierarchical organization, but it's also a democratic one. As you know, bishops are elected by local counsels, and the national presiding bishop is elected by the national convention. What the conservatives are really steamed about is that they don't have sufficient support nationwide to block the election of a presiding bishop with whose views they don't agree, and usually don't have the votes on the local level to block bishops they don't like.
As I said above, the Episcopal Church has the franchise from the Church of England for the United States. The dissenters have tried to get the Church of England to pull the charter, but I don't think they will; what are they going to do, reject the 90% to satisfy the ten percenters? The Church of England is more conservative than the Episcopal Church at this point, but that won't always be the case. The Church of England now ordains women, and that will drive the grass eaters over to the Catholics, who have such a shortage of priests that they're allowing Anglican priests to remain married and even paying them more than they pay their own "celibate" priests.
The Church of England, led by the American church, and churches in places like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, will become more liberal as times change, and I suspect at that point there will be a rupture between it and the upstart African churches, who are a bit behind the curve at this point, but may come around themselves if they are careful not to let bishops in that reactionary fringe zone to take too much control.
"Sola scriptura" is indeed as old as the Reformation itself, but Martin Luther's own writings reveal that he anathematized anyone who deviated from his own personal take on "Sola scriptura" such as Zwingli, Schwenkfeld, and the Anabaptists. It's only been recently that the Lutheran denomination (or one of the several of them, in this case the ECLA I think) issued any sort of formal apology for persecution undertaken by Luther and Lutherans against German Anabaptists centuries ago, and needless to say, Lutheranism was by no means the only state-sponsored faith that was guilty of persecuting dissenters from its precepts. Back when William Laud was the Archbishop of Canterbury it was just as difficult for English Nonconformists as it was for German Anabaptists under Luther and the Protestant princes. I could say much more here but to make a long story short, man-made ideas have been added all along, for a very long time, ironically, especially among those who swore by all that they held sacred that they were following "Scripture alone." Anglicans, Lutherans, and all other denominations, including and often most especially those that tout themselves as "Christians simply" or "Christians only."
In speaking of the "three-legged stool" of Scripture, tradition, and reason, perhaps we had best consider for a moment the "fourth leg" that John Wesley insisted on adding to it: personal experience. Personal experience always influences a believer's take on Scripture; it did Martin Luther's, it has on yours, it has on Caleb's, and it has on mine. The combination thereof, Scripture AND personal experience, likewise influences the believer's take on reason; and so all combined, Scripture viewed through personal experience towards a system of reason, work over time within communities of believers to produce traditions. There's no way that any of us believers can get out of that dialectic--or if there is a way, it's certainly not been discovered by anybody yet. Any would-be reformer who attempts it just starts the entire dialectic up, all afresh. But to return briefly to the subject of the thread: though I can't say for sure, I suspect that the departing parishes will not be quite as happy with their new leadership as they anticipate. Time will tell the tale, and when it does I hope all sides have forgiveness and the spirit of Christ on their hearts and minds.
Bravo, Brother John. Exactly on point.
I have never added the fourth leg to my personal stool of faith, on the theory that personal experience is a component of reason, but I don't object to Wesley's characterization, either.
When I was in law school, I often attended the Harvard-Epworth United Methodist Church in Cambridge, and its then-pastor, Ed Mark, was the best expositor of the "liberal biblical" school of thought I've ever heard, so I don't downplay the contribution of Methodism to Anglican thought at all.
I have often wondered why there are so many interpretations of the Bible. God doesn't change from Genesis to Revelation, and people don't either-there is nothing new under the sun. Why do we think that we have to be politically correct-when God should be the one in charge. He doesn't have to be politically correct; why can't we follow him. Is it any more right of Ted Haggard to admit his homosexuality, than it is to ordain a minister that confesses to be a homosexual-NO. a sin-is a sin-but can be forgiven if one repents and sins no more.
I believe that the entire Bible to be inspired by the Holy spirit. That I I don't care who wrote what book, or when the book was written, or who decided what books to include in it. I see God's hands in every scripture and look forward to the day that we follow every commandment to the letter.
Jesus is the Reason for the Season. Love to all. lisabee
On a very honest level, I have to wonder if the only time you talk about the Episcopal church is when something negative happens.
I fully realize there are many goings on within the Episcopal church that are controversial but what about the good stuff?
What about the firm commitment to the Millenium Development Goals? Is that ever talked about by the mainstream media?
Even in the face of African churches rejecting the money, the Episcopal Church continues to seek ways in which to help poverty, AIDs, hunger among other things, in Africa.
Where is the coverage of that?
Editor's note: I wrote a story here not long ago about Lexington Episcopalians donating eight or nine houses in Haiti in honor of Bishop Stacy Sauls. That wasn't controversial, but it was a good story and I was glad to tell it. I also wrote a story on the blog about the Good Shepherd Episcopal choir touring in Great Britain. That said, the controversy in the Episcopal Church is big news -- and will get bigger if lawsuits are filed in Virginia.